Recent reviews by Beguzzles

First let me say, hours played is not accurate, since I tend to multitask and switch back and forth between several games and other tasks (and Steam will record hours played when the game is in the background and not actually being played). I wish the programmers at Steam would only record hours played when the game is in the foreground and actual typing / or controller input is being done.

I played this game for atleast 50 hours at the time of writing this review, and it is a fun game and I will probably play it for quite a while more, on and off. It is the kind of game, that I see myself coming back to in the future, when I'm in the mood.

I think the strategy is interesting, and the card choices are fun. I played other card games, recently, and the other ones I played, it didn't take too long to defeat all the bosses. While this one, it is a bit more challenging then the other card games I tried recently. Sometimes, even after playing it a long time, you can lose at an early boss, unexpectedly. And is complicated enough and has enough strategy, that it does take a while to learn, which learning how to play being part of the fun. So I do enjoy it.

The only thing that annoys me about this game, and it also annoys me when other games do it, is the emulated fullscreen mode, where it is actually running in "borderless windows mode" and this does cause problems with multitasking. I honestly wish game programmers would fully support what is called "exclusive Fullscreen mode". Exclusive fullscreen mode is a non-windows mode, and gives the game exclusive control of the video card and it actually removes all the "windows overhead" as far as graphics and that does make a difference in frame rate, and does improve alt-tabbing when multitasking. This is my only complaint is the lack of support for true fullscreen mode.

Otherwise I will recommend the game.

I played Galactic Civilizations III for over 200 hours. I also went to college for Computer Science and know about computer programming. And I see NO changes from this DLC. Apparently doesn't even work. I tried starting a new game. I tried verifying my files. I tried deactivating, then restarting game, then reactivating again. Given the poor quality programming, this doesn't surprise me. I seen many programming mistakes in the game. The game is still enjoyable and thats why I played so many hours, but it gets annoying when yet another programming bug causes DLC to not even work, and you pay money to buy something for nothing.

I been writing programs on and off for 30 years, and I worked on multiple jobs writing programs. My longest program, that I wrote solo, was around 20,000 lines of code. I never in my life, seen a program or a game, where a programmer messed up something as simple as exiting the application, until this game. (I've seen programmers screw up almost everything else, but never before something as simple as exiting a program)

You can NOT even quit this game. Pushing the quit button, basically locks up the computer, and you have to push Ctrl-Alt-Delete to terminate it. That says a lot, in my opinion, of the quality of the coding in this game. A button that is labeled quit should ONLY quit the program, not do anything complicated or "unexpected" other then exiting the program, it should never lock up the person's computer.

Company is practicing unethical business practices.

I was unable to activate or even use the game I purchased. Do NOT buy, because chances are, you will not even be able to activate it.

I own 2500 computer games between my two Steam accounts, plus games that are not on Steam (on other gaming accounts). I am a programmer myself, having programmed for 30 years, but unlike other programmers I have autism so my brain is designed to work logically unlike any other programmer. In 40 years of using computers, I have never seen another programmer where they are able to think logically which is the only way a program can correctly be written without mistakes occuring sometimes in the hundreds of thousands. To give one example of this in this game, forcing players to move the map back and forth (acting like they don't have the intelligence of a 5 year old). A lot of gamers are in their 40s and 50s, and even older, but most programmers treat them like they don't have the intelligence of a 5 year old when they program tutorials that would even insult the intelligence of a 5 year old. Furthermore, when I was doing the campaign on my desktop computer and went to play on my laptop, the programmer didn't even consider that possibility. Being a good programmer, by the very definition, is anticipating for what "user may do" and designing the program around those possibilities (which is exactly what no programmer on the planet ever has done, in 40 years).

I just posted a nasty review about the fact that the programmer for this game could not do simple math, because when I added up the amount of winnings that you should receive in the game after a poker game it was not even close to accurate. I am editing the review (this review) now because the issue in the game is not that the math is wrong (which is simple to do), the problem is the tutorial provides almost no information whatsoever about the game so when the math seems obviously wrong which I think eventually everyone might come to that conclusion there was nothing in the tutorial to explain it. Another example of the tutorial not providing information on how the game works, was that there was nothing in the tutorial to explain what "fold & skip" means in the game which I initially assumed was you would fold and then leave the game (skip out). I can go on to give other examples of how the tutorial didn't provide that much information on how the game works before you started to play. So I am not recommending this game until the tutorial is improved, if ever.

I usually only write reviews when I have something to say that it seems that everyone else is leaving out of their reviews. In the case of this game, nobody is pointing out that this game is NOT a realistic simulation of a World War II battle. It is not even close to a realistic simulation. I recommend this game only because it is a good strategy game, the same as I would recommend chess to someone, but this is not a World War II battle simulation. I played other war games on my main steam account that are accurate and realistic when it comes to World War II battles, but this game is not even close.

For one thing, you can only move units from ONE region a turn which is totally unrealistic. It is impossible to do multiple battles across multiple regions, which is what would occur in real life. They had radio communication in 1945 and they could communicate and plan simultaneous attacks on multiple fronts in those days. Or even the individual commanders of each unit may of decided by chance, to attack at the same time as someone else. Not being able to have simultaneous battles originating from multiple regions is totally unrealistic in this game and makes this game as far from a realistic World War II battle simulation as you can get.

A different reviewer pointed out that it makes the game more strategic and makes you think more by having that feature (only being able to move units from one region per turn) and I do agree with him. But that reviewer neglected to point out how unrealistic it makes the game, and some buyers may be looking for a realistic simulation of a World War II battle. Personally I prefer this feature and like the fact it makes you think a lot about what units you want to move first in a day. Just to avoid confusion, you get enough turns in a day, that you are able to move all your units on the map. The thing this game does, is make you decide which units to move first. You can't move or attack from multiple regions at the same time. As I said, I recommend this game as a good strategy game. I just don't recommend it as a realistic simulation.

Another way this game is not realistic is it goes to unrealistic extremes on unit supply. In real life, units would receive supplies that would last a few days or even a week. They didn't receive supplies only for 1 day at a time, as far as I know. If a unit got stuck behind enemy lines, it could survive and fight back for atleast a week. It might have to ration its food and it might have to search the countryside for food, but it could survive and fight back for atleast a week. In this game, if a unit is cut off from supply for little over a day, it then becomes an "isolated unit" and it is UNABLE to fight back. The unit just sits there when attacked and doesn't defend itself. That is a unit that was cut off from supply for just a little over a day. Makes absolutely no sense at all, is not historically accurate, and is not realistic. But again, it makes you think more having to worry about units becoming isolated and cut off from supply in the game, so while it makes the game totally unrealistic, it also makes it a better strategy game. I actually resigned after the first 3 days out of 8 days in a scenario against the computer AI in a game, where I selected Bradley as an opponent and played the endgame scenario, because the computer kept cutting off the supply lines for my units. My units weren't able to move and I was screwed, so I didn't see any point to continue, though I probably could of won the game due to the ridiculously little victory points needed to win. I usually set personally goals for myself in the game when playing against the computer to make things more interesting. But back on topic: This is a very fun game to play and is very challenging because of having to worry about keeping all your units in supply and not even losing supply for a single day. I think this is what the developers were aiming for, more strategy at the cost of realism.

I can go on about several other ways this game is unrealistic, but one of the big ones is the calendar. You can look at the calendar and see a list of the exact dates when the enemy will receive reinforcements and the exact reinforcements they are getting is listed. How unrealistic can you get. This information should not be given to the player, or be available to the player. You should have no clue when and what reinforcements the enemy is getting, as you would in real life. But I think this game does it that way, to again make it more strategy oriented while it makes it totally unrealistic. You can plan ahead your moves and base them around what troops the enemy will be getting. There is also no fog of war, so you see all the reinforcements on the map. But this game is like chess, it is a good strategy board game, where you get to see all the pieces of your opponent at all times. So you can plan your moves around that, and I actually like the fact it does it.

So the question is do you care that the game is unrealistic, or do you care more that it is a good strategy game that is tough and requires a lot of thinking and planning? I recommend this game as a good strategy game, and other reviewers do the same. I am only pointing out, what all the other reviewers neglected to do, that the game is unrealistic, so those buyers who don't want a game like that will know in advance. I personally like this game a lot, I enjoy playing against the challenging computer AI, and once I get tired of playing against the computer AI then I will seek multiplayer opponents. This is a very nice strategy boardgame. It doesn't bother me that it is unrealistic, because it is a whole lot of fun and makes you think a lot when playing about your moves. As I hinted at in another paragraph, I set personal goals for myself when playing against the computer to make it more challenging. For example, if playing as the axis player, I may set a goal of getting a certain amount of victory points by a certain day and also having a certain number of units exit the map by that day. By setting difficult goals for myself, and considering myself as losing if I don't meet the goals, I made the game a lot more challenging and intersting to play. So a suggestion: Anyone who buys the game can do the same thing. Just use your imagination for personal goals to set, and don't cheat, if you can't achieve your personal goals then you lost so you have to resign. I thought of over a dozen possible personal goals to set in the game, to make the game more challenging. Anything you can imagine, can be a personal goal. Achieving a certain number of victory points by a certain day in a scenario, Acceptable losts (losing only a certain number of armor units and certain number of infantry units by the end of a scenario), Defeating a certain number of enemy units (certain number of armor units and a certain number of infantry units), Exiting the map with a certain number of units when playing as the axis player, Defeating a certain number of British units (those units are brown in color and stay to the west of the river until you are adjacent then they can move east), Preventing the axis player from gaining control of any space that gives victory points even for a single turn (if the axis player gains control for a single turn, then you have to resign because you lost), and so on. There are over a dozen and even more then that, possible personal goals you can set to make the game more challenging when playing against the computer.

I had one other suggestion. Most new players will play the tutorial, and that is useful but the tutorial leaves a lot of details out. So my suggestion is to take the time to read the manual and I'm not talking about the in-game manual. Go to the store page for the manual and read that one.

I really enjoy this game. It is one of my favorite platformer games and I own over 2,400 games between my two accounts. Many platformer games that I own are just plain impossible for me to complete due to ridiculously hard difficulty. This game is very hard but it is not so hard that it is impossible to complete it. I think the difficulty is fair and I think there is a fair amount of checkpoints in each level. Talking about checkpoints, the checkpoints in this game are unique. The first time you walk over the checkpoint it will save the exact status of your game. So you can use some strategy as to when you want to walk over the checkpoint (which always appears as a sleeping bag on the ground). You can position your characters wherever you want, and then walk over the checkpoint at the exact point you want to save. Very neat feature. Since the difficulty is hard enough in this game that you will die a lot, the ability to control when the checkpoint saves will save you a lot of time.

You control 3 characters in this game, but I presume you already know that from reading the store page or other reviews. The game is really fun because at later levels you will need to walk all 3 characters in different directions in the level to find the buttons to move levers and doors. And you have to cross extremely dangerous obstacles in the process. The difficulty is hard enough that you will feel challenged in each level starting at around level 5. The first 4 levels are easier, and are meant as more of a tutorial. There is a small bug with accessing level 5. To access level 5, do NOT click on the start button. Instead hit the enter key twice. This will load the level. If you click on the start button, it will lock up. Hitting the enter key twice should also work if you use a controller, or you could try hitting the A button on the controller twice.

I tried the game with both a controller and the keyboard, and I found the game easier to play on a keyboard because you could more precisely control your characters movement with a keyboard then with a controller. You need that precise control to get over the deadly obstacles in your path. I normally always play platformer games with a controller, so this is one of the only platformer games that I recommend playing with a keyboard.

As I said earlier, this game is extremely fun. But I wouldn't classify it so much as a puzzle platformer, as more of an "obstacle" platformer. You spend most of your time trying to locate the right direction to go, and get over the obstacles blocking your path. The difficulty is very hard but fair, and it gives you a very good challenge. Also you are on a time system, where if you run out of water then your party dies of thirst. Since you are being timed (based on how much water you have left), then you will feel pressured when playing the game to rush and move fast so you don't run out of water before you are able to refill the party's canteen. I usually play a level or two of this game, when I'm in the mood for something challenging in my day. I will be very sad when I complete the game, and finished all the levels. But maybe in a few years from now, once I forget the levels, I will go back and play the game again :) I enjoy the game so much, that I can see myself playing it again in the future. Also I wanted to note, that I make sure I find the rune in each level I play. I'm not sure if it unlocks a bonus at the end of the game or not, but I wanted to make sure that I fully complete each level before moving on, and getting the rune is part of each level.

Would I recommend buying this game at full price? Most definitely yes. The full price is very low. The game doesn't cost very much and you will get probably 8 to 10 hours of fun out of it especially if you search for the rune on each level.