Double standardsīefore we get onto that though, we ought to talk about things like single-player options and online support. The 'victory locations', when covered by the farthest reaches of our burgeoning strongholds, will allow us to command more exotic weaponry and stand a better chance of dismantling our enemies' fledgling empires, whilst still demanding a certain amount of skill and good fortune in mastering an arsenal of amusingly absurd munitions. While previous titles focused simply on destroying the enemy's team with an arsenal of amusingly violent weapons, here the developer has taken on a much greater strategic element, focusing on the erection and defence of opposing fortresses and control of tactically significant upgrade points on the game map. On paper, Forts Under Siege certainly is that. Surely this is the most promising thing to come out of Team 17 since Worms first sprouted from the earth and wriggled across enormous static backgrounds pumping bazookas and explosive livestock? As with a lot of multiplayer titles, a handful of levels seen running on an Xbox prototype are nowhere near enough for us to make a snap judgement about whether it'll be entertaining or balanced enough overall, but we'll be damned if we don't sit here and extol the virtues of a developer doing exactly what we all claim we want - making a proper sequel, and not simply a tedious rehash.Īs far as we're concerned, wholesale changes are the right way to go - that is, as long as the result is an effective game concept in its own right. As Team 17 tries to deliver the basic Worms formula in a distinct new guise - surely the basis of all the best sequels - it appears that the British developer is damned if it does, and damned if it doesn't, and it kind of gnaws at us as a result. Yet, faced with the follow-up to Worms 3D, which retains a lot of the strategic invertebrates' most celebrated aspects (ninja ropes, jet packs, wacky weapons and comedy sound schemes to name a scant few) whilst taking brave strides in a different direction, a lot of gamers are now complaining that it looks like a spin-off, and not a "true sequel". It seems that, faced with a direct follow-up that builds only slightly on its predecessor - whilst sticking doggedly to the things that made it so popular in the first place - a lot of gamers will complain that it isn't individual enough, and that they are effectively being asked to pay for the same thing all over again. Although Worms 3D's camera came in for some criticism, it was arguably the game's "Worms, but in 3D" approach that eventually dominated the sense of dissatisfaction with the title.
Gamers are notoriously difficult to please.
0 kommentar(er)
