Le Riviú
The only explanation for a rate of almost 10 is drugs.
To deny that most reviewers out there had been smoking something non-christian, to say the least, would undoubtedly force us to go "huh?" in astonishment, in front of such inexplicable overblown ratings. Not to mention the pages upon pages of endless rambling just to say: "cool graphics, dude".
Had this game been named "Gomez vs. the Evildoing Bananas" instead of Half-Life 2, the highly expected sequel of Half-life, there would have been absolutely no way it could have gotten such ridiculously generous reviews.
Let's start with the most obvious: Half-life 2 is a good game. But it doesn't remotely live up to the expectations of "sequel to the first person shooter that set a before and after".
Some seven years have passed since the release of Half-Life and the only thing that Valve could come up with after all this time was ... better graphics. That's it. Not an inch more than what's necessary. Not one light bulb went off in that company. They plain and simply relied on the advances of technology. Period.
Let me tell you what's good about this game
Visually uncanny. Unparalleled (perhaps with the exception of Far Cry ? and a lot of good will). It demands a hell of a graphic accelerator, but it's fair enough for such an awesome display. Textures, ripples, architecture, you name it. Just plain and simply fantastic.
What to say about the sound? Almost perfect. Excellent voices, great echos, outstanding perception of where the sound's coming from and pretty accurate music. Perhaps this last point being the weak one in the category for not being perfectly adequate to each occasion. Sometimes it really gets you driven. Sometimes it just disrupts your mood and concentration. Still great, though.
Physics. This is gonna be short: seriously worhty of the label "realistic". A huge leap forward in game programming. Just delicious.
Let me tell you what's bad about this game
The story is mind-numbingly boring (as a matter of fact: there IS no story!).
"Hi, Dr. Freeman. Here's your gun. Go trigger happy. Shhh, not a peep, not a question ... just shoot and shut the yapper".
The unanswered questions (and not the intriguing, mysterious ones that you could sometimes have in Half-Life, no), redundant gameplay and lack of absolutely everything but "mouse clicking" make this plot a behemoth of a disappointment.
The AI remains drop dead stupid. Reviews at IGN.com claim that it's "certainly impressive and that the NPC's react with lifelike aggression". I say enough of the cheap vodka, Igor.
Non-playing Characters are downright dumb. As usual and in most games. It seems that lately, erratic behaviour is very much (mistakenly) welcomed as intelligence to dodge, jump and retreat. Nothing further from the truth. The difference between old (Half-Life) NPCs and new ones is that these last ones now move to the sides a little, instead of staying put till their deaths.
Don't get me wrong: this is better that before. It makes for a, somehow, more realistic, more challenging experience, but those people you relentlessly shoot at throughout the game will continue to come to their deaths like lambs in a slaughterhouse. I'll eat my hat if anyone challenges this paragraph.
The battling is ... well, so so. Sometimes fun, sometimes 1980's mediocre. The feel of the guns, the reaction to hits, the insane number of bullets needed to kill and be killed, it all screams YAWN.
Whereas games like Rainbow Six are the the very definition of simulation shooters (one moment of distraction, one well place bullet and that's it), games like Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 are the very pinnacle of endless arcade shooting. You have to shoot things forever to have them killed. Whole clips sometimes. This is not bad, but for those of us who expect a tad of realism in the game, this is a big downer.
In this regard, perhaps Far Cry is the best and most balanced of all, with the best of both worlds.
The puzzles in the game are ... are ... well, whoever's responsible for this should be whipped and then stoned to death. They're nothing but moronic stepping stones in the gameplay. They add nothing new to the soup, they couldn't possibly be challenging for anyone with an IQ of eleven or more and they wither sadly in a most unfortunate attempt to add "some sort of variety" to the game.
How much is this game? $50, $60? Out of the question. Like i said, this is a good game, but for that money (not to mention the subnormal, excruciatingly idiotic hassle of having to connect to the internet each time you want to play), i'd much rather recommend Far Cry AND Doom 3.
Big disappointment. Don't buy.
Pros: Same game, different episodes.
Cons: Same game, different episodes.
The game's fun, that's for sure. But there's no way you can rate this a 9 pointer like IGN did.
This new version of Commandos could very well be nothing more than a mod for commandos 2. And that was a while ago.
There are some tweaks here and there, some obvious graphic improvements (nothing out of the ordinary, this game's not about the graphics, though little steps forward like the ones taken in this version are very much welcome), a few changes in the presentation, but the game remains absolutely the same.
And that's where the magic and the curse lay. If it ain't broke, why fix it, right? On the one hand, yes. If the game works, is fun and people like it, why attempt any dramatic twists? You can continue in the same line, without much changes, providing fun just like always.
But on the other hand, Commandos 3 could very well be a game that bands like The Ramones, AC/DC or Aerosmith would like: Always the same! These are probably great bands (yeah, right), don't get me wrong, but i have always looked down on them because of the lack of risk, of creativity, because of the permanent stagnation in the style.
I don't know about you, but this sounds quite unfortunate for a game that attempts to compite in the fast-paced, super-tough game industry to me.
What bugged me the most was that the game added Absolutely Nothing to the Soup. It's 95% the same game of always. This is a double edged sword. I played the game expecting to see some new improvements, making a little more out of the new technologies, maybe even with some new characters, something whatsoever. But no. Always soup. And the same tase of always.
Another thing that rubbed me the wrong way was the lack of a little pat on the shoulder after completing the missions. Nothing. Each time you completed a mission, an annoyingly laconic "Finished" came up on screen ... and That Was It!
A big mistake not adding some statistics (which totally encourage you to go one step forward and attempt to kill all nazis, in record time, without triggering alarms or whatever it is that you find more challenging instead of just concentrating on getting the mission done.
Yet another drawback was the difficulty level. I don't know what the IGN reviewer had been drinking prior to playing this game, but far from being difficult and frustrating, this game posses very, very little challenge. At least to the already experienced Commandos player. I finished the game so fast it was disappointing.
To be perfectly honest, i'd discourage you from buying this game. I've always liked Commandos but this time it really bored me. Imagine that. Is there any statement more categoric and unfortunate for a game than that?
