Reviews

Turn-based Diablo? Interesting, but not enough. Just like with every Diablo-like, I soon got tired of the sameness, and equipment upgrades were not bringing fun any longer.

A very good game in style of Banner Sage, but with combat tuned for more units. A bit short, though, and no sequel in sight. A pity - I would buy it in a blink.

Good game if you're OK with unpolished indie titles. Combat is surprisingly tactical. Looks like a cheap indie game it is, though, so if you're easily offended by mediocre 3D, skip this.

Super-boring combat, useless crafting, slow walking speed, meh storyline. What more to ask to give the game a pass?

A cross between scroll-shooter and Diablo. A bit primitive (for a better implementation of the same formula, see Drifting Lands), but good enough for its length.

A very good scroll-shooter. Too bad it's short - I hope the developers will make more games.


The core mechanic is that you can change the current fighter during the level between four possible options. It makes the game much more tactical and brings a much-needed sense of novelty to somewhat stuffy genre. Must play!

Excellent conclusion to the series.

Not as good as Regalia, and has some problems with UI because it's a port from mobile devices. But still, a good tactical RPG.

Very good tactical RPG in Japanese style. Surprisingly good humor - way better than, say, Disgaea, and the story never fully descends into overused tropes. However, relationship building can go and die - it was a waste of time, especially since every location change requires going through a loading screen.

One of the best single-player CCGs on PC I have ever seen. Very good campaign, excellent art, interesting enemies.

OK Japanese-style tactic RPG, but I just had to skip the inane dialogues.

Surprisingly, not completely awful. The writing was interesting, reminding me of the old science fiction from 50's. I liked exploring the world and discovering the ending.


However, the combat is very primitive and boring, and since there is a lot of it, it spoils the game mightily.

Maybe it's just not my cup of tea, but I found the game to be player-hostile. It punished me for victories with useless busywork, and winning depended on luck way too much. I couldn't bring myself to finish even the first campaign. It might be a faithful adaptation of the board version, but I far prefer Card Hunter and System Crash on PC to it.

A very beautiful game, but as a platformer and beat-em-up, it's not very interesting. All combats including most boss fights can be won by randomly mashing buttons, and the last boss fights is only hard because of its length.


Also, I couldn't bring myself to care about the story. Main antagonist motivations were never explained: while genocide is always bad, maybe he had his reasons? I mean, he wasn't the Senseless Evil type, some demon or an alien. At some point, the game even made an attempt to evoke some emotions for him, though it fell as flat as the rest of the story.


Cute characters, though.

Titan quest is a game that deserves to be noticed.
First of all, the developers actively keep an eye on the game, even years after it has released.

Secondly, the game is old, but manages to still look decent in this day and age. While the phase is rather slow, it features a fantastically narrated quest system (it even has pure "lore" npc's standing in each town), and a fast world to explore for the player.

If you like ARPG games with lots of story, this game should make you feel right at home.

An excellent sequel. I had just two complaints about it: the time it took to develop, and the final battle, which was underwhelming and frustrating at the same time: BS combat engine is just not build for one-on-one fights.

Great game, medium Mass Effect. The game was patched, stupid bugs were fixed, and I had great time. It's not as good as the original trilogy, but let's be honest, the studio told us at the very beginning that they were making something a bit different. And different it is. 

Once this is understood and accepted, ME:A turns out to be a great game.

A worthy successor to the new X-Com. The sequel doesn't bring much new to the table, aside from "more realistic" physics (read this as "you can crash the second floor on the heads of your soldiers if you're not careful"), but just having a new story and some new enemies and abilities is enough for me.


The time-limit imposed by Avatar project was a little annoying, but on the normal difficulty, it's actually not that hard to beat. The same goes for time-limits in missions: many people disliked them, but I never had much problem, even though I'm not a very good player.

An old classic. Doesn't look like much these days, but hey, when it premiered, it was a hit! And oh, that soundtrack...

The best implementation of turn-based combat in RPG since... Actually, I don't know since when: D:OS2 just has perfect tactical combat. No trash-mob fights: every fight is designed to be unique and require thinking (which leads to less fights in total). Not a single enemy is there to just waste your time. A wide selection of abilities and items help you overcome the obstacles placed by designers.


Story-wise, the D:OS was a bit on the weaker side. D:OS2 is vastly improved in this category, though it not yet achieved the level of The Witcher 3 or Arcanum. Companions stories/quests were very good, though.


I want especially note that any companion can become any class: no more leaving people behind just because they don't fit your party composition! You can choose followers strictly based on their personalities. Why no other games do this is a huge question. All in all, an excellent game, the best one to come out in 2017.