Recent reviews by Tsudonge

Rock-solid gameplay accompanied by probably the best arsenal of weapons in any FPS I've played. The manual reloading/cocking/ect mechanics feel fluid while adding depth and are not overbearing at all. Enemy variety is rich and distinctive. Movement is fluid and dynamic. The map design (while not always amazing) is generally eye-catching and engaging. As a shooter this game excels in all the right categories, and I feel this is the greatest aspect of Beyond Citadel.

The most standout aspect to a lot of people is going to be the nudity and insane fetish but unironically the sexual themeing helps sell the story, setting and aesthetics. Strikingly dystopian with some really interesting visual cues that mix christian symbolism with hellish scifi and grotesque sexuality. Story is messy but it kept me interested throughout. God's disembodied urethra is a plot-essential pickup.

You can feel this one guy's passion ooze out of every pore of Beyond Citadel; he hardly cares about what's normal or obscene and meticulously created exactly what *he* finds to be fun and interesting, which is dangerously based and worthy of your attention on that merit alone.

Great game.

H-HE'S FAST

Soundly designed roguelike that manages to capture the feel of FFXIV raids very well. It's frankly baffling that this concept hasn't (to my knowledge) seen widespread success before; it eases much of the pain and inconvenience present within raiding whilst managing to provide similar challenge and complexity on higher difficulties.

The roguelike mechanics are well tuned and seldom brick your fun. While some combos are more busted than others, there's a wide array of easy, satisfying synergies. New pickups will consistently change your playstyle and cause you to think of new ways to play on the fly. In addition, the bosses are very distinct and the music is very good. The pacing is quick and succinct with little downtime; if anything, it could linger a bit on area boss/end boss victories to make them a bit more satisfying. Readability is sometimes an issue but overall I find it to be passable.

Additional content and mods have the potential to turn it into something truly amazing, as while I think the artstyle is rather nice, some added fidelity to the animations would be welcome. More complex classes would also be great, as the current roster is very easy to play. I also think there is a lot of unexplored potential given that this game only scratches the surface of what raid mechanics have been invented in the past 20 years.

Still, it's good that the game is gentle on mechanical complexity. It's very challenging but very easy to pick up, which prevents this from being a static, dead-end clubhouse for the pre-existing raid community. There's obviously a lot of appeal here which hasn't seen much mainstream exposure due to the obstacles to accessibility that MMORPG raiding is laden with.

Highly recommended.

Chief issue I have are miserable random events and votes that can completely ruin your game through no fault of your own. These happen on a consistent basis, too, which makes the game extra not fun at all.

Additionally, the excommunication mechanic kills the game since it can be (easily) deliberately induced and essentially boots someone from the lobby. Naturally, it can also trigger via a random event, so sometimes RNG will simply dictate that you need to walk away from the PC and do something else.

AI is also totally worthless so this game has little value outside of multiplayer.

The art and theme are fantastic, but the 3D models are very hit and miss.

Overall there's some very fun and neat ideas, but it's dragged down by boneheaded RNG that's completely unacceptable in such a slow-paced and methodical game. Excommunication is supposedly getting fixed but the game has other problems. Might be worth it if you later acquire the game without buying like I did.

Just make your own game instead of screwing with someone else's.

Arguably the best WW2 RTS ever made and the definitive Men of War successor. The attention to detail and (relative) realism is fantastic, and many aspects of the game that are often overlooked in other modern RTS (such as the AI) are great. The maps are very atmospheric, the campaign missions are varied and challenging and the DLC missions all feel very worthwhile. The dynamic campaign is also very interesting and much, much better than its Call to Arms predecessor.

Best of all, practically every part of the game is playable co-op, and like Men of War the game is extremely fun with friends. This is such an amazingly good choice for the game and I wish more games were so mindful towards cooperative play.

Additionally, mod support seems extensive and there's a number of good ones floating around.

The only bad thing about this game (aside from the annoying nazi censorship and pronounced absence of any SS) is that, due to a legal issue with the use of the engine, it's DLC for vanilla Call to Arms instead of its own standalone thing.

But really, this is a great game.

Like if Squad and Red Orchestra had a malformed, retarded baby together.

Regiments is an okay game, but it seems to lack any real depth. I'll chalk my feelings down to four factors.
Note that I will chiefly be comparing Regiments to the Wargame series, as that game is the obvious inspiration and competitor.

1. Every unit in its class feels more or less like any other; a Leopard 2 feels basically similar to a Leopard 1, except a little stronger. While this might not seem like a problem, in Wargame I felt the disparity between outdated and modern tech was represented better (or at least more interestingly). A high-grade Leopard 2 was an extremely powerful treasure, whose potency had to be balanced with the risk of losing it. In Regiments, there is no granularity since everything comes in a platoon, and there is relatively little disparity in power and cost between a high-power and low-power tank. Thus, you spawn in a platoon of leopard 2's and you think about them as you would think about any other tank. It's boring.
Naturally this state of affairs extends to every other class of unit in the game. I did not really notice any difference between my Panzergrenadiers and my Pioneers, for example. This samey feeling extends across factions.

2. The AI isn't very creative or interesting. While the AI in Regiments is superior to Wargame, this isn't saying much; Wargame's AI was notoriously awful, mindlessly spamming units and A-moving them in your general direction with its vastly superior resources, turning tactical warfare into glorified nazi zombies. In Regiments, the AI operates at the other end of the spectrum. They will generally just wait for you to come while periodically launching scheduled counterattacks at weak points in your line. This is interesting until you realize that about half the game is attacking the same dug-in infantry platoon in BTRs sitting on a point while beating off occasional counterattacks. These AI counterattacks resemble Wargame, where the AI blobs together an assortment of units and throws them haphazardly at one of your strongpoints. Overall, the AI is about as dumb as Wargame but with a few more added parameters to make it seem more real. It's better than Wargame, but not by much.

3. There is a lack of exciting unit diversity. Even disregarding Wargame's prototype units, that game had a lot of really interesting stuff in it. The overall weapon diversity in Regiments is much smaller. It has all the cold war staples (which, as aforementioned, all feel the same) and that's about it. Planes are also not able to be controlled directly by the player, which is disappointing.

4. The game doesn't feel any more "real" than any other tactics game. The writing and presentation is nice, and I enjoy the grounded setting, but the gameplay isn't some massive step up in realism or anything. Every unit moves in close formation as a platoon, vehicles have unrealistic HP bars and the battles operate like simple shooting galleries where you just roll your units into range and fire until the enemy is dead. Graphically the game is weak. "Fast Move" in Wargame had your vehicles lining up and going along roads, whereas in Regiments they lazily roll to the nearest road and sprawl across horizontally, never shifting from their ever-unchanging formation. The game is about as casual and simple as it gets, and I genuinely think something like Advanced Wars for the gameboy has more going on than Regiments. Wargame has a similar level of realism, but the added depth and granularity help mitigate this feeling.

A side effect of the game's lack of depth is that I feel I can make an accurate review after only playing the game for five hours and completing the first three operations. I've checked the unit encyclopedia and it seems I have already used the lion's share of the game's unit roster and seen most of what there is to be seen.
Pick up Regiments if you want a casual Wargame that you can complete in a few hours. Stay away if you want a game you can sink your teeth into. The game has too little going on for me to enjoy myself for very long.

Chaos Galaxy is awesome, and what I like most about it is how it feels like a passion project. The setting and characters feel very quaint and over the top and often have some pretty funny dialogue. They have really memorable designs and concepts (a particularly unique faction is the Hellenistic-inspired ancient greeks, who have mecha phalanxes and triremes). The somewhat iffy translation only adds to the enjoyment; lines like "For the surviving of human beings, please die with the one billion people on this planet" endear me to the characters quite a bit. Beyond the comedic and chuuni value, though, I think the setting is pretty easy to connect with and enjoy.
Adding onto that, the portraits for the commanders, mechs and ships are really colorful and distinct, and there's around 120 unique types of units with their own animated sprites to play with.

The game is pretty barebones in terms of strategy, and incredibly sparse in terms of battle tactics. I'd say it's even simpler than Advance Wars; there aren't enough unique abilities or game-changing map features to really make it too interesting for long. Advance Wars is what i'd call a very simple game, but even that game has the separation between land/air/sea, varied terrain types, factories and airfields, ect. Chaos Galaxy lacks most of the things that make Advance War's combat tactically interesting.
Outside of the battles, there is a skeleton of a grand strategy game available. You pick research, develop some linearly-scaling planets and end your turn. I still think it's enjoyable, but I find myself wishing there was more to do.

These problems are made worse by the state of the galactic empire. In every game I've played, everyone just outright accepts to be their vassal without a fight, with the handful of outliers being overwhelmed and destroyed by endless imperial fleets. There is a civil war that shakes things up, but it comes way too late. This makes playing the game frustrating for both Imperials and non-Imperials: Imperials have a boring game unless they decide to rebel, and non-Imperials are forced to endlessly fight off infinite waves from every faction in the galaxy, as only the player will usually stay independent after only a few turns.

Regardless, it's hard not to like this game, and the upcoming sequel looks like it's going to fix a lot of the problems I have, so I'm really excited. I'm a big fan of Chaos Galaxy even if I have complaints. It's the kind of game I always wanted to play as a little kid, and I think the developer cares a lot about the product and setting they created.