Reseñas recientes de Etheras

I've played this game for over 350 hours at this point, and I'm still playing it. "How can you give it a negative review," you might ask.
Maybe its Sunk Cost Fallacy, or maybe just darn stubbornness. And I do intend to play it more. But do I think it is "worth playing"? No. If I knew what I know now, I would have never played Starfield. Its a big empty grind-fest. There is far too much procedural content. Some games have used procedural generation to increase replayability, but in Starfield its too cookie-cutter. It *feels* procedural.
The economic balance is out of whack, which leads to nothing having any real value. Which also leaves you with little to strive-for.
The story is weak, and the characters are terrible. And the game is full of procedurally-generated missions to just waste your time.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: Defeat the evil Sony juggernaut using the new review-bomb strategem.

Super Earth Command is saved, Helldiving may resume per-usual.


Ok, funny stuff aside. The "PSN Incident" is a pretty major black-eye. I suspect that a lot of players will never return. It showed a lot of bad faith on the part of the publisher, and weakness on the part of the developer to say "NO" to Sony when they -knew- that there would be backlash (so-says Arrowhead's CEO).
Arrowhead: make changes that make the game better. If you know players will hate a change, why do it?
Sony: shut up, sit back and let Arrowhead hand you millions of dollars. Stop trying to control everything.

I will go back to playing, but I suspect it won't be the same, knowing that Sony can unilaterally swoop in and require some BS that makes me choose between my data privacy and my progress ingame. (There should be laws against unilateral TOS/EULA changes after the player has bought the game like this.)

The stuff you buy for your ship will not feel like "your's" anymore, knowing it can be taken away at a moment's notice by Sony's overreaching greed. I certainly won't be trying as hard to complete my Super Destroyer because all this will feel more temporary going-forward. We will see how much this... incident... sours the fun / escapism of the game.

Its possible HD2 will never recover from what Sony did.

Let this be a lesson to game devs out there: beware of control-freak publishers. They can destroy all the good-will and rapport and enthusiasm of your community. They can flush years of your work down the toilet in an instant from unreasonable policy demands. Find publishers who are about making a great game, not just milking it for cash (or user data or whatever metric they want to announce at the annual stockholder meeting).

Too many jumping puzzles and boss battles where you're just soaking damage with no cover.

Game has some nice combat arenas where you're weaving around slaying demons like a doomslayer should, but the frustrating BS that they put you through between the fun parts just turns this into a frustrating pile of garbage.

Not a fan.

I like the idea of this game, but micromanaging the crew is frustrating. The controls are completely wonky. The "paint target" mechanic is silly, and there are missing obviously vital features like "return to base even though the mission is incomplete" ... like so that you can save your crew if the 3rd sub never pops in sub hunt.

Yes, you heard that right. Bugged mission, and you can't even return home, basically instakills your bomber with all hands, and all your progress is lost.

You can't even choose missions according to preferred difficulty. Missions scale with you. So even if you want a low-risk mission, say, to level up a new char, or perhaps you just aren't ready to take the step up to medium missions, if most of your crew is medium, you will only get medium and up missions.

This is just my first time playing, but after 2 hours, I really am disappointed. I'm not sure I'll come back

I have the by-far the largest empire in the game, and yet other empires have bigger fleets. One empire literally only has 3 star systems and somehow they are keeping up with me (I have like 50+). Either the tutorials don't cover some extremely vital mechanic that I am missing, or the enemy AI cheats.

The painfully-slow research is annoying, especially beside the spammy-fast anomaly investigations and excavations. Some discoveries pause the game and resume when you close the window and others don't, leaving the game in a questionable state of play when multiple discoveries pop at once.

Its weird that you need influence to take star systems, and getting influence is extremely tedious. Alloys are by-far the most vital resource in the game (needed for starbases and ships) and its also among the rarest, so it becomes a tedious chore to wait for it to fill up to where you can build larger ships like cruisers.

The screenshots show beautiful space battles, but you usually only see space battles from afar. The game likes to default you to a top-down very 2D view, where all ships are on a plane. It doesn't even look good. The engine trails aren't generated continually, but are instantiated as the ship flies, resulting in a sort of artificial "pulsing" that looks like trash and shows the underlying implementation. (why aren't they using particles?)

Its not the worst 4X game I've played (Endless Space), but its not the best I've played either (Galactic Civilizations II). I'd say Stellaris is just mediocre.

I love this game IN CONCEPT, but the game is 100% broken by RNG.

Trying for days and days to get fascination to combine spells, only for it to get grabbed by one of those magnet things that appear every so often. Its just stupid.

Also the diceroll system is bugged. I simply do not believe that an inspector survived a level 7 knife, and 2 level 6 knives in a row. Game itself said that the inspector was "unlikely to survive" before I sent every one of them.

I can understand a crit fail on a diceroll. That happens from time to time, but 3 in a row? Come on now. That's a bit silly.

This game needs to be redesigned so that its not so RNG-based, which I think is impossible considering how basically the entire game is nothing but dicerolls.

Farcry meets Red Dawn in an urban setting!
Also you get to kill commie scum! 10/10

My favorite parts were the Yellow Zones, which are more stealthy than the more "Farcry" Red Zones. In the Yellow Zones, you can see your impact. With every loudspeaker you sabotage and raid point you capture, more NPCs graffiti the walls with rebel slogans, more citizens stand up to collaborators, etc. Its fun to see the zone transform into outright rebellion.

This is just-about the most relaxing game I've ever played. I love it so much!

DOOM Eternal is a strong successor to DOOM 2016.

There are some problems with DOOM Eternal, especially in the early game. But as the game evolves, abilities unlock, and the Slayer levels-up, you regain that sense of power and finesse that made DOOM 2016 so satisfying.

DOOM Eternal is so GOOD that I am not going to make a list of positives because it would be too long. Instead, I'm just going to list the bad things.

The bad things

1. A lack of ammo. Ammo capacity is absurdly small, especially in the early game (capacity is one of the attributes that you can level). This problem is compounded since many weapons reuse ammo types, and higher-power weapons consume that ammo more quickly. There is no "infinite ammo" primary weapon in the early game (no pistol that recharges like in 2016). Even in the late game, this problem is very annoying. Its just another thing you need to constantly watch, when you should be concentrating on how you're going to Rip & Tear through the hordes of demons.
   
2. Very floaty. Once again: more of an early-game problem, but some of the early arenas you spend most of your time in the air. It isn't necessarily a problem, except that DOOM 2016 felt a lot more grounded, so if you are trying to recapture and build-on the 2016 experience, the vast open-air arenas populated by jump pads and swing bars don't feel the same.
   
3. Jumping puzzles, WTF. The main puzzle I want to solve in DOOM is "how am I going to slice through this wave of demons". I feel like the jumping puzzles are a departure from the main reason why DOOM 2016 had such a large fanbase: the satisfying combat.
   
4. Targeting "Weak Points" on large demons. Once again: it interrupts the flow to have to stop and switch attachments to target down a particular area. I think this makes sense on bosses, but for regular demons... even large tough demons... detracts from the overall experience.
   
5. At least one of the boss fights is needlessly annoying. I'm sure you'll know what I mean when you see it.

Horribly unfinished, but playable for a chunk of the early story (you get a stability warning eventually and start to lose sound clips and stuff).

Its basically the old Subnautica formula in a new environment, and it stands-up as well as the original. If you enjoyed the original, you are likely to enjoy this one.

But is it as good as the original? So far: no.

1. The calamity that starts the game is less believable than the starship crash from the original. That original calamity explained the scattered debris (which was also visually interesting) and why you needed to scan wrecked stuff in order to recreate it. In Below Zero, the calamity seems a bit silly, doesn't produce regions of interesting wreckage, and doesn't explain why there is scannable debris all over the ocean floor.
   
2. There is new mystery, but less than the original. In the original, every plant and fish was new to the player, and you needed to figure out how to use them, which were dangerous, etc. While some of that exists in Below Zero, a lot of assets seem to have been reused, reducing the player's overall sensation of being in an alien and unknown environment.

I just realized that "below zero" has a secondary meaning. Heh. Cute, whoever named that. There's an alien base called Zero. So I assume there must be something interesting BELOW Zero?

One aspect that is improved over the original is that you get the general habitat earlier. I would argue that, in the original, basic essential habitat bits are unlocked too late in the game.

One other aspect that is perhaps both good and bad, is that the story walks you though the game a bit more thoroughly, and is therefore a bit more structured. I would argue, for example, that the original relies on you stumbling-upon certain essentials... which means, at some point you had to exhaust all quests and wander around. That does lead to exploration, which is good, but some players might get stuck saying "what now?" wander around for a bit, find nothing, and quit. In Below Zero, quests are clear if you follow them, you will find yourself discovering locations that, in the original, you would have stumbled-upon.