default header

Games

[PC] [PS4] [ONE] Warhammer: The End Times - Vermintide

Moderator: JC Denton

[PC] [PS4] [ONE] Warhammer: The End Times - Vermintide

Unread postby icycalm » 01 May 2017 10:23

I see that infern and Robo have played about ten hours of this between them. Can you tell me if this review sounds good to you, and if so whether you'd give the game a 4/5 or a 5/5 going by the review and your experience of the game?

http://steamcommunity.com/id/ownosourus ... ed/235540/

The two highest-rated negative reviewers are morons who seem to think this is a diablolike, so I am fairly confident that this is a good game, and the question remaining is exactly how good it is.

http://steamcommunity.com/id/yog-sothot ... ed/235540/
http://steamcommunity.com/id/buffbutler ... ed/235540/

4/5 would be the safe option for me as an editor, but going purely from the dude's review it sounds like a 5/5 game. Is it though?
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Robomoo » 01 May 2017 23:22

I felt the melee combat was a little janky. Miles ahead of something like Skyrim, but still not really preferable to the very smooth FPS combat that you get in Left 4 Dead 2.

Having played a lot of Left 4 Dead 2 with my brother and some friends, this game felt like it didn't have an awful lot to offer besides good but not amazing melee combat instead of guns and the different setting. None of us felt super compelled to spend loads of time with it and my brother dropped it after we beat the first level. I still want to return to it with a full four-man team and try and finish it one day but it's not at the top of my list of games to play.

I think the review slightly overstates how good the combat is which makes it sound like a 5/5 instead of a 4/5, especially when you consider he's saying the good combat is one thing that "makes it easier to forgive the game's occasionally rough presentation". The rough presentation sticks out in my memory. Then again, I didn't play it for very long and maybe the combat gets better after you discover more depth in it, but I think probably not. I'd go for 4/5.
Image
User avatar
Robomoo
 
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 03:08
Location: United Kingdom

Unread postby icycalm » 02 May 2017 00:00

Robomoo wrote:I felt the melee combat was a little janky. Miles ahead of something like Skyrim, but still not really preferable to the very smooth FPS combat that you get in Left 4 Dead 2.


Why would you even compare a melee game to a shooter? And why pick L4D2 instead of, say Crysis or Far Cry or COD or something? If you are determined to compare its mechanics to those of an FPS, I don't think the L4D series is among the best in this regard anymore, if it ever was.

For Honor would have been an appropriate comparison, but it wasn't out in 2015, so it doesn't count. Chivalry I think was out, but it's shit and ugly, and has no campaign.

I get that you are not very enthusiastic about it, however, even though you are not doing a great job explaining why (which is okay: you are not a reviewer or anything), so I'll go with the four-star rating to be on the safe side, unless infern pipes in and changes my mind. Thanks for the help.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 02 May 2017 00:10

What keeps me hopeful that this really is a 5/5 game is my experience with the first L4D.

Even after several levels of playing with a full team at the hardest difficulty, I would have given the game "merely" a 4/5. It is only in retrospect, after 2+ years of not playing the game at all, that it has grown in my estimation and I would perhaps give it a 5/5 (I say perhaps because we never finished it). If I had only played one level with a two-man team I would have given it 4/5 at best too.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Robomoo » 02 May 2017 02:21

The game plays exactly like L4D2, the only mechanical difference being that you have melee combat instead of shooting. Looking at it as a sequel to L4D2, I don't see the melee combat as much of an improvement, if at all. Compared to other first person melee games I'd played it was the best around, but it's still not quite as much fun as L4D2's first person shooting, which as you say wasn't even a top of the barrel FPS by then.

I think that explains my comments above properly, sorry for not making them clearer.
Image
User avatar
Robomoo
 
Joined: 27 Apr 2015 03:08
Location: United Kingdom

Unread postby icycalm » 02 May 2017 02:31

I really have no idea what you are talking about.

Robomoo wrote:The game plays exactly like L4D2, the only mechanical difference being that you have melee combat instead of shooting.


I.e. it plays nothing like L4D.

You are confusing combat mechanics with stage design. If it played "exactly" like L4D it would be an FPS.

Robomoo wrote:Looking at it as a sequel to L4D2


Why on god's good earth would you look at it like that? You might as well look at it as a sequel to Halo then.

Robomoo wrote:I don't see the melee combat as much of an improvement, if at all.


Why on earth would a melee game be an improvement over a shooter?

Utterly outlandish statements that don't make any sense to me at all.

Robomoo wrote:Compared to other first person melee games I'd played it was the best around, but it's still not quite as much fun as L4D2's first person shooting


And I guess it's also not as fun as OutRun 2's driving either.

Robomoo wrote:I think that explains my comments above properly, sorry for not making them clearer.


lol you just made things 10x worse.

Just... let's let it go for now.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby infernovia » 02 May 2017 13:16

ownosourus's review is solid.

If I remember right, I stopped playing the game because

  • I couldn't find a group of people to play with consistently, especially one at the same level as me.
  • I wasn't sold on the aesthetics of the world.
  • I couldn't discern an overarching goal for me to accomplish. It seemed very much like each map was disjointed from the others and didn't really have a larger goal to go after. I also don't think "finishing a map" matters, as in you can replay the mission for the same objective.

It's been quite a while since I played the game, so I am not sure if I am remembering it properly. But yeah, I would not put it at 5/5.
User avatar
infernovia
 
Joined: 21 Apr 2009 19:37
Location: Wisconsin, US

Unread postby icycalm » 12 May 2017 00:24

http://culture.vg/reviews/in-depth/warh ... 15-pc.html

I went with four stars for now. Thanks for the help, guys.
Image
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby ChevRage » 05 Feb 2019 20:01

A big issue I have with this game is the enemy variety between levels sucks. A few attempts of the first level was enough to see every enemy we would be encountering for the next 13 hours of playing the game. We haven't finished it yet, but we haven't come across anything new either, so unless there's some sort of final boss I doubt there's going to be anything new introduced later.

This was the case with L4D too.

Robomoo wrote:The game plays exactly like L4D2, the only mechanical difference being that you have melee combat instead of shooting.


It's not that the melee combat replaces shooting. The game still has shooting. Each character in this game has a ranged equip slot, which must contain a ranged weapon, and a rather powerful one too depending on what you equip. There's bows, crossbows, staves that shoot fireballs, and a variety of pistols including revolvers that can shoot everything left in the cylinder at once like a shotgun.

There's just a lot more focus on melee combat compared to L4D2 (which introduced melee weapons to that series) because ranged weapons in this game either shoot too slowly to allow you to properly defend yourself against large amounts of enemies, or if they do shoot quickly they'll chew through your somewhat scarce ammo supplies faster than the rats can chew through your flesh.

The ranged weapons in this game are generally much more powerful than the melee too; spend some time near one of those unlimited ammo crates that you'll come across sometimes, and you'll see just how much easier it is to stave off the vermin. And you're fucked if you run out of ammo, good luck trying to hit an elite enemy if they're targeting you, if they're not shooting or throwing stuff at you from far away, they're grabbing you rendering you helpless without the aid of your friends.

I have a small gripe about the melee combat as well. Everything has much more range than it seems; the rats are able to hit you even a couple of meters away from where they should, and vice versa. Otherwise it's pretty nice, it feels a lot chunkier than in L4D2, where all the melee weapons somehow cut through all zombies like butter. In that game the frying pan can be swung through just as many zombies as a katana (and just as smoothly too) which feels weird. Whereas in this one only the sharpest of weapons will swing through enemies, while the rest, like the hammer and axe will get stuck inside the first enemy you hit, and will need to be swung again to hit another one. Of course, each weapon has a charged attack, and this will hit everything in its path.
Image
User avatar
ChevRage
 
Joined: 23 Aug 2012 21:14
Location: Victoria, Australia


Return to Games