Civil Warfare - Another Bullet in the war (PC) Review

 

After watching the trailer of Civil Warfare I was looking forward to the game, after seeing the gameplay I wasn't anymore. Civil Warfare is a third person BR game, that was clearly inspired by games like H1Z1 or PUBG. The visuals of the game are in general pretty average, maybe even slightly lower than that. What players are immediately going to recognize is the weird walking animation. I don't understand how developers can release a game, where the standard walking animation doesn't look like that of a human being (If you carry a weapon, it looks slightly better). It is just irritating and unfortunately quite symbolic of the average impression of Civil Warfare. Movement doesn't only look weird, but is also a bit too clumsy and less precise than one would wish for.

Gunplay is another problematic area. Not only is the TTK way too high (I saw some players taking 5-6 head shots and other taking 50-60 body shots before they died... This is ridiculous!), but the gunplay in general feels very impactless and boring. Players take so many shots and you just see blood dripping out of them in fountains without any reaction. Gunshots are more precise than the movement, but still feel bad. Spraying seems to be the only viable option.

What I did like about the game was the idea of an island map and that they later on implemented Bots. Regrettably the devs also didn't do an amazing job in these areas either. The map theme was cool, but the map was lacking exciting elements. The POIs were practically all just small towns, that looked pretty much the same and in between these POIs was mostly empty space. The map was already not that large, so that it would have become crowded at the beginning of each map, if the game would have ever got full lobbies (which it never did, even though the player maximum is just 40).

Implementing Bots gave the game at least a chance to survive, but unfortunately these Bots are pretty terrible. Most of the time the Bots will somehow kill each other very fast, but rarely attack any players. Some of them for example just walk towards human players without doing anything except to stare at them (which honestly is pretty creepy). Often players also didn't meet any of them, before they all killed each other or died to the zone. Another good idea, but bad execution.

Civil warfare also had some vehicles (which wasted an entire fuel tank in around a minute) and apart from Solo and Squad BR matches additional DM and TDM modes. At least that offered a bit of variety, but also nothing really worth talking about.

 

Result:

I really wanted to like this game after watching the trailer, but I just can't. The price nowadays is really low (75 Cents), but there are no players left and I can understand them. The map design is generally not bad, but unfinished and way too bland. Gunplay and movement are under average and the variety of modes doesn't really matter, if your gameplay isn't that enjoyable.

 

3.5/10

Crayta (PC) Review

 

Crayta was a game creation platform, similar to games like Core and Roblox. Crayta shared, especially with Core, many similarities and you will see me comparing them a couple of times. I was initially quite surprised, that a game like Roblox happened to be massively successful, while Core or Crayta have become pretty much unknown. Than I found out, that Crayta released as a Google Stadia Exclusive Game in 2020 and it cost 35 Euro/40 Dollars at release... That explains everything. Crayta later on also released on the Epic Games Store and Facebook Gaming (does that even still exist?) and made the switch to a free-to-play model. At this point however it was probably too late for a good first impression and the game never managed to leave the space of anonymity. On the 3th of March 2023 the game finally shutdown its servers on all platforms.

Since I have always been more interested in playing and reviewing games, than creating them, I can't give the most sophisticated verdict on the quality of the gamecreation elements in Crayta. I can however point out, that there was a good amount of templates and predesigned elements, which made the creation for development noobs like me a lot easier. A standout feature of Crayta was also, that two players could simultaneously and cooperatively design a game together. That was a very cool feature (if you could find a second player).

Since Crayta was a game creation platform, you could find games of all kinds of genres and types in it. There were plenty of Racing, Platforming, Shooter, Puzzle, Sport, Horror games and so on. I even managed to find some Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty Zombies clones. Like with all game creation platforms, the overwhelming majority of these games were rather small and not comparable with the quality of real games. Crayta was therefore more of a minigame simulator. A big part of the enjoyment of the game was consequently depended on the involvement of other players, preferably friends. That being said I did enjoy the games, I found in Crayta, a bit less than the best games in other platforms like Core, Roblox etc.

Some other aspects I liked a lot less in Crayta, in comparison to other games, were the camera perspective, the performance and loading times. Most games in Crayta used the default third person perspective from the Hub area of the game and this one wasn't great. It was not entirely focused behind the character and instead positioned a bit sideways of him, which made the controls and overview in a lot of games more sluggish than it needed to be. Despite changing various settings the framerate also generally seemed more unstable than in Core and Roblox. Not a gigantic deal, but it was a bit annoying. Since the visual engine didn't really look any better (probably even slightly worse) I would assume it is based on lacking optimization. Loading times were also comparatively longer in Crayta, which might also be linked to the optimization. Some of these aspects might be influenced by the hardware of the users, but watching videos of other players on YT seemed to confirm my impressions.

I do want to give a bit of praise to the Live Service component of the game. Not only did the developers regularly upload guides and tutorials to help users learn how to create games, but Crayta also featured a good Season/Battle Pass system. Every couple of months there was a new season with themes like Halloween, Wizards, Scifi, Summer Party or Tabletop games. Not only did they all feature Battle Passes, which were granted for free to all users, but they also changed up the Hub area to fit the theme of the season and also released new season fitting templates for the game creation.

 

Pro:

- Cooperative Game Creation

- Variety of Games

- Relatively strong Live Service component

 

Contra:

- Disastrous launch price and accessibility

- Bad camera perspective in third person

- Weaker performance and loading times

 

Result:

Crayta was a fun game, but lacked a good reason to exist. Other titles did the same in at least the same quality and Crayta scarred away all potential interest with its disastrous launch. There was nothing totally wrong with the game, but it was overall not strong enough to keep up with the competition and this in combination with the unforced errors ultimately lead to its demise. It is only a shame for the Cooperative Game Creation element, which was the game's best part.

 

6.5/10

Humans V Zombies (PC) Review

 

Humans V Zombies (not Humans vs Zombies!) is once more, a good game idea ruined by a poor execution. In this game, as the name suggests, humans have to fight off hordes of zombies in order to survive. There is a multiplayer mode, where players are split on both sides and a single-player survival mode. The problem is just, that there are no other players to get a multiplayer match going and the survival mode is also rather boring. You barely find any ammunition and the zombies otherwise don't provide a real challenge except for getting more numerous (AI also often gets stuck on objects). There are much better zombie survival modes in other games. The game also claims that there is an additional objective based mode, but I couldn't find it anywhere. The cel-shading visuals are alright (nothing fancy, but they get the job done). There are 4 different levels, which are also not poorly designed, but nothing impressive either (You can glitch through multiple doors and most other objects on these maps). There is no customizability for controls, sound or visuals, but hey you can at least buy new skins...

 

Result:

The concept of Humans V Zombies is not bad, but the game simply doesn't seem finished. It looks to me, like it was in an early stage of development and the devs just stopped working on it. In this condition there is simply no reason to play. Move along, there is nothing to see here.

2.5/10

Battle Royale Survivors (PC) Review

 

Battle Royale Survivors is an isometric BR game with a top-down perspective. The unique feature of this game is the limited view zone of the player. You can't see all the surroundings, like in all other top-down BR games, but instead just the area straight in front of the character (like the character would be holding a flashlight in front of him). Everything else is shadowed out. In theory this is a cool idea (for creating a survival atmosphere), but in practice it is more clunky and irritating. This gets worse through the bad controls. WASD is used to move the character around, while Q and E change the camera perspective and the mouse is used to aim. This is more to control, than in most other games and in combination with the limited view zone, players quickly lose the overview in combat, especially if multiple players are involved. The concept was once more interesting, but the execution unfortunately couldn't keep up with it. 

In the alpha version of this game, it was known as Survivors: Battle Royale and was F2P. The developers changed the name and turned it into a B2P game (4 Euro is actually a small price, but in the BR genre it is very difficult to compete with F2P games). At launch the game also only supported 25 players per match and there were many glitches like getting stuck on objects etc, which lead to a steep decline of players. In later updates the player limit got raised to 60, many bugs got fixed and new elements like Zombies (nice addition, but maybe a bit too strong and fast) and a new space station map were added to the game. Player numbers however never recovered and the left players can only compete with Bots (who at least fill up the servers).

The map isn't bad, but also not really adjusted enough for the top-down perspective. Too often players can walk into building or angles, where they can't even see their own character anymore. This should have been done better. What I liked about the base map was, that there was a good variety of different environmental elements, which still organically fit into each other (industry plants, small towns, forests, seas and mountains). Only the pregame waiting area was rather dull and hideous. With the extension of the player limit the original map was also massively extended in size, instead of just releasing a new one. The new areas fit in pretty well and contained for example a new desert part and a big football field. Visuals in general are quite okay in this game. The graphics look like a mix of cartoonish and a realistic approach. The end result is neither stunning nor disappointing.

The weaponpool is rather small and basic, but essentially works. Players will mostly use Pistols, ARs and a variety of SMGs. Shotguns are also in the game, but rather rare. Something like Snipers for example doesn't exist. There are also a couple of different melee weapons in the game, but they have the same problems as the guns. The developers apparently tried to compensate the clunky controls and limited view with a really high TTK, but this only made fights even clunkier. Many players were therefore struggling with combat itself, which isn't optimal in a BR game.

 

Result:

Battle Royale Survivors tried to offer a new experience by the combination of an isometric perspective and limited view zone. Unfortunately however the experience ended up being rather clunky and not what players were hoping for. You can see the potential the game had and it did improve along the way, but I would only really recommend it to fans of top-down BR games.

 

4.5/10

Nine to Five (PC) Review

 

Nine to Five was a FPS with an innovative concept. It introduced a 3v3v3 concept with three teams of 3 players each battling each other. I had already praised a somewhat similar concept in the flawed game 'Mega Zombie', where 4 teams of players where battling each other and Zombies in a TDM gamemode. Nine to Five on the other hand used only 3 teams, but tried to be more of a Tactical Shooter than an arcady one. Many people compared Nine to Five to a F2P version of Rainbow Six Siege. There are certainly some similarities, but Nine to Five surely was a different game than Siege.  

Each match of Nine to Five had 3 phases with different objectives. In the first round for example the target could be to gain an object or a piece of Intel. In the second round the team, that won the first round, had to fight off the other two teams and keep the Intel in their possession. In the third round a team had to extract from the map via a helicopter. The outcome of each phase would be influencing the next phase, which is a really cool idea. All teams got rewarded to some degree with ingame currency and XP, regardless of their actual inmatch performance, which for a lot of people took away a bit of motivation, since for example winning the first two phases or the final one didn't make one team really feel like the ultimate winner. For hardcore players this must have been a bit disappointing, while it could have been an incentive for more casual players to try out the game.

The gunplay in Nine to Five was criticized by a lot of people for feeling too sluggish and not impactful enough. The gunplay definitely improved after the Beta into the Early Access launch of the game and I found it to be alright. I couldn't really spot a big difference at the full release of the game, but the gunplay didn't really bother me. At the same time I can't praise it all that much either. It ultimately fulfilled its purpose. TTK on the other hand was a bit all over the place. At the Beta it felt too slow and the beginning of Early Access it felt too fast on the other hand. It took them a while to find a somewhat competent mixture. Movement was a bit slower in comparison to some other FPS, but it fitted the tactical approach, the game was going for.

Nine to Five had a lot of different weapons, attachments and a variety of gadgets to unlock. A big portion of these weapons and gadgets could be unlocked via leveling contracts for one of 3 (later 4) different corporations. There were however unfortunately RNG elements involved. Sometimes you could only get a random weapon upgrade and attachment and it could take a long time to unlock the setup of your choice. On the other hand you could invest real money to straight out buy weapons with the best attachments in the game. This was undoubtedly Pay-to-Win and negatively influenced the balancing in the game. I am always surprised, but there were a good amount of people defending this system and stating, that you could also unlock these attachments and weapons by grinding for dozens and dozens of hours instead. P2W doesn't mean that you can't get the same stuff after committing to insane grinds, but it is simply referring to having big instant advantages from using your credit card.

The gadgets in Nine to Five were pretty cool. You had for example recon drones, placeable barricades, a variety of trip mines, traps, med kits and grenades.

The maps in Nine to Five weren't too many (only 4), but they were all actually really well-designed in general. I say in general, because it was fun to traverse the maps, but they were probably a bit too large for 3 teams of 3 players. Since this was tactical shooter, you couldn't just run all over the place and had to be a bit more careful while approaching the next objective, which could, same as finding the other teams, take a while on the relatively large maps. I nonetheless really liked them, because they got a lot of details and seemed well put together.

Another aspect worth praising was in my opinion the humour in the game. Some people found it to be a bit too forced, but I generally did enjoy it.

I heard a lot of players criticizing a too heavy focus on Events/LTMs and selling skins/weapons instead of fixing the core gameplay/balancing and I have to somewhat agree. Even though I did enjoy the Battle Royale inspired 'Rogue Shift' LTM for example, I actually saw more Event messages on Steam than actual meaningful patch notes.

What did stop me from playing a couple of times, was matching up with random teammates against experienced Trios of players, who had clearly bought the best weapons and armour from the ingame store. The smaller playerbase made this balancing issue even worse. Nine to Five had some alpha tests in 2020, but the real Early Access start was in 2021. The playercount even in its best times was never over 1000 simultaneous players and for the most part of 2021 and 2022 was below 100 players, which meant you had a good chance of meeting the same dedicated players every time (unless of course you couldn't even start a match). Games with small playerbases like Nine to Five highlight the skill gaps between the players and make it very difficult for them to ever recover. Even promoting a full release in 2022 didn't significantly change anything and the game finally shutdown its servers on the 18th of January 2023.

 

Pro:

+ Unique 3v3v3 concept

+ Great variety of weapons and gadgets

+ Well designed maps (but too few)

 

Contra:

- Gameplay refinement took too long

- P2W issues

- Lack of players (skill gap)

 

Result:

Nine to Five had a unique concept, but the developers really struggled in the beginning to get the gunplay in a good shape, which turned a lot of players off the game. Unfortunately Pay to Win issues and the coherent lack of players truly hurt the gameplay experience. At the end there were probably too many holes in the boat and the devs weren't able to fix them before the ship sank to the bottom of the ocean. Even though I enjoyed playing Nine to Five, it was disappointing to see that the game was never able to match its true potential.

 

6.5/10