Super fun co-op but prolly would super enjoy solo also.

ace free coop

best unfinished game you ever played.

Its literally day 1 so way too early to be reviewing but I've having alot of fun, so thumbs up because people who are giving thumbs down for day 1 server issues of a early access MMO are deluded.

Well I've practically beat every faction on legendary difficulty now, It was fun, TW hasn't been this challenging since shogun 2. For that reason alone I love the game, as rome 2 and attila were just way too easy for me.

Actually completing every victory condition is a complete time waste though, as dwarves I grinded though wiping all chaos factions only to be told I can't "win" unless I clear a grugde to get engineer to level 15. *SIGH* I'm basically the only faction in the entire map at this point.

Rome 2 and attila have more content, but totalhammer trumps in the quality over quantity. Definitely would recomend the game, that said its not perfect here are some quibbles:

Magic balance is awful, 90% of spells are completely useless - probably due to bug with unit size. As empire I used my wizards 100% as property developers, because -30% building cost is way better than the effort of using weak ass magicks! Of the few spells worth actually using I know death is silly OP, so I personally avoided using that school too.

Quests are just meh anoying pointless distractions. never paid much attention to missions in TW, and the new quests are mostly the exact same dribble even though they were supposed to be a big deal. tut tut.

Some of the unit balance is absurdly wonky. Take dwarves, all their high end units are either complete trash or simply not worth their salt. irondrakes, useless. ironbreakers friendly fire like mad. the earlier units are just more realiable and can pump them out twice as fast.

Items. for the most part I like the item system, but there is a little bit too much going on. Expecially if you can equip like 10 items on your general, then embedd 2-3 heros each with 6 items. its like a 25 effects all on same army, at that point I stop paying attention.

Performance is the main neg. The game is supposed to look and run better than attila, for me it is the opposite. This is probably because my graphics card was new enough to get lastest driver for attila, but has since been legacy'd and cannot get new driver for totalhammer. Off my head I on normallish settings rome 2 is ~60fps, attila is ~40fps, totalhammer is like ~20-30. I had to set everything to lowest so I could actually play the big multiple stack battles.

The first 15 hours or so of the game were alot of fun, the atmosphere/setting is incredible and the gameplay reminded me alot of playing XCOM on ironman. But unfortunately when you scratch the surface you see some pretty deep flaws in the basic design of the game.

While the game is very difficult, it is not truly challenging in terms of strategy or tactics. This is because there is no time limit on your campaign. No matter how badly you play will never need to start over as you would in XCOM, and eventually given enough time put into the game you will acquire enough resources to upgrade all your buildings to the max. Which is basically required in order to progress at all.

So in reality the game is just incredibly grindy. Its not about making the right decisions and starting over if you make the wrong ones. It is only about investing enough time (ALOT!), until you acquire enough resources to be able to beat the game. Which is not a rewarding form of difficulty.

Despite all my complaints the game is probably worth the low cost simply for the fun initial experience. As mentioned the setting/art/narration is great, so I suppose I would still recommend the game even tho it was pretty dam disappointing in the end.

Alot of people love this game because they didn't like xcom 2012 remake and prefered the original. Well I loved xcom 2012, It was my first xcom I didn't play the originals. So if my opinion as a non xcom hipster is revelant to you, read on.

To me xcom 2012 and xenonauts are two opposite approaches to a xcom remake. Which means we have 2 very different games which are great in thier own right. In my mind both have strengths and weaknesses when compared. And if you are a big fan of this tiny genre, then both are worth sinking hours into.

The most immediate difference presentation and feel, both games evoke the original in different ways. xenonauts keeps the old school full 2d enviroments and sprites, but opts for more realistic and modern art design. While xcom 2012 goes full 3d modern high quality models and enviroments, and yet its art style is actually more reminiscant of the original, cartoony and a bit daft.

To me neither is superior. I prefer fully 3d presentation and destruction of xcom 2012, but prefer the more realistic and grounded art style which is more fitting to a serious game; I prefer xenonaut's chinook and m16s than the kitch skyranger and haircuts of xcom.

Xenonauts ground combat is much more similiar to the original, and it frankly just feels very aged and not as tight or fluid as xcom 2012. Having a much bigger squad means generally less need to employ tactics, as each individual is less important. The fire/cover/hunker system in xcom 2012 is genious, xenonauts doesn't require nearly as much decision making on the ground.

You mostly just line up all your guys and fire away, often relying on numbers rather than cover or flanking. One thing xenonaut's ground combat has is that enemies are spawned from the very start, which is miles better than xcom 2012 hugely flawed spawn on LoS system. Overall I have to give ground combat to xcom 2012, but it depends on your own preferences.

The place where xenoanuts really shines and becomes WAY superior to xcom 2012 is the geoscape. That is base building/management aswell as air battles. There is simply tons more depth and freedom and is the reason to buy the game. Once you play it makes xcom 2012's geoscape seem totally meaningless.

You can directly contoll air battles, your bases will be attacked and you get ground battles to defend them, you can build multiple bases. There is tons of decision making that xcom 2012 lacks, and it's a core part of the game not just a afterthought.

So it depends if you want a in depth planetary defense sim, buy xenonauts. If you have no interest in geoscape and only like turn based tactical combat, then stick to xcom 2012 or something else.

If you don't own this game you are simply a bad person.

Didn't play older CS, so can't compare. But I have played a fair amount, I only played matchmaking (highest master guardian II).

I bought GO on a sale for £5, Ive made something like £13 selling items I got in it. So value wise 10+/10

Gameplay wise GO doesn't change the tried and tested formula, it's still essentially a reskin of the 90s mod, with a couple of extra features, the most important being the ELO matchmaking.

My only serious criticisms are that matchmaking is best of 30, with no option to concede. So when you join a one sided match with a result like 16:2, you have to grind through 18 rounds of awp vs pistols - way too long and isn't fun whether wining or losing.

Personally would like to see tactical shooter like CS that doesn't copy paste gameplay and goes for updated realistic physics/movement/aiming. Especially since it would even the playing field; the best CS players have been playing since 90s.

But CS:GO is still by far the best multiplayer tactical shooter that appears to exist, despite the 90s arcade feel and matchmaking flaws.

A pretty good hardcore tactical shooter. Its not everyone's cup of tea, but if thats your kind of thing then its worth the price. Its realistic, but still fast paced and slick.

I enjoy the gunplay alot. My main gripe is there is maps are way too short, with no real incentive to win - it doesn't even track win/losses. The fog of war is pretty bad too.

If this game had better maps with full destruction, and enough players for a competitive matchmaking system, it would be a dream come true. Maybe Insurgency 2?