Mount & Blade: Warband Review

Mount & Blade: Warband, developed by Taleworlds and published by Paradox Interactive.

The Good: Chaotic 64-player multiplayer with seven game modes, shiny new graphics, can become king and marry sexy ladies

The Not So Good: $30?, multiplayer is typically unorganized chaos, no cooperative modes, slower weapon times are frustrating, minor single player enhancements

What say you? This standalone expansion to the excellent mounted role-playing game is $10 too much, despite the occasionally pleasing multiplayer bedlam: 5/8



MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

What drew me towards Mount & Blade was its effective mounted combat, which made the game far more interesting than a traditional role-playing game. Skill-based things are always better than luck and die rolls in my opinion, and the unique aspects of the original game made it one of the very few RPGs I enjoy. Well, it’s time for the publisher (and, to a lesser extent, the developer) to make some money through everyone’s favorite plague: the standalone expansion! Yes, you too can charge an exorbitant price for a couple of new features! What we do get here is sixty-four player online chaos and a revamped single player campaign. This raises a couple of important questions:

1. Is it worth it for existing owners of Mount & Blade



2. Is it worth it for newcomers to the series?



3. Can I get a fancy new hat?

All these questions and more might be answered in the following review!



GRAPHICS AND SOUND

Mount & Blade: Warband features significant graphical enhancements for a standalone expansion. The textures have gotten an overhaul, upping the detail from the individual soldiers to the landscapes you’ll be battling in. The game map remains largely untouched, though. Mount & Blade: Warband includes all sorts of fancy new processing like HDR (whatever that means), anti-aliasing, soft particles, and tone mapping. Welcome to the future! The game also includes new motion-captured animations for more realistic killing and/or dismemberment. Honestly, I never thought Mount & Blade: Warband was a bad looking game, especially for an independent title, but the added improvements here do let you take advantage of your fancy PC.



ET AL.

Since the general awesomeness of Mount & Blade has been well established, this review shall focus on whether Warband is worth it for new players and existing players. The main addition that Mount & Blade: Warband brings to the table is multiplayer pandemonium for up to sixty-four players (though most of the plentiful dedicated servers support thirty-two). There are a number of game modes to enjoy, from the tradition deathmatch for individuals and teams to more team-oriented events. Battle mode is team deathmatch with no respawn; if there isn’t enough dismemberment, a capturable flag is automatically placed (how nice!). Capture the flag also makes an appearance (you have to dismount to capture, to negate an obvious advantage for mounted individuals), as does conquest (called “assault” here) with control points to capture. Putting the setting to good use are the last two modes: fight and destroy where the defender must protect a catapult and trebuchet, and siege where the defender must protect a castle. Servers support options for random or custom maps, friendly fire, a gold bonus, or time limit. The number of game modes and options is the best part of Mount & Blade: Warband’s multiplayer features.



Each side has access to three classes: infantry, cavalry, and archer. You cannot use weapons outside of your class, but there doesn’t seem to be a restriction to how many players can be in each particular class (everyone could be mounted, for example…sounds sexy!). Mount & Blade: Warband features a cash-based equipment system where you purchase items between rounds: weapons and armor for increasing your stats. The items aren’t linearly balanced: there is almost always a “best” item to choose that balances price and stats, and the most expensive items usually aren’t worth it. Usually you’ll earn enough money to purchase the same equipment every time, as long as you aren’t suckered in by the best stuff. Each class has a weakness: horses can be brought down, ranged units take a long time to reload, and rank-and-file infantry need to be up close to rack up kills. Friendly units are clearly identified with crests floating over their head (they had icons in the Middle Ages, yes?) and you can incorporate bots if you so choose.



Mount & Blade: Warband is much better with an organized group of many people: most matches online devolve into a mess of horses running around, ranged units firing at nothing, and melee units turning around looking for targets. You are almost required to coordinate because of the high effectiveness of shields: you can simply hold down the “block” button and deflect most incoming shots. The only way to kill effectively is to double-team people from opposite sides. Traditional first person shooters get around mandatory teamwork by allowing individuals to successfully kill opponents (you are, of course, more effective by working together, though), but since you must work together in Mount & Blade: Warband, the game’s success depends on how well people are coordinated, and usually they are not. And if one side is coordinated and the other is not, expect quick slaughter. Mount & Blade: Warband can be entertaining if the matches are organized, but this is an uncommon occurrence in my experience.



The single player experience gets some minor adjustments. First off, the map gets an unnecessary makeover: an increase in size that needlessly spreads thing out, requiring much more travel time (and subsequent waiting) between cities with nothing added in between. Despite the addition of multiplayer, the campaign remains a one-person venture. On the good side of things, there are more complicated, multi-step quests added for more role-playing variety. Additionally, Mount & Blade: Warband adds marriage (Marriage? Nooooooo!). Male characters will need to increase their reputation by fighting and learning poetry from traveling characters. Females will attend feasts and kill people for the men to respect you. Pretty much how it works in real life! Successful marriage gives you land and better standing within your faction, so it’s a nice diversion along the usually progression up the character ladder. Trading is more balanced, and the end-game has gotten better since you can now rule an entire faction, get royal underlings, and give allied heroes land for their very own. These additions are nice but nothing spectacular or ground-breaking.



Combat has received some tweaks as well. Soldier morale is included: you will now see units rout during battle, scampering towards the edge of the map in an act of cowardice. You are also given many more specific commands for your troops, but since there are so many to choose from (stay ten paces back, spread out, hold fire, use blunt weapons), it now takes two button presses to issue one order, doubling the amount of time it takes, which may become an issue in the heat of battle. Mount & Blade: Warband features more realistic combat, meaning you swing and reload weapons much more slowly. While this makes for more stately combat, the result is more frustrating battles when you are surrounded by many foes (a common occurance) since you can’t dispose of them as quickly. You will automatically deflect incoming projectiles and you can pick up weapons from fallen soldiers (nice for archers who always used to run out of arrows), and you can throw weapons in close combat (spear in the face!). Still, the combat has gotten slower, which does not lend itself well to the game in my opinion.



IN CLOSING

The highlight of Mount & Blade: Warband is the multiplayer, and it’s a mixed bag. The game is far more effective when you battle many lesser-skilled opponents in the single-player campaign. But when you are up against similar foes, the powerful combat devolves into a chaotic mess. The game is more enjoyable using coordinated attacks with friends rather than joining a public server where everyone is doing their own thing. That said, there are many instances of satisfying combat to be had, from demounting a riding opponent to picking off enemies from a distance. The blocking system means most one-on-one attacks are impossible to land, leading to a lot of frustration if you don’t work well with others. The game does feature a wide array of multiplayer modes and the class-based combat seems to be balanced where no soldier type of overpowered. The single player game has received subtle, yet negative, changes: the map is bigger (for no reason) requiring more sitting around during transit times and commands require more button presses. But, hey, you can marry (some might consider this a negative, too)! The campaign cannot be played cooperatively, though, and most of the changes actually make the single player game worse. If you play Mount & Blade a lot, you’ll be getting this regardless of what I have to say (thanks for stopping by!). I would feel at lot better if Warband was $20; casual fans should wait until the inevitable Gamer’s Gate or Steam sale to indulge in the enhanced campaign and frenzied multiplayer.

Lead and Gold: Gangs of the Wild West Review

Lead and Gold: Gangs of the Wild West, developed by Fatshark and published by Paradox Interactive.

The Good: Area buffs and mobile respawn points encourage teamwork, several game modes, four distinct classes, short brutal combat, weapons and maps evoke historical setting, inexpensive

The Not So Good: Control scheme requires unnecessary button holding, no dedicated servers, only six maps

What say you? This low-cost western shooter emphasizes team coordination with distinctive gameplay: 6/8



MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

Yeehaw! No, I am not talking about the unincorporated community in Osceola County, Florida, I’m talking about cowboys! There simply aren’t enough Western games on the PC, as exemplified by a lone entry in the great Out of Eight pantheon. I like the online shooters, so what better way to visit the neglected Old West than shooting other cowboys in the face. Lead and Gold: Gangs of the Wild West features just that, a struggle for gold that may or may not involve lead (spoiler alert: it does). This is Paradox Interactive’s first foray into the evil world of console gaming, but the developers at Fatshark were nice enough to release the game on the PC first, and at a low price tag of $15. How does it stack up against other team-based shooters?



GRAPHICS AND SOUND

The graphics of Lead and Gold are quite good, especially for a $15 game. The environments in which the game takes place all have nice attention to detail, with animated mills and varied terrain that harkens the historical setting well. The buildings are plenty detailed as well, and the wooden structures like ripe for intense firefights. The characters are nice, too: each of the game’s four classes have distinctive models (the game is in third person) that exhibit good animations when moving and switching between weapons. The game also has some nice effects, with cherry-red blood, explosions, and tracers a-plenty. I was pleased with the graphics in Lead and Gold. The sound design isn’t bad, either, with powerful weapon effects and the occasional rootin’-tootin’ (“no spelling suggestions”…I bet not) canned saying. The game also features some subtle background music that fits the overall theme of the game so well that I hardly noticed it and had to play the game again specifically to evaluate the tunes. Lead and Gold far exceeds its $15 price tag in terms of graphics and sound.



ET AL.

Lead and Gold is a team-based online third person shooter, centered around (a) lead and (b) gold. The game borrows match types from several other titles, although it changes things up by replacing a flag with a bag o’ money. There are six game modes and each are slightly different. Robbery is an assault mode where the attackers must carry gold bags from the defenders’ base. Greed is a capture the flag mode where both teams must carry a single gold bag back to their base. Conquest involves occupying three map zones in sequential order, while powder keg mode entails blowing up certain points of interest. There is also the usual team deathmatch mode called shootout and a cooperative defense game against AI bots for two players. Most games consist of two rounds, where sides are alternated to be fair. I like how the developers have changed up some rules to make classic game modes at least somewhat fresher: gold is heavy so people who carry it are slowed, and powder kegs can be blown up in transit, making them a dangerous commodity to transport. There are only six maps to play on (and powder keg and robbery only support two of them), but they are designed well enough and provide variety (large open spaces, mines, buildings) to keep things interesting. Lead and Gold supports up to ten players (five-on-five), but the maps are sized so that a smaller player count (four players or so) isn’t detrimental to the game experience. There isn’t any single player action to speak of, other than a brief tutorial against AI bots to explain the controls. Being a multiplayer-centric title, then, it surprises me that Lead and Gold lacks dedicated servers: there are the occasional connection issues, as you would expect with peer-to-peer hosting. I think that’s the reason why the maximum player count is kept so low: people simply can’t host more than ten at a time.



While you would think a control scheme for a shooter would be historically defined for any PC game, Lead and Gold includes a poor translation of controls clearly designed for a console gamepad. The problems manifest themselves twice: first, the “zoom” button (use required by all but one of the classes) must be held down instead of offering a toggle option. Secondly, there is a key that must be held down while pressing “fire” to activate your trait ability. Simply binding it to a button (“Q” for example) without having to hold it down would have worked just fine for setting traps or setting dynamite; the limitations shows the developers tried to cram the controls onto an inferior console gamepad. Unfortunately, neither of these options can be changed. Apart from that, though, Lead and Gold rarely has significant issues. The interface is designed well, clearly indicating important locations on your display, and there aren’t any other usability problems to speak of.



Lead and Gold features four classes of characters, each with different abilities and strengths. The blaster is the short-ranged class, with a powerful shotgun and dynamite. The gunslinger gets a short-to-medium-range revolver that can be fired quickly. The deputy is medium-to-long-range with the ability to spot enemy units for allies. And the trapper is the sniper who can lay traps. The game maps are varied enough where each class gets a location that highlights their attributes. Each class also has a buff that is automatically applied to surrounding troops: blasters provide improved armor, gunslingers better accuracy, deputies enhance damage, and trappers offer more critical hits. Additionally, being near others also heals you over time. Experience earned by shooting others and completing game objectives levels your character up, enhancing your particular buff. Buffs do not stack, so it benefits everyone to have one person in each class; a listing of the number of players in each class on the selection screen would remove guesswork in this aspect of the game. The synergy system rewards working together as a group, since everyone benefits from sticking together. The trapper is an inappropriate class for these benefits, however, as long-range sniping lends itself towards solitary confinement.



Combat in Lead and Gold is short and brutal: the semi-automatic weapons all deliver a punch and seem to be well-balanced, as each class is powerful at their optimal range. Weapons are more accurate when you are stationary, which seems realistic enough to me. Lead and Gold is a matter of playing your class correctly and coordinating with your team in order to maximize damage. Since you can revive teammates who are injured but not dead, being near your teammates is important. The game could do a better job clearly showing whether you are dead or simply incapacitated, though. Fortunately, Lead and Gold does a good job placing you with your teammates, as someone can carry around a respawn flag where others can appear; this really helps to coordinate your efforts and also significantly cuts down on travel time each time you die. Lead and Gold does not have voice chat, though, but since the objectives are straightforward enough, good communication is not necessary for good organization. A couple of other wrinkles to the gameplay include powder kegs that can be exploded and the removal of fall damage, which works to the game’s benefit. It's clear that teams that work together will win, which is the goal of any good team-based shooter.



IN CLOSING

Lead and Gold is a very nice team-based shooter that differentiates itself in several areas. First is the setting: the Old West theme is strong throughout the game, from detailed levels to convincing characters and weapons. The game also features a number of game modes culled from a variety of other titles, slightly adjusted to fit the theme: straightforward deathmatch, capture the flag (gold in this case), assault, and conquest. Although the game only includes six maps, each landscape is detailed enough and provides multiple paths to each objective location where repetition isn’t an issue. The lack of dedicated servers, however, can become an issue if the host is a poor server. The four classes are balanced nicely, from the short-range blaster to the long-range trapper. The buffs each unit grants to others, coupled with the mobile spawn point a team member can carry, helps to keep players working together; this is far more effective that simply saying “work together!” and not funneling people towards that goal. The old-school weapons mean gory combat, where only a couple of shots are required for death. This actually works quite well with the lower player count and respawn locations, providing intense battles over territory. The controls could use some PC makeovers, as using your special abilities and iron sights require simultaneously held buttons. Still, fans of team-based shooters will find a unique setting and some nice features to promote team-based play.

Colony Defense Review

Colony Defense, developed and published by Mana Bomb Games Studio on Gamer’s Gate.

The Good: Challenging, action packed with almost constant building, enemy resistance prevents over-building a particular turret

The Not So Good: Planetary setting adds nothing since enemies are path restricted, terrible control scheme, slow linear unlocks, few weapons, insignificant upgrades

What say you? A very traditional tower defense game with wasted potential that adds nothing to the genre: 3/8



MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

As Al Gore continues to warm the Earth in order to sell more books, it is imperative that we reach out to other planets in our Solar System, so that we may pollute them into submission. I suggest colonizing Uranus (never gets old). Of course, we must defend these newly founded colonies against alien attack, and such is the premise of Colony Defense, an entry in the increasingly popular tower defense genre. We've seen games that range from very good to pretty good, successfully avoiding poor entries in the pantheon of tower defense games. Does our streak continue?



GRAPHICS AND SOUND

The presentation of Colony Defense is pretty much what you would expect for an independent game: adequate. The game reminds me of Light of Altair, taking place on a series of planets, but Colony Defense is worse off. The planetary textures are OK, although the planets are usually monochromatic and indistinct. Of course, you can’t make a sphere terribly varied, so some leeway should be granted here. The enemies have some nice models and you quickly learn the capabilities of each combatant based on appearance. The backgrounds are typical space stuff, and the paths the enemies follow are discrete yet subtle, blending well into the topography of the planet. Of course, having them move through actual canyons or valleys would make more sense, both visually and realistically. The sound design is acceptable, thanks to background music that I almost found entertaining. The sound effects are pretty basic: lasers and explosions that sound appropriate enough. What you get is what you expect in Colony Defense.



ET AL.

Colony Defense roots itself in a traditional tower defense game: there’s aliens afoot, and it’s up to you so construct static defenses and stop their unending quench for destruction. The game comes with thirty-four planets that offer different paths the enemies take; all of them take place on a spherical planet, so one planet looks almost the same as another. The paths almost always converge, granting you a choke point designed for maximum death. There are usually multiple spawn points and multiple bases to defend. There is a set amount of enemies that must be destroyed before the level ends, and you are usually allowed ten aliens enter your base before epically failing. The thirty-four levels, despite being displayed on an ever-expanding triangle, unlock in a strictly linear order, as do the weapons: disappointing. The weapons unlock slowly, partially due to the fact that there are only ten. Every level should feel different, or else why have it? Plants vs. Zombies was very good as adding something new each level, but Colony Defense suffers from an excessive amount of monotony. Good performance is rewarded with talent points, which can be spent on insignificant upgrades to tower cost, damage, and firing rate. Really, am I going to notice a 2% increase in credit income?



Significantly distressing is the absolutely horrible control scheme employed by Colony Defense. Clearly designed for a console controller (which is always an indicator of failure), you can use the mouse but not to place objects on the screen: the target reticule is always at the center, and you must scroll to place instead of using the mouse. I cannot express how limited and truly annoying this design choice is. The problem is only exacerbated by the fact that the spherical maps must be scrolled constantly: your hands will be tied to WASD to navigate around (you can’t move the mouse to the edge of the screen to scroll, of course). You get used to it after a while, but I still want to use the mouse to place towers anywhere in view, not have to scroll around. Yes, “designed for a gamepad” is simply a euphemism for “crappy.”



Probably the most disappointing aspect of Colony Defense is the use (or lack thereof) of the planetary setting. Enemies are still confined to paths: although there are multiple paths on each map, you can still predict with certainty where aliens will appear. Why, then, does the game take place on a planet? Even flying units are confined to the paths (which makes no sense); at least the developers could have placed the units in canyons or something to at least justify the restriction. There is simply no difference between playing Colony Defense and a traditional tower defense game on a 2-D map, except this game requires a lot more scrolling (with the keyboard, of course). The turrets you place come in several flavors: lasers for medium ranged attack, flame throwers for short ranged attack, artillery for slow but powerful attack, and air to air weapons. The six basic weapons can be accentuated with boost towers that can slow the enemies down or improve range, speed, and damage of nearby turrets. And that’s it: you’ll run through the gamut of options pretty quickly, and Colony Defense becomes a matter of slowing down units and placing turrets at choke points. You can’t overlap turrets and each has an area of effect that is clearly shown while placing a turret, which is helpful. Cash is earned by destroying enemies, which can be used to purchase turrets and upgrades. If you place too many of a certain type of turret, enemies become resistant to them, requiring you to place other turrets or upgrade existing ones, which improves range and firepower. Once you place your turrets, it’s just a matter of waiting for things to die. You can use an orbital cannon (firing on the target reticule that’s always fixed to the center of the screen) to eliminate pesky units, but it’s slow and underpowered enough to make it meaningless. Humorously, units disappear before the cannon shot hits them, which initially confused me. Levels can be complex enough where you need to constantly move, so there isn't a lot of waiting, and each level is short enough to keep the action flowing. Still, Colony Defense doesn’t offer anything above and beyond any other tower defense game, so there’s real no reason to play it.



IN CLOSING

Simply put, Colony Defense should have used the planet setting to better effect. What we get is a very standard tower defense game that takes place on spherical maps that require you to constantly move the camera. Enemies are still confined to paths (even flying ones!) so their movements and behaviors become quite predictable. The game is challenging, though, and you are busy constructing new turrets most of the time. You are given six weapon turrets, but really they are repeats of two themes: slow and powerful or fast and weak. Four support turrets are also granted to slow down the enemies or provide small bonuses, but your strategic options feel very limited. The maps are quite repetitive and never distinctive, offering slightly different paths that cross, providing easy choke points to defend. Like most tower defense games, Colony Defense becomes a matter of simply placing and upgrading structures. Doing this is more frustrating than it should be, since the controls are absolutely horrible. Why support a mouse if you can’t use it to place objects? Restricting interaction to a static reticule constantly positioned at the center of the screen is archaic and cumbersome. Because of the proliferation of tower defense games on the PC, a new title should provide a unique experience (like Creeper World) or a highly polished one (like Defense Grid), but Colony Defense does neither and fails to capitalize on its unique setting by relying on traditional linear enemy paths.

Game du Jour: Week of 12 April 2010

The following games will be discounted next week on Game du Jour, the first ‘one-deal-a-day’ website dedicated to indie and casual games:

Mon. April 12th: 65% off on Whisper of a Rose: Gold

Tue. April 13th: 60% off on Dawn’s Light

Wed. April 14th: 65% off on Green Moon

Thu. April 15th: 50% off on My Life Story

Fri. April 16th: 65% off on Super Granny 5

Sat. April 17th: 60% off on Lilly and Sasha: Curse of the Immortals

Sun. April 18th: 45% off on Diner Dash 5: Boom [Diner Dash 5 review]

Facebook’s Jewel Comes to PC: Bejeweled Blitz

I’m a BB-holic, a Bejeweled Blitz-holic. I couldn’t stop playing the game over winter break until I finally set a resolution to break free. I played one day in the first week of January and haven’t touched it since.

Well, Popcap Games — the company behind the addiction — has released a Bejeweled Blitz for Windows. You don’t have to be on Facebook to play it. You don’t have to be connected to the Internet to play it.

The Windows version offers:

• Full screen play.



• Ability to play without an Internet connection.



• More control over your screen size.



• More audio sound and effects.



• One million coins for “Blitz Boosts,” power ups and score-stimulating effects (must buy the game from Popcap to get the coins and use with Facebook Connect).



• 48 achievement badges to earn.



• Connect Facebook from the game’s main menu and play the game from the PC without having to open a Web browser. The game will publish high scores and star medals to your Facebook page when logged in Facebook.

You can download a free trial of Bejeweled Blitz, or buy the game.

Game du Jour: Week of 5 April 2010

The following games will be discounted next week on Game du Jour, the first ‘one-deal-a-day’ website dedicated to indie and casual games:

Mon. April 5th: 65% off on Empress of the Deep

Tue. April 6th: 65% off on My Kingdom for the Princess

Wed. April 7th: 100% off on Hidden Expedition: Devil’s Triangle

Thu. April 8th: 65% off on Mishap: An Accidental Haunting

Fri. April 9th: 65% off on Jane’s Realty 2

Sat. April 10th: 60% off on Unwell Mel

Sun. April 11th: 45% off on Alice’s Tea Cup Madness

Distant Worlds Review

Distant Worlds, developed by Code Force and published by Matrix Games.

The Good: Gigantic living galaxies to explore with up to 50,000 planets, smart automation or advisor guidance of tasks, self-regulating economy simply requires protection, robust starting options with twenty different races, fairly easy access to tons of information, all-inclusive ship and base design, per-component combat damage, intelligence operations for sneaky types, customization with game editor

The Not So Good: No multiplayer, general instructions and limitations for automated military ships would be nice, nuanced learning curve

What say you? Grand strategy and classic 4X mechanics combine in a vibrant world made easier with optional automation: 8/8



MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

Another game set in space gives me yet another opportunity to make a joke about Uranus. Oh, what a gift from the gods the name of that planet is, far more hilarious than, say, Neptune or OGLE-TR-211. So let’s get the formalities out of the way first: Distant Worlds, 4X game, in space, huge galaxies, macro-scale, send a probe to Uranus looking for black holes. And, we’re finished. On to the review!



GRAPHICS AND SOUND

Distant Worlds features decent graphics for a title in the 4X genre. The game is entirely in 2-D, which makes it easy to import custom bitmaps for a more personal (or copyright-infringing) feel, but it also produces rougher zooming and less dynamic effects. The overall look obviously pales in comparison to more flashy titles like Sins of a Solar Empire, but it is similar to more graphically conservative games like Armada 2526 and Space Empires. The ships do rotate and show some progressive damage, but the weapons are simple effects at best. The art for the aliens looks good: while static and not animated, it does create some interesting species to interact with. Planets and asteroids look like, well, planets and asteroids, revolving around their respective stars in an elegant ballet of elegance. The background fits the space setting, and can be easily modified if desired. Despite the 2-D graphics, Distant Worlds does need a high-end machine to smoothly simulate large galaxies: it’s certainly playable on modest systems like mine, but zoomed out the game displays at only one frame per second. The sound design is functional: appropriate effects when important in-game events occur, and music that is appropriate for the theme. Graphics certainly aren’t the primary focus of independent games like Distant Worlds, but they are functional and that’s all that ultimately matters.



ET AL.

Distant Worlds starts out like any other 4X strategy game: a small empire must expand throughout the stars, colonizing planets and waging war in an epic struggle for survival. Except it doesn’t: you can start out as a feeble newcomer, but Distant Worlds gives you comprehensive options for your nation including age, meaning you can start out as a mature empire with colonization already completed and conflicts soon on the horizon. This is great for players who prefer a more military-focused game and like to rush through the colonization part of a game, since you can skip it altogether. Additional options include the galaxy shape, size (from 100 to 1,400 stars), frequency of independent aliens, AI aggression, research speed, and amount of creeps and pirates. Distant Worlds gives you twenty races to choose from, each with different reproduction rates, intelligence, aggressiveness, cautiousness, friendliness, and trustworthiness. Most races have a more appropriate form of government to choose from the twelve available; these affect approval ratings, population growth, war weariness, research speed, corruption, maintenance costs, troop recruitment, and trade income. Your empire and those of your soon-to-be enemies can be given a specific starting location, home system quality, and tech level to make for more varied encounters. In fact, Distant Worlds includes several “quick start” options for fast or epic games where you can be the lead empire dealing with numerous hostile underlings. You can even edit your galaxy while playing from within the game, a neat feature that I’m surprised other single player space games haven’t allowed. Speaking of, yes, Distant Worlds is only for single players, but honestly the AI is decent enough and the universe is alive, which makes it feel like a multiplayer title, just without the connection issues. While Distant Worlds is one of those games that works without victory conditions, you can specify a percentage of total colonies, population, or economy that can result in triumph. You can continue to play forever, though, even after the victory conditions have been fulfilled. Learning the game can be difficult and involve several play-throughs before nailing the basics, since mechanics in Distant Worlds are quite different from other 4X strategy titles (automation and fuel, namely); the tutorial does a decent job explaining the basics, while the Galactopedia gives beneficial context-sensitive help at any time by pressing F1.



The main feature of Distant Worlds (other than the massive scale) is the use of automation to assist in running your empire. This does not mean that everything is done for you, however, as you can disable any of the options as you wish. You cannot, however, disable transporting goods in the economy (as this is done by private vessels), but honestly this process is so tedious I can’t imagine anyone wanting to worry about it. Most options can be set to fully automate, human controlled, or a happy medium where advisors give suggestions on what to do next. What are those options, you ask? Good thing you said something, as I spent some time typing up a list: colony tax rates, ship design, agent recruitment, troop recruitment, fleet formation, colonization, ship construction, intelligence agent missions, attacks against enemies, sending diplomatic gifts, treaties, and declaring war and trade sanctions. The great part of the automation is that Distant Worlds can appeal to different gamers with different tastes. Want to concentrate on mining and exploration? Great, automate the military and diplomacy. Prefer to design custom ships? Have at it. And so on. In addition, you can even give input in an automated area for tweaks along the way, like designing a custom ship or signing trade pacts; just because it’s automated doesn’t mean it’s locked from your input. Automation is a fantastic feature that allows you to make Distant Worlds your own, and allows you to run a massive empire without getting completely overwhelmed.



I found the interface to take some time to comprehend, as I had the habit of finding information through the most inefficient means possible as I was learning the game. The two key features are the expansion planner and the selection panel. First, the expansion planner lists all of your resource needs and any planets that can be colonized, the resources they would produce, their size, proximity to capital, and native population (if any). You can also see a list of planets that can be mined for resources, either ones your empire demands or would make for good galactic trade. It’s a very, very handy application that makes expanding throughout the 1,000 star galaxies (with 5-10 planets in each solar system) manageable. The selection panel, which display information about the currently highlighted object, has tabs that can be used to cycle through your planets, star bases, constructors, exploration vessels, fleets, or idle ships. There is also a gigantic list of all ships and bases, which can be filtered to show specific types and any information column (type, firepower, location, fleet) can be used for sorting. Also notable is the mini-map with pre-set zoom levels (planet, solar system, sector, entire galaxy) for getting around. Some of the information is sequestered in odd locations, like placing your resource needs on the expansion planner, but once you learn where everything is and the fastest way to access it, navigating through Distant Worlds becomes easy.



Step one: explore (step two: rinse, step three: repeat). Because of the huge hugeness of the galaxies in Distant Worlds, you must explore early and often by sending out exploration ships. You can set them to fully automate, or do what I do and tell them to search everything in a specific sector (I don’t fully trust the AI to do it as efficiently as I could) and assign a new sector when finished. You are allowed to move anywhere in space at any time, in contrast to more restrictive games like Armada 2526 or Sins of a Solar Empire. The galaxy is populated with tons of planets (continental, gas, volcanic, ice, desert, swampy) and other objects (nebula clouds); your race can only colonize a couple of types, which eliminates a lot (but not too many) potential sites for development. Those that are unsuitable for colonization can still be mined for their juicy resources, though. Colonies grow by having low tax rates and a high development level, improved by providing luxury goods. The universe of Distant Worlds feels alive, much more along the lines of a space adventure game with NPCs going about their business without your input. Most (if not all), 4X games are a barren wasteland of military vessels, but Distant Worlds is much more convincing with tons of traders and miners shuttling around your distant worlds. And I must also mention the fact that planets and asteroids actually revolve around their stars (yay!), and there are space creatures and pirates out in the dark reaches of the universe that must be dealt with. Exploration also comes with events, half of which are good (a new ship, money, or technology) and half of which are bad (lots of monsters). The living nature of the galaxy and extensive size makes exploration in Distant Worlds seem less tedious than in other 4X titles.



Unlike most 4X games, both the economy and research are completely automated with no direct input. What you can do, however, is support them through auxiliary actions: colonizing and mining specific planets and keeping trade routes safe from pirates and space monsters. With many other things to worry about in the universe, this is actually a very nice approach, and adds to the immersive nature of the game by featuring lots of little private freighters flying about you don’t need to worry about. Sources of income include taxing the private citizens, sales taxes from trade, citizens purchasing ships from you (automated, of course), and trade agreements. Finding a balance in taxation levels is key, as too low will reduce your funding while too high will cause colonies to revolt; taxation (like most other things) can be handled by the AI for you. Distant Worlds features a ton of resources that are required for ships, space ports, and individuals; choosing the right targets for colonization and mining and making sure goods are protected while being transported is how you keep your economy humming along. As for technology, research projects are completed at random, but you can guide the results by placing labs that emphasize four different fields of research (energy, high tech, industrial, and weapons) around your planets. The seventeen different areas of research provide gradual improvements in components available in ship design, making your empire a more formidable opponent.



Before you haphazardly invade every opposing empire in the game, you might want to conduct some diplomacy first. Relations with other nations are affected by ongoing trade, government type, gifts, hostile actions, and static alien ratings (like friendliness). You can enter trade agreements to acquire precious resources, mutual defense treaties, or impose trade sanctions. You can also trade technologies, money, or colonies; the game gives a numerical value of each item once it’s added for easier negotiating. The interface, however, doesn’t explain why another empire rejects a trade agreement, leaving you to infer the cause from the relationship score. The diplomatic options in Distant Worlds are not terribly original and somewhat limited in their scope overall. If you want to decay relations, several intelligence operations are available for your agents to carry out. You can sabotage construction, incite colonial rebellions, or steal maps and research. Agents given a longer amount of time to complete their mission will have a higher success rate, and the interface specifically states the chance of victory.



Distant Worlds includes space ships. Weird, right? They cost both an initial investment for construction and a monthly maintenance, so keeping an eye on your budget is important. There are many types of ships in the game, from military vessels (capital, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, escort) classified by size to space ports (defense, ship construction, research) to explorers and transports. An extensive aspect of Distant Worlds is ship design: rather than having set hulls where a limited number of parts are plugged in, the game just has a few minimum requirements (engines, life support) and lets you fully customize your vessels otherwise. The game helpfully provides hints (add shields, dummy!) and warnings to assist in making functional designs, and can filter out obsolete components for a shorter list of items. You can also specify a ship’s behavior against stronger and weaker opponents, during invasions, and when to retreat. You want components? You got them: area weapons, armor, beam weapons, cargo storage, colonization modules, combat targeting, command center, commerce center, construction yard, ECM, damage control, docking bays, energy collectors, engines, fuel storage, habitation modules, hyperdrive, life support, long range scanners, manufacturers, medical scanners, passenger storage, proximity arrays, reactors, recreation centers, research labs, resource extractors, resource profile sensors, shields, stealth, torpedoes, and vectoring engines can all be added. Yes, that list made my review significantly longer. In short, if you like to design ships, Distant Worlds has robust features. And if you don’t, just let the AI do it: they do a good job, although the results are less efficient and more scripted than if you designed them manually. You can, of course, add in the occasional design and let the AI worry about designing and upgrading the less exciting ships for a happy medium.



Ships can be ordered to move, patrol, attack, blockade, escort, build, colonize, explore, escape, retrofit, retire, repair, refuel, or stop. Because of the size of your galaxy and the number of ships that must be constructed, most of your vessels should (but don’t have to) be automated, and I assign a number of ships to manually-controlled fleets, which can be easily accessed using the selection panel tabs. Usually, I have my more powerful military ships assigned to a couple of fleets and use those to engage the enemy and pick off pesky pirates and space creatures; the automation does a good job assigning patrol and escort missions to keep your economy humming along. Invading enemy colonies is as simple as bringing along a troop transport filled with eager marines and right-clicking on the target. Space combat is just as simple: just point and shoot. Ships can be damaged on a per-component basis, which is a cool amount of detail. Ships do not earn experience or level-up during combat, however; while the ship properties should remain the same (more fights doesn’t arbitrarily strengthen your armor), I could see making ships “smarter” by having more experienced captains at the helm. Ships could be more situationally aware, as there are many instances of nearby enemies that are ignored by ships who aren’t given a specific “attack” or “patrol” order.



One of the key concepts of Distant Worlds when it comes to ships is fuel. Since you are free to quickly travel anywhere in the galaxy along any path, there must be some strategic limitation, and that limitation is fuel. Ships must recharge at a friendly base or a deployed resupply ship (done by giving the “deploy” command on a gas giant containing the fuel your ships’ engines require) or they can’t fire weapons or move very fast. Automated ships will do this on their own, but manually controlled fleets must be specifically instructed to refuel every so often. Initially, you fee like you are giving up control by automating half of your military. But then you realize that’s what the game wants you to do, so the smaller ships can escort miners and merchants without you having to worry about it. The best course of action it seems is to keep one or two fleets under manual control for pirate hunting, monster killing, and eventually planetary invasion. I would like to know what automated ships are doing: they AI seems to do a good split between issuing escort and patrol missions, but an optional list of preferred patrol locations would be a nice addition. Newly constructed ships always start automated; I would like to see an option to automatically assign them to a fleet (like a rally point) or place them under manual control from the start. Distant Worlds could also use no-fly zones for automated military ships: too often they have entered territory owned by other nations and caused wars to start without my intervention.



Because Distant Worlds lacks multiplayer of any kind, it better have strong AI, and it does. Your competition will provoke you with small, isolated attacks on your mines, trade routes, and outlying colonies. Alien races will also attack vulnerable systems with little to no defenses. Additionally, the always-automated freighters and merchants and optionally-automated ships behave intelligently, with the small caveats I mentioned earlier. While AI is never a substitute for unpredictable humans, it does a good enough job here. The pace of the game always gives you something to do: there is no waiting around for stuff to happen, with pirates, creatures, attacks, mining, new ship designs, colonization, diplomacy, and trade routes to worry about. Most 4X games feature a lot of “end turn” at the beginning of the game, but Distant Worlds offers constant action, and you can even skip the initial colonization in the game settings and start with a developed imperial power if you choose. In short (too late!), Distant Worlds lets you play how you want, highlighting the parts of 4X games you like and leaving the tedium to automation.



IN CLOSING

What saves Distant Worlds from being completely unmanageable is the optional automation the game features. This allows you to focus on the parts of the game that interests you the most, whether it be the military, ship design, diplomacy, colonization, exploration, economy, or intelligence. Of course, this may left you feeling like your empire is being run without your input, but you can always intervene in any aspect of the game that is being directed by the AI and disable it if you want more direct control. Honestly, running an empire spanning hundreds of star systems and thousands of planets would be too daunting and frustrating otherwise. It seems better to automate most things and intervene when necessary (move troops, build a new ship design, conduct diplomacy). That said, when another race asks you to leave their system, there should be an option to prohibit automated military ships from entering it before war erupts. Distant Worlds features very nice game customization options that are beyond the one-colony norm for the genre: you can start out with a fully colonized system and concentrate on military and economic conflict, rather than wasting your time exploring if you wish. You can also customize the behavior, proximity, and strength of all the alien races, or leave it up to chance. Distant Worlds even lets you edit the galaxy during the game. The interface gives easy access to all of your assets, from the useful expansion planner that makes colonization a breeze to the selection panel where you can cycle through specific ship types easily. The universe of Distant Worlds is alive with activity, with NPC merchants and miners going about their business automatically, leaving you to worry about the big picture: a very nice change of pace from the usually micro-intensive offerings of the 4X genre. You own fleets and bases can be custom designed, choosing from an extensive array of components including weapons, construction yards, fuel storage, life support, research labs, and stealth. Or you can leave the design up to the AI, who tends to produce more scripted but usable offerings and upgrades them as better components become available. The AI puts up a decent fight, invading with force at vulnerable locations when appropriate. People might be miffed that economy and research are both automated, but you can still influence the direction of each by protecting trade routes from pirates and constructing research labs to guide technological advances. It takes some time to learn the game, but this is simply because it is different (in a good way) from other 4X titles. Distant Worlds features uninspired diplomatic options and lacks multiplayer, but these are insignificant complaints in what otherwise is a hallmark 4X strategy title.

GearGrinder Review

GearGrinder, developed by Targem Games and published by Buka Entertainment and Headup Games on Gamer’s Gate.

The Good: Twelve distinct race types, racing and combat truck modes, weapons and vehicle upgrades

The Not So Good: LAN-only multiplayer, very inconsistent difficulty, push-over AI produces bland repetitive racing, essentially unlimited ammunition makes for dull destruction, obvious weapon upgrade choices, terrible cut scenes

What say you? An impressive array of racing modes is hindered by boring AI, shallow gameplay, and limited multiplayer in this arcade combat racing game: 5/8



MY POORLY WRITTEN INTRODUCTION

Now that NASCAR has thankfully filled the void between the end of football season and the beginning of football season, we can turn our attention to the five-month diversion that is auto racing. And what better way to kick off the start of the racing calendar than with a racing game? I surely can’t think of a better way! GearGrinder realistically depicts the exciting and competitive world of truck racing, by placing weapons on semis. That’s how it’s done in real life, right? Let’s blow up some trucks and check out this diesel-fueled take on combat racing games like Death Track.



GRAPHICS AND SOUND

GearGrinder certainly looks and sounds like a budget game, or at least a racing title from, say, 12 years ago. The trucks models are the best aspect of the graphics, consisting of a nice amount of detail, especially when it comes up the various upgrades you can equip on your vehicle. The other cars: not so much. In fact, the explosions are downright disappointing and the repetitive sedans that populate the roadways are, well, repetitive. The default third-person view is terrible, as you can't see over the cab of the truck! The in-cab first-person perspective fares much better, and has the added benefit of a realistic implementation of the user interface on the dash. The circuits are generic caricatures of the U.S., with urban and rural settings with a low amount of detail. GearGrinder also has some shockingly terrible cut scenes with laughably bad voice acting; luckily, you can skip these with a quick press of the escape button. The music can also be bypassed, as you can import your own MP3 to rock out to during your dance of destruction. Overall, I was disappointed in the presentation, considering what competing budget racing games have mustered up.



ET AL.

GearGrinder is a combat racing game where you hop in a truck and shoot and run into other trucks and innocent passers-by. Good family fun! The single player “story” mode involves something about gangs and cops and vehicular homicide; like I stated earlier, I made a conscious effort to skip past all of the cut scenes. Taking place over forty levels spread across six episodes, the highlight of GearGrinder is the numerous racing events you will encounter along the way. In addition to “normal” races where the objective is to finish in first place, there are survival races where the last place driver is eliminated each lap, timed missions where you must destroy enemies or neutral cars for more time, arena missions where you must survive an enemy onslaught in an enclosed space, slalom races with pick-ups on the track (like the gatecrasher mode in DiRT 2), bowling events where you crash into a set of vehicles (eerily similar to FlatOut), times where you control a remote control car equipped with a bomb (eerily similar to Grand Theft Auto), rail shooting events where you control a turret instead of the truck, transporting events where you do not control the speed, destruction events where you inflict damage, protection missions where you protect a friendly vehicle, and boss battles. Impressive, no? Some races begin with a “hot start” timing mini-game, which is conducted like kicking in Madden, adding some more diversity. This variety saves GearGrinder from being complete drudgery.



While the races are organized in a tree, you will only encounter the occasional choice in the next level: a disappointing limitation that becomes an issue when you come across a very difficult level and subsequently get stuck (as I did). You don’t have to win to progress through the campaign, but you do need to at least get the bronze medal; this is sometimes difficult, especially in the timed game modes. You can go back and replay earlier levels using a better-equipped truck to place higher and unlock better parts to make a better-equipped truck. It’s a vicious cycle. Racing games are always fertile ground for multiplayer, and GearGrinder surprisingly has very limited options at your disposal. You can only play over a LAN. Yeah, I know. In addition, you can only enjoy circuit races or arena destruction derbies, limited options considering how many event types are available in the single player campaign. I realize that, in all likelihood, there wouldn’t actually be anyone playing GearGrinder online anyway, but you should still have the option. You can add bots to fill out the field, but then it’s no different than advancing your way through the campaign.



Unlike other combat racing games, GearGrinder has two distinct modes for your vehicle: racing and combat. You can switch between the two during a race: racing mode makes you move faster, while combat modes lets you shoot things at a decreased driving speed. There really is not enough of a transition delay to really make a tactical difference in your approach to a race, but it’s an interesting concept nonetheless. You are given a primary and secondary weapon (which are fired simultaneously with the same button) in which to dispose of those pesky competitors, in addition to spikes for ramming and mines for mining (I assume). Weapons are given essentially unlimited ammunition in the form of rage, accumulated by smashing other cars or just driving along. This really reduces the interest of GearGrinder, as you can just hold down the trigger while in combat mode and then transition back to racing mode when everyone done got blowed up. Upgrades to these weapons and other truck attributes (acceleration, engine, transmission, control, brakes, armor) are earned with gold medals in the events. The upgrades are very obvious choices: they are always positive, increasing the stats of your truck without any tradeoffs. The physics of the game are firmly entrenched in the “arcade” zone: trucks are easy to control and braking never becomes an issue except during hairpin turns. The AI competition is not good, easily beaten in racing events with little effort. Strangely, the requirements for timed missions are disproportionally hard, producing some questionably unpredictable difficulty. Some simple tweaks in the timed mission limits would greatly reduce the annoyance in the game.



IN CLOSING

GearGrinder takes a really fascinating assortment of racing modes, the likes of which we have not seen since FlatOut, and almost completely ruins them. Why, you ask? GearGrinder is plagued by very erratic difficulty: the AI in racing events is not competitive, but the timed events border on impossible. It's hard to get the difficulty right in an arcade racing game like this, so GearGrinder goes for the manic-depressive angle to annoy everyone. That’s too bad, because I was well prepared to give this game a higher score based on the variety of race types, from straight-up races to more destruction-oriented events. The fun stops there, however, as the campaign unfolds in a very linear fashion (despite the presence of a mission tree) and weapon upgrades are no-brainers, as each increases the capabilities of your vehicle with no real drawbacks. I do like the strategic decision of utilizing racing and combat transformations during an event, but this is the only unique aspect of the gameplay. The infinite ammunition causes the shooting in GearGrinder to be quite dull (just spray and pray) and removes any inherent strategy or skill. The final nail in the coffin is LAN-only multiplayer; because of this, GearGrinder must rely on the quality of its single player mode, which unfortunately is too inconsistent to be enjoyable.