Now Playing: Tempest Rising

To say Tempest Rising is simply ‘inspired’ by the Command & Conquer Tiberian series would be generous to say the least because it is – unashamedly – a new C&C in all but name. And I’m totally cool with that. After the absolutely abominable C&C 4 all but killed the series, fans have been waiting for either a new entry, or a new RTS game to pick up the torch.

In C&C you can play as the GDI – a NATO-esque Western military alliance. Or as The Brotherhood of NOD – a cult-like organisation that covets Tiberian. In Tempest Rising you can play as the GDF – a NATO-esque Western military alliance. Or as The Tempest Dynasty – a cult-like organisation that covets Tempest.

GDI – GDF. The Brotherhood of NOD – The Tempest Dynasty. Tiberian – Tempest. The two Tempest Rising factions even, to a degree, play like their C&C equivalents – GDF is more focused on low mass, high tech forces, whereas The Dynasty relies more upon cheap, but plentiful units. But I’d say that, overall, there’s a closer technological balance between GDF and The Dynasty than GDI & NOD (at least in the early C&C games).

The plot of Tempest Rising will also be instantly familiar to any fans of C&C because it is, more or less, a rehash of the plot from C&C 3 – the two factions fighting it out on a global scale until the arrival of a new, third faction that’s connected to the Tiberian/Tempest.

In C&C 3 it’s the Scrin. In Tempest Rising it’s the Veti. But unlike C&C 3 in which the Scrin had their own mini-campaign, there’s no such equivalent for the Veti in Tempest Rising. That’s a shame, but I have a feeling we may see a Veti campaign added via DLC in the future.

I guess the question is – does Tempest Rising, by so strongly mimicking C&C, lack its own identity? I don’t think so. In fact, I’d say Tempest Rising does a strong job of building its own over the course of the two campaigns. It utilises the C&C framework to provide a solid and familiar foundation on which to build, one that should be appealing to old C&C fans waiting for something new.

I think it’s a pretty smart strategy, and I’m also pleased to say that the game doesn’t just try to copy what came before it – it has plenty of new ideas of its own. Both factions feature an impressive range of unit and building types that allow you to put together varied army compositions based on how you’d prefer to play.

And this isn’t a game where you can just spam a handful of units to win – you really do need to utilise and combine different units and their unique abilities to your advantage. The range of special unit abilities can seem a little daunting at first – in a fast-paced RTS, you don’t necessarily want to be juggling so many cool-down limited abilities across several units. But Tempest Rising does a decent job of easing you into things so you’re never overwhelmed.

Of the two campaigns, I’d say I enjoyed the GDF more as I feel they offer a better balance and variety of missions. I feel The Dynasty campaign is a little weaker, with too many missions relying upon you utilising small strike teams with more linear maps and objectives. There’s surprisingly little base building to be found in The Dynasty campaign – more often than not you’re working from existing bases or capturing enemy facilities.

Unlike C&C, which had its glorious live-action mission briefings and colourful cast of characters, Tempest Rising, perhaps out of budget necessity, instead uses in-game engine characters to provide briefings. This does allow them to add some interaction in the form of optional dialogue questions, but they’re not half as much fun.

They’re . . . fine, but very stilted and they lack the personality of the best C&C briefings – like Michael Ironside barking orders at you in C&C 3, or Kari Wuhrer as Best Tanya from Red Alert 2. The story, as I said, is essentially a rehash of C&C 3, but it’s also . . . fine. The two campaigns play out in parallel so you get two sides of the same story.

So how does it compare to the C&C games it so closely resembles? Well, I’d say it’s up there with the best – but not quite the very best. As a first game in a new series I’d say Tempest Rising is great, but it does rely a lot on that C&C nostalgia to carry it through. I think what really matters is where they go from here – and the story certainly sets up a potential sequel.

You have one great campaign (GDF) and one okay-ish one (Dynasty). The factions are well designed and the units and their abilities really do feel like what you’d expect in an actual C&C sequel. The visuals are great and the game runs smoothly. Oh, and the music is great too – if a little overbearing when it continues pounding even during mission briefings.

I’ve not tried multiplayer because that’s not really my thing, but I’ve tried a few skirmish maps and had some fun, although I do think the skirmish AI could do with some tweaks so it’s a little less stressful to fight against – right now, even on Normal you only really have two options – spam and rush, or extreme turtle.

Overall, Tempest Rising is a very good RTS game that doesn’t quite match up to the best of the series it’s so heavily ‘inspired’ by, but it certainly comes close. The question is – what’s next? Can this game spawn a new series that can stand on its own? That’s not so reliant on C&C nostalgia? I think it can, but it’s certainly not going to be easy.

7/10

Stellar Blade (DEMO)

When I first saw Stellar Blade I thought it was going to be an action game in the style of Devil May Cry or Bayonetta, but that’s not what it is at all. In terms of combat, I’d say it’s a pretty interesting mix of Dark Souls and Sekiro. It’s what I’d describe as a more ‘reactive’ action game than a ‘proactive’ one. You’re not dictating the pace – you’re reacting to enemy pacing / animations. It’s a game that – like Dark Souls – rewards careful, deliberate play and patience.

Your movement and attacks are somewhat slow – even your basic dodge is limited in range. You have simple combo attacks, but these won’t cancel or stun enemy attacks (not unless you complete an entire sequence) and you can’t easily break from a combo to parry, dodge or block. If you try to play Stellar Blade like DmC or Bayonetta you’re going to be in for a rough time.

Enemies have ‘balance’ points which is essentially the ‘poise’ system from Sekiro. Every time you perfectly parry an attack, they lose a point, and if they lose them all you can perform a stylishly animated ‘retribution’ attack for massive damage. This isn’t a game where you can rush in and spam buttons – you need to bide your time and creating openings to exploit.

 

Some attacks can’t be parried, only dodged, and some ‘lethal’ attacks can only be countered with unlockable skills. The combat in Stellar Blade is all about proper timing and once you understand that, and accept that’s how the game wants you to play, it’s pretty damn fun and satisfying – especially when you down a boss without taking a single hit.

There is a bit of trial and error at play in the sense that until you’ve fought an enemy or boss once, you won’t be aware of their attack patterns, so be prepared to die a few times until you learn their moves. I also feel that some enemy attacks aren’t adequately telegraphed to the player.

You can rest at camps as you go and, like Dark Souls, these heal you but also re-spawn local enemies. I did like exploring the (limited) map available in this demo – there’s quite a few little nooks to discover containing supplies or lore to collect. Oh, and I really like the enemy designs.

 

I played through this demo twice to get a feel for things, including the additional boss challenge and although I enjoyed it, I’m not sure if I want to pick this up at release because despite coming to like the combat, there are other aspects of Stellar Blade that feel a little weak.

The story and character aspects are clearly evocative of NieR: Automata but kind of terrible in comparison. All of the story stuff in this demo fell flat for me with some bad dialogue and a main character with the personality of a brick – which is unfortunate, because a game like this really benefits by having a strong personality at its core. It is only a demo, so maybe these things improve / get better as you go, but it’s not a great first impression.

Overall, once I did get a feel for the combat, I did like what I played. I’m not sure I like it enough to drop 60 quid at release, but I’ll see what else I’ve got lined up to play.

Now Playing: Ghost of Tsushima

Ghost of Tsushima is an open world, third person action game in which you play as Jin Sakai, a samurai on a mission to free his home – the island of Tsushima – from Mongol invaders. But to do so, Jin must be willing to break the samurai code and become the Ghost – hero to his people; demon to his enemies, Jin Sakai is . . . Samurai Batman! Or should be, if the game wasn’t dreadfully dull. I hate to say it, but Ghost of Tsushima is one of the most disappointing games I’ve played in a long time.

Ghost of Tsushima is, without a doubt, one of the most visually striking open world games you can play. You’ll have seen the screenshots but they don’t do the game justice – you really need to see it in motion. The swaying grass, the falling leaves, the misty haze, the glow of fireflies and the warm hue of the setting sun – everywhere you go in Tsushima looks beautiful.

But whilst the visuals are lovely they do somewhat lose their lustre as you progress because, yes – you can have too much of a good thing. There’s not a great deal of varied terrain in Tsushima, and once you’ve stood in awe of one field of gently swaying grass, you’ve kind of seen it all. And as gorgeous as the landscape may be, the actual design of the open world in terms of structure and content leaves a lot to be desired.

Whilst the map is broken down into smaller regions marked by natural boundaries (good), significant landmarks or terrain variation are few and far between (bad) making navigating the world purely by visual cues rather difficult. The game eschews a typical map marker for a ‘flowing wind’ effect that’s supposed to guide you to your chosen destination.

And it sort of works – but you’ll still have to stop and check your map regularly. And honestly, I think I would have preferred the option of a more simple and precise – if admittedly intrusive – marker to guide my way.

Not only is the landscape poorly designed from the point of view of navigation, it also doesn’t really encourage exploration with such a repetitive and lacklustre selection of side activities – not to mention the far too frequent enemy encounters that interrupt your travel.

It’s not unusual to encounter several enemy patrols along a single stretch of road. If you try dealing with them all, you’ll never get anywhere fast. The main and side quests of Ghost of Tsushima are already extremely combat focused. There are also numerous enemy outposts to clear and villages to liberate in the open world.

That’s why you need to give the player some space, some time to relax between combat and explore the world without constant interruption. Pacing is important, even if you have a great combat system . . . which Ghost of Tsushima most certainly does not.

The combat – at least initially – is fast, brutal and punishing in a way that really does demand your attention. It’s built around a simple and familiar system of block, dodge, parry and strike – but capped with some satisfying and stylish finishing animations.

The problem is, as you level up and unlock new skills, Jin’s strength snowballs so rapidly that before you even reach the end of Act 1 you feel practically invulnerable and the combat becomes entirely trivial.

Stealth becomes something you do for fun, not out of necessity to even the odds. And the problem only grows worse over time. Once you upgrade your gear and unlock the Ghost Stance ability you can simply walk into enemy camps and slaughter everyone within a matter of seconds.

The game does give you a welcome selection of combat stances and a fine selection of ninja-style tools – but putting aside how fiddly it can be to switch between them in a fight – you don’t actually need any of them. They’re fun to use on occasion, but entirely unnecessary.

Ghost of Tsushima also has a rather wonky auto-lock system that often sees Jin facing entirely the wrong way. You can switch to a manual mode but – like switching between your tools – it’s kind of fiddly to use.

And whilst I welcome those additional tools, you still only have one main weapon – your sword. Given how the plot of the game is about Jin being willing to break his code, I don’t see why we couldn’t have had another weapon type or two to help mix things up – like a spear, or a mongol shield or . . . anything.

Early on in the game you get access to a grappling hook and I thought I really would be like Samurai Batman – swinging across rooftops, using it to grapple enemies from stealth or even within open combat. But no, the game doesn’t let you do anything so fun. The grappling hook is only useful for some basic platforming in the open world or during the scripted story missions.

I wouldn’t say that the combat in Ghost of Tsushima is bad as such – it’s simple and accessible and it makes it very easy for the player to feel like the ultimate samurai killing machine . . . but maybe a little too easy. It just becomes too trivial, too quickly and because it’s such a frequent and significant component of the game, it becomes increasingly dull to engage with. You stop enjoying fights long before the end – you just grind them out as quickly as you can so you can move on to the next.

This certainly isn’t helped by the numerous side quests, nearly all of which – regardless of plot – is a simple matter of ‘go to place, kill mongols’. Sometimes they mix it up with ‘go to place, kill mongols’ and then ‘go to another place, kill more mongols’ but that’s about as exciting as it gets.

And it’s such a shame, because some of these side quests have potentially interesting set ups – such as a quest to save a sake brewery from mongol raiders. I thought it might involve getting the mongols drunk . . . or maybe Jin gets drunk whilst waiting for them to arrive? Or maybe you assassinate them with a barrel of poisoned sake? Maybe you even dress up as a geisha and serve it to them!

I don’t care how stupid that sounds, just give me something fun to do, give me something memorable, something unique. Something more than what you get – you go to the brewery, hide in some grass and then kill the mongols when they arrive. And that’s pretty much all you do for practically every side quest in the game no matter the location or plot.

Ghost of Tsushima is at its best when you’re focusing on the main story but even that’s not without its problems. Act 1 sees you storming a castle to rescue Jin’s Uncle and kill the evil Khotun Khan. But guess what – the Khan’s in another castle! And the exact same thing happens at the end of Act 2. He’s like the mongol warlord equivalent of Princess Peach.

I hoped the third act would provide a suitably exciting conclusion but I hate to say it – the final battle sucks. It’s incredibly rushed, the contribution of your allies is massively glossed over, you only actually fight a couple of small groups of enemies and I defeated the Khan by running in circles and tossing sticky bombs on him. I didn’t really need to – it was just too funny.

It’s not like I hated the story – the story is easily the best part. I liked Jin and Yuna and the little quest chains for the key side characters. I also liked the ‘mythic tales’ quests because they provided slightly more varied quest structures and you can unlock more unique gear and abilities.

I don’t get why they shied away from the obvious romance between Jin and Yuna. I don’t normally give too much of a shit about something like this but come on – why is this game so sexless? It really needed something to spice things up. The story just doesn’t land the emotional beats in the way you feel it should.

And another thing – the plot is all about Jin turning his back on the samurai code and becoming the Ghost, but why couldn’t they have factored that story aspect into player progression in a more meaningful way? Perhaps you could have had different skills and gear for ‘Ghost’ and ‘Samurai’ and each is unlocked depending upon how the player acts – a player who sticks to the code and faces their enemies head on unlocks more samurai abilities, whereas a player who embraces stealth, poison and assassination unlocks more tools and skills along those lines.

It wouldn’t even need to change the story or how things play out, it would just present the player with diverging options on how they want to progress and how they want to develop Jin. But . . . maybe I expect too much. Maybe I’m asking for too much.

I can’t deny how striking the game looks. How polished it is. The visuals, the music, the VA, the animations, the UI – the production value is clear to see. And maybe that’s enough for some – but not for me.

Because I can’t overlook the bland, excessive combat, poor enemy variety, terribly paced player progression, the repetitive and dull side content, the lack of creativity of the missions, the lacklustre conclusion and the absence of emotion in the story. There’s nothing truly challenging or engaging here – neither narratively, nor in terms of gameplay.

That’s not to say I have no hope for the coming sequel – Ghost of Yotei – because the Iki Island DLC included as part of this PC edition does demonstrate some promising improvements to overall quest design. That said, I’ve seen other Sony first-party sequels suffer from a lack of ambition and an unwillingness to break from the tried and tested they believe will lead (usually correctly, sadly) to critical acclaim. Hopefully Ghost of Yotei won’t just offer more of the same.

5/10

Gallery: Indiana Jones & The Great Circle

Now Playing: Frostpunk 2

I’d planned to pick up Frostpunk 2 at release but I simply couldn’t find the time to play it. And with reports of various bugs and balancing issues – that have now been (mostly) ironed out through patches – waiting was probably for the best.

Because I’m now pleased to say that Frostpunk 2 is a worthy sequel, but one that unfortunately lacks the strong narrative hook of its predecessor. As a fan of Frostpunk, I was both wary and excited by the prospect of a sequel – I wasn’t entirely convinced it needed one, to be completely honest.

It was hard to see how they could offer something new, but familiar. Something that retained the spirit of Frostpunk, but wasn’t just a repeat of the previous experience. But having now played it, I think they pulled it off quite successfully, delivering a new experience that – at its core (no pun intended) – is both very similar to the original but also very different.

Like the original game, Frostpunk 2 is about building, expanding and supporting a growing city in a frosty wasteland. It’s about gathering and balancing various resources that your city and its citizens need or desire. It’s about researching new technology, passing various laws and sending courageous expedition teams out into the wasteland in search of vital supplies or fellow survivors.

What’s different in Frostpunk 2 is the scale. Frostpunk 1 was a game of hours and days, of building individual roads and houses. At most, your city might house 600 to 700 citizens, and the notification of even a single death felt like a serious blow and a mistake you should have avoided.

Frostpunk 2, on the other hand, is a game of days and weeks, where you don’t build a single house, but entire housing districts, with your city population growing into the tens of thousands. Where hundreds may freeze to death during an unexpected cold snap and a lack of heat but you don’t even blink because you have another 50,000 more citizens to worry about.

And I think that’s kind of the point. Frostpunk 2, as a sequel, makes sense. The scale had to increase; the population had to increase. This isn’t a game simply about surviving the wasteland, but reclaiming it. And that’s reflected in the new ‘colony’ system that lets you establish new settlements throughout the wasteland, transferring supplies and citizens as needed. Frostpunk 1 was a game of civilisation on the brink of extinction, Frostpunk 2 is civilisation – having survived the storms – pushing back.

And I think that’s why Frostpunk 2 received a somewhat mixed reception at release from fans of the series – because whilst at its core it’s essentially the same game as Frostpunk, the increased scale meant you lost the more intimate, cosy, personal connection that you shared with your city and its citizens in the original game. Frostpunk 2 is a colder (excuse the pun) detached, and less personal experience.

Personally, I think that was the correct approach to take with this sequel. Similar – but different. A new perspective, a new scale and a new challenge. That said, I do agree that Frostpunk 2 lacks the strong narrative hook of the original. Frostpunk was about surviving a coming storm. Everything you did in the game was about preparing for that single event. It was a looming, ticking clock that you couldn’t escape and that forced you to make hard choices or impose tough laws upon your citizens if you wanted to survive. Even once you’d beaten it, you’d want to try it again to see if you could do better. It was a puzzle you wanted to keep solving.

Frostpunk 2 doesn’t have such a strong hook on which to build its campaign. It’s split into five different chapters, each of which presents its own unique goal and choices to the player. There is a storm in an early chapter to overcome, but the ‘whiteouts’ are no longer the threat they once were. Frostpunk 2 is a game that shows society has moved beyond survival and is now looking to reclaim what was lost.

The big focus in Frostpunk 2 is the new political faction system and as your campaign progresses, two factions will rise and enter into conflict. The final challenge of the campaign is dealing with a civil war that threatens to tear your city apart. There are a few ways you can go about resolving this situation, but ultimately, as a hook, it’s no storm to end all storms.

The campaign, overall, is still really good. There’s more variety here than in the original thanks to the separate chapters and their own unique story threads and choices, and the frostland map has far more locations and events to explore in addition to the new colony system.

It does feel a little more scripted than the original and in some ways, more tutorial heavy – like the real point of it is to prepare you for the sandbox Utopia Builder mode. I do like the new additions to the game, but I can’t say I find the faction system all that interesting to play with – it just feels like another ‘resource’ you have to try and balance rather than something that has any meaningful impact upon your city development.

And whilst I do like the new colony system, it does result in a fair amount of bouncing back and forth across the map, adjusting supply quantities and making sure each colony is either self-sufficient, or appropriately supported by or capable of supporting others. With an increased scale comes increased management – perhaps a little too much?

And I can’t say I love the UI – it gets pretty messy once you’ve unlocked more building types and you have to scroll through and then make sure you pick the correct variation you want. The hex based nature of the map also bothered me – but only because I prefer a neat, organised city, and Frostpunk 2 with its expanding districts means your city always looks a little bit of a mess – but I suppose more like a real, massive city actually would.

Overall, Frostpunk 2 is a solid and very enjoyable sequel but it feels like it could use some more refinement and a few more tweaks to its UI and faction system. As a base experience, I’d recommend Frostpunk 2 to any fan of the original, providing they understand that it offers a different experience and focus. But I do feel there’s more work to do here, and perhaps with the upcoming DLC releases, Frostpunk 2 will improve and fulfil its potential.

7/10

Suburban Killbot Year 13

TOO. MANY. GAMES! That’s the theme of this yearly update. Too many games, not enough time. I’m currently playing Ghost of Tsushima (review coming soon) and Tempest Rising (review coming next month) and I still have State of Decay 2 to get stuck into which I picked up back in the Steam Winter Sale.

But what’s this? Oblivion Remastered? Well shit, I got to pick that up. But I’ve still not played STALKER 2. Or Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2! And Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 just released and I’d like to give that a spin. But shit, the new DOOM is out soon too!

And what’s that? A Gears of War remaster? That’s cool, I enjoyed the original a lot back in the day on the 360. But I don’t know why I’ve seen so many people upset that it’s coming to other platforms – it’s a remaster of a 20 year old game. Get the f**k over it.

I also wanted to find time to play South of Midnight. That’s meant to be fairly short, so maybe I can squeeze it in somewhere. Oh, and I’ve still got some free games I claimed on Epic over Christmas to try.

This mosaic is getting too big. I might chop it down next year to just the games I’ve scored 9 or above.

Now Playing: Fire Emblem: Three Houses

Because I (mostly) enjoyed Fire Emblem on the GBA (via NSO) I decided to pick up and try a more recent entry in the long running series – Fire Emblem: Three Houses. Once you’ve chosen your character type and played through a short tutorial battle, you’re given the choice of ‘teaching’ one of the three titular Houses in a sort-of-but-not-quite military school.

Well, it’s actually a ‘monastery’ which is part of a Church that rules everything in the land and is happy to use violence to keep it that way. And your job is to train your students in the art of war – including the future rulers of the three empires of the land (all subservient to the Church, of course). In other words, your students are also your soldiers.

Each House has eight unique students that form the core of your ‘army’ and each House is led by one of the aforementioned rulers. You do get the option to recruit additional students and characters into your House, but I’ll touch upon that later. The game is split into two distinct parts – Part 1 plays out largely the same regardless of which House you choose as you focus on developing your students, improving their skills, picking their classes and boosting their ‘support’ levels with you and each other.

Part 2 is where things start to diverge as the plot will vary quite significantly depending upon your chosen House. You do continue to develop your students, but this section of the game is more streamlined so you’ll spend less time ‘teaching’ and more time progressing from battle to battle. And it’s the battles that I was always more interested in during my time with Fire Emblem on the GBA and the same is true here.

 

    

What kind of surprised me though is how instantly familiar everything felt. From the pre-battle map screen, to weapon types, classes and terrain bonuses it really doesn’t play any differently to that 20 year old GBA game. And that’s . . . kind of disappointing? I guess I was expecting a little more of an evolution to the formula. Don’t get the wrong idea – battles are still fun to play – but I thought there’d be a lot more new systems, weapons or classes to play with. There is some new stuff, but I don’t think the game pushes that stuff hard enough.

Maps, for example, really aren’t great. Some are quite big but the action is often contained to a limited section. And your unit count is oddly small – only a maximum of 12 characters – which when combined with the big maps, also makes the battles feel very small. Frankly, the GBA game had a more varied selection of map types and battle scenarios than Three Houses does.

There’s little in the way of new terrain effects or interesting layouts to be found. The game also recycles the same maps for the optional quest battles and it doesn’t even mix up the enemy placements – so you’ll sometimes fight the same enemies, on the same map in exactly the same configuration in several different quests.

From a strategy point of view, it doesn’t feel – at least to me – that Fire Emblem has really evolved, expanded or improved in any significant way. And maybe it doesn’t need to. Maybe fans of the series don’t really care. Maybe they’re far more interested in the character management and ‘relationship’ aspect that has evolved considerably from the GBA days.

Characters and their relationships was an important part of Fire Emblem on the GBA but it’s taken to an entirely new level in Three Houses. You’ll spend as much time – if not more – managing your students than you will on the battlefield. You’ll be buying them gifts, finding lost items, improving their motivation (making it easier for them to learn skills), inviting them to tea parties (don’t f**king ask) and speaking to them regularly to increase your ‘support’ level that does play a (somewhat minor) role in battles but is more about reaching S rank with certain characters so you get the option to marry them at the end of the game.

Which is a bit weird considering you’re their ‘professor’ but the game does feature a time skip at the start of part 2 – your character falls asleep for five years because . . . actually I don’t having a f**king clue why – so I guess it’s not as weird now that they’re older? But you won’t just spend your time grooming . . . I mean building your support with your students between main missions, you’ll also be busy building your own stats and ‘professor rank’.

You can go fishing, grow plants, flowers and vegetables, cook various dishes, invite characters to dine with you and visit shops. It’s . . . kind of a lot of busywork that does get a tad irritating as you go. Thankfully you can fast travel around the monastery once you’ve unlocked each area and that means you can avoid the terrible frame rate that dips quite a bit when you’re running about.

You can also ‘instruct’ your students which levels up their stats in the skills you’ve chosen for them to focus on. And you really need to decide early what kind of class and skills path you want everyone to take because grinding up those skills takes quite a bit of time and trying to switch classes or weapon skills later in the game will only be detrimental to your progress.

You also probably won’t want to recruit too many extra characters into your House because like I said, you can only a take a maximum of 12 into battle and you’re not going to evenly level everyone up if you’re constantly swapping people in and out – not unless you’re willing to do a lot of grinding per character.

I can’t say it wasn’t satisfying seeing my students get stronger, rank up their skills and develop into the cold-blooded killing machines I desired, but I probably didn’t need so much ‘social’ stuff mixed in and honestly, I reached a point quite early on when I just ignored most of it and skipped any ‘support’ cut-scenes between characters because I just didn’t care.

Three Houses feels like a game caught between two player bases – one that wants really engaging tactical battles and the other that just wants a relationship simulator – and it feels like this game is leaning more heavily in favour of the latter.

Thankfully, the battles in part 2 of the game are a little bigger and more engaging, and a lot of the other ‘social’ aspects take more of a back seat. And I do think I made a mistake when choosing the game difficulty because I set it to the default and that ended up proving just a tad too easy which probably made some of the tactical nuance related to terrain, support levels, special abilities and battalions less important than I’d like.

Or did it? Because I’m also wondering if all that bumping up the difficulty would really do is just make battles take longer. I won’t really know until I start another run with another House, and that’s thankfully going to be much easier as you can jump into a New Game Plus mode in which you carry over various skills and can quickly boost up your own stats and the levels of your students. And I do want to do that, because I really did enjoy my time with the game and I want to see how things shake out with the other two Houses. That said, whilst splitting the unique content across the three different Houses does give the game good replay value, it’s also something of a weakness.

Why? Well, it means that the story – which I did, overall like despite some really dumb and silly shit – feels like a puzzle with a lot of pieces missing if you only play as one House. You only get the full picture if you’re willing to play through them all. I probably will – eventually. Given it took me about 40 hours to finish one House, I’m not eager to jump straight into another just yet.

Oh, and the performance kind of sucks! Don’t tell me ‘it’s the Switch, what do you expect?’ because the game really doesn’t look good enough to have such a piss poor frame rate.

Overall, I did enjoy playing Fire Emblem: Three Houses and maybe if I’d played through every House I’d have a better appreciation of the overall package. But when a game locks so much unique content behind multiple paths and expects you to replay a lot of the same content to reach the new stuff, I don’t really see that as a good thing.

And from a strategy point of view, there’s nothing here that’s all that exciting. The battles are mostly okay and sometimes really good . . . but never great. The game felt more like a relationship simulator at times than a tactical strategy game and maybe that’s what the fans really want? I’m not going to say I didn’t enjoy the social aspects at all but I guess I just wanted more from the other side of the game. It’s certainly a unique kind of experience though and something I will be going back to in the future.

7/10

Steam Next Fest 2025

The first Steam Next Fest of 2025 had a few games that caught my eye, so I thought I’d write a little about each of them here.

The King is Watching is a fun little mix of tower defence and settlement management with a rogue-like twist. Your goal is to keep your castle standing for as many weeks as you can, as every week brings with it a new wave of enemies. You’ll construct various buildings within the walls of your castle to generate resources and train the soldiers you’ll need to defeat the enemy waves.

The castle has a limited number of building plots so you’ll need to chop and change depending upon what you need. But all buildings are only ‘active’ when you – the King – are ‘watching’ them and your gaze only extends (initially) to a handful of plots.

You can increase the range of your gaze, just as you can upgrade the limit of your soldiers but, as you can probably guess, doing so requires an increasing number of resources for each upgrade tier, and with waves of enemies attacking your castle regularly, the game becomes a balancing act between production and defence.

The rogue-like aspect is related not only to the randomised enemy waves, but the rewards you can receive and the upgrades you can unlock. And each new ‘run’ resets everything, although there is a selection of permanent modifiers you can unlock to give you an edge on future runs.

The King is Watching is a visually charming little game. Simple and repetitive, but fun. If the price is right, I can see this doing very well.

Tempest Rising is an RTS game that feels like someone really wanted to make a Command & Conquer sequel but couldn’t get the licence, so they decided to make it anyway and just change the names. There are two faction campaigns to play – the GDF (not to be confused with GDI) and the Tempest Dynasty (not to be confused with NOD).

The demo offered a couple of campaign missions for both factions and . . . yeah, this is a new Command & Conquer in all but name. There’s no live-action mission briefings, but you do get similar in-engine briefings instead. Once you’re in a mission, you’ll build a base and harvest Tempest (not to be confused with Tiberian) and recruit units to destroy the enemy and complete your objectives.

Your building types (power plant, barracks, refinery, silo etc) are exactly what you expect if you’ve played C&C and so are most of the unit types. I’m not saying Tempest Rising doesn’t have any new ideas of its own, and there are obviously aspects to the game that this demo doesn’t reveal such as an unannounced third faction – although it looks like that will only be playable in skirmish and I feel like it’s going to be something akin to the Scrin from C&C 3.

But . . . yeah, it’s unashamedly C&C in all but name. And I’m pleased to say, this demo was pretty fun to play. I’m not totally sold on the setting, perhaps because it does feel a little too much like off-brand C&C rather than something new. But it plays well, perhaps a little too fiddly at times with so many different unit abilities – but that’s something you learn as you go.

The missions were fun, with main and optional objectives, and there’s a neat campaign upgrade system that enhances your faction and units between missions. The demo even came with a few skirmish maps which was nice. I’m not totally sold on picking this up at release, but it’s something I’ll certainly keep my eye on.

Into the Dead: Our Darkest Days is a side-scrolling zombie survival game set in 1980s Texas. It is, essentially, This War of Mine with zombies – and that’s a pretty neat idea. I reviewed This War of Mine back in 2015 and I wasn’t really a fan, but it’s a game I’d like to try again some day to see how the ‘Final Cut’ edition stacks up.

Given how I disliked quite a few aspects of This War of Mine, I wasn’t sure how much I’d like Into the Dead. But whilst the basic gameplay structure is more or less the same, Into the Dead does do and allow you to do things a little differently and in ways that appeal more to me.

For a start, you’re not locked to a single shelter but can (and it appears must) relocate your survivors to new shelters in order to stay one step ahead of the zombie horde. You also assign tasks to each survivor during the day/night phases but aren’t forced to tediously watch or wait for said tasks to be completed.

You also have the option to leave your shelter and scavenge during the day or night. And controlling your survivors is a little more ‘hands on’ as you sneak, sprint, vault and fight your way through various locations. Like This War of Mine, your survivors have their own unique skills, needs and quirks and you’ll be splitting your time between scavenging for supplies, keeping your people healthy and/or sane, and improving your shelter.

But unlike This War of Mine, you’re not just passively waiting around for a (randomised) ceasefire, you’re actively seeking out clues that will let you prepare a plan for your survivors to escape the city. It’s not super impressive visually, but it looks decent enough. It’s going to release in Early Access first, so I’ll keep an eye on it and see how it shapes up.

Gallery: Dragon Age: The Veilguard