I didn't mind that it was difficult to tell which borders matched, but i really only needed two or three levels where that was the main challenge, rather than 50% of the levels. The open levels where it was more about figuring out what jumps were possible were more my taste.

The problem, which you see especially in the 3x3 grid levels, is that sliding block puzzles are kind of tedious, and with a grid that large you do a lot of sliding (especially with trial and error.) 4x4 would have been intolerable. 

Particularly irritating in the last level where in many cases you couldn't work out by eye which blocks did connect, so you had to shuffle them all around the 3x3 square, and then if they didn't, try out another. On earlier levels, it was quite satisfying to work backwards through a chain of tiles. "The key is there, and you can only get to it from the right...that tile is the only one that connects it from the left...I need to drop down on it....so I want to move to this tile!".

But I agree that the best puzzles were the ones where you had to make big leaps of faith, switching tiles in mid jump etc. Can you do that thing like in portal where you reach terminal velocity by lining up the portals vertically - constantly falling between two tiles? Imagine if you could rotate the tiles and do portal-style flinging! 

I played through the first eight (ten? dunno...) levels and sort of enjoyed it, but it got old kind of quickly and I wasn't really having enough fun to continue. Seemed pretty easy, but granted, it was early-on.

I've been playing Protector III for the last few nights, and finally finished it last night. It's similar to many tower-defense type games, but with quite a bit more depth and continuity than some (and some of the levels are quite difficult). Very addictive!! (At least it was for me.)

http://www.kongregate.com/games/undefined/protector-iii

It *will* remember your progress, so no need to do it all in one go (assuming you were that crazy anyway--it took me quite a few hours to finish it...) 

Games are like crack.

Thanks for posting :D 

Although difficulty seems odd and inconsistent. Some of the "medium" difficulty maps took me a lot of work to figure out, and some "hard" maps I got on the first try. And I beat the final uber-map on the first try too. Go figure... 

Anyone tried Battlefield Heros yet? 

I heard they were switching payment models to really suck customers dry with those microtransactions but other than that it was fun. 

After so many positive reviews I was really looking for to Butcher Bay. Typically the big-sceen to computer-screen, film to game adaption doesn't work very well. So it's easy to assume it would have been a flop. But in fact it was a very favourably received underdog.

Nevertheless, it was with it's flaws; but perhaps my expectations were too high. Comparing the graphics to other 2004 releases like Doom 3, it wasn't quite as flash. The level design the majority of the time was good, but nothing really stood out. There were few fantastic set pieces. However, there weren't supposed to be. The game takes place entirely in a prison, mostly underground. You fight from the typical bland prison on the surface, to underground caverns, more high secure prisons, guards quarters and more. However, it is slightly disappointing that the entire game takes place in one prison. We never really get a huge variety in gaming environments. Overall, however, the design and graphics definitely live up to 2004 standards.

The gameplay was mostly good, depending on your gameplay preferences. Personally, I'm not one for the Thief style of gameplay. That is, sneaking around in shadows avoiding enemies. I'm also not one for having to complete tedious little tasks to proceed further into the game. EFBB features far too much of this. What I come for is pure action, and probably only 50% of the game features this. The tasks are boring, especially since the parts of the game that require tasks are some of the more bland looking areas.

What action we do get in EFBB, you get limited with just a few different weapons, and probably less than ten enemies to use them on, all with rather poor AI. Not a lot of variety, but it still throws up a decent challenge and fun on the most part.

The other problem wih EFBB is it's short campaign. Although I'm starting to get used to this after Call Of Duty and it's mission pack were both equally as short. Are games becoming shorter because of the extended detail gamers require in every facet of the game? I finished EFBB within one day. In three sittings to be exact, but I could have done it in one sitting.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd want another five hours trapsing around Butcher Bay anyway. It would have to at least introduce a new environment.

So overall, despite this sound like a negative review, the game actually was very good. Exceptional design and graphics, although not quite up to Doom 3, not far off it! And decent gameplay when you actually get to fight. Very much recommended. I only regret I didn't play the enhanced version released with Dark Athena.

PS. the game was a nightmare to setup and featured two game stopping crashes. It required an Open GL fix and latest EU patch, along with someone elses save games for me to continue. 

http://www.remar.se/daniel/iji.php 

Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault is up next on my list. I hope it looks better than the first Call of Duty. Screenies look better anyway.

BTW anyone played Overlord 2 yet? The graphics look so cute!!! 

I think it looked about the same, but its still fun.

I was a big fan of riddick, probably because it was different to your regular FPS at the time and parts of it just looked damn cool. 

You should read your reviews before posting them - you often start a paragraph by stating something, then spend the remainder of the paragraph contradicting that statement. Example:

"The gameplay was mostly good" ... " The tasks are boring" ... "What action we do get in EFBB, you get limited with just a few different weapons, and probably less than ten enemies to use them on, all with rather poor AI"

Or above that "Comparing the graphics to other 2004 releases like Doom 3, it wasn't quite as flash" vs "Overall, however, the design and graphics definitely live up to 2004 standards".

What is it? Was it not as flash as other 2004 games, or did it indeed live up to those standards? Maybe my English isn't good enough, but I can't make out what you are trying to say with that review. 

haha i know dude i was contradicting myself a bit. what i meant was it wasn't as good as doom3, and maybe halflife2 and thief3. but it was better than everything other than those 3 i think (not that i played everything).

the reason why i do these reviews is actually so that in 10 years when i decide to play these games again, i'll know what to expect, so they tend to talk about all the negative stuff even when something is 'mostly good'.

oh and i can't be bothered proofreading it anyway 

Alright. Now we can discuss why you think that Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are in the same league - I'd say that HL2 > D3! 

please. 

Because graphics are the main criteria for judging games... 

 

yeah for me graphics are easily the most important thing. i find it weird how all these top reviewers like gamespot and ign never even mention "level design" and architecture and stuff like that. and all their screenshots never feature the actual level design - it's always some stupid action shot.

but anyway, i can't argue hl2 vs doom3 because i'm yet to play hl2. doom3 had great potential, the engine is a winner (i'm guessing better than hl2's engine), but ruined by the corridor style levels. in terms of detailing, doom3 had WAY more detail in it's design than Riddick did. and the lighting was better. i'm assuming in terms of level design that hl2 > d3, won't know for sure till i play it. 

Go and play HL2. 

 

HL2 Ep2 was pretty awesome, amd the best of the three parts IMO. Ep1 has some awesome bits, as does HL2. We dont go to Ravenholm.
Neither topped Half Life 1, just for epicness and the setting (the grand-canyon backdrop in HL1 really added to the feeling of scale, and immersion).
Whe is that Black Mesa mod coming out for HL2?
But no - I think that Doom3 was good for graphics, but the gameplay does suck compared to Half Life 2. 

saving it for the christmas break myself. 

Doom3's gameplay didn't suck, exactly. it only sucked because there was no variation in it.
it's not like the gameplay couldn't handle something like the grand canyon map from HL1, but that no one on the d3 team made one. :S 

Harcore shootin'! Like the original prequels in that respect. One of my favourite games.
But the Half Life series had a more involved story aimed at a more mature audience, more puzzle solving and exploration, much more varied gameplay on the whole. Better AI/combat too.

Two different things altogether really. Although they do have many parrallels. A bit like whiskey and beer :D 

And shandy, with a cool cube of advanced light ice floating in the shandy.