are1981 Posted October 11, 2012 Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) Worms Revolution released yesterday, October 10th. The game has been advertised as a new but familiar Worms game, with completely new strategic elements and features. Because of this, I have been eagerly waiting for several months. Tuesday evening, the day before release, I pre-ordered the PS3 version. I started playing that night. I never buy games on release day or shortly after, because they rarely are properly fixed and finished until a few months past their release date, unless it is a Nintendo game, because they seldom have severe errors in their games. This time, the bonus of getting Worms Crazy Golf for free when pre-ordering, along with reading positive reviews, convinced me that it was worth NOK 99 (£10.8, €13.4). How I should have followed my well established policies! I have played the single player campaign for a handful of hours, and my experiences are listed below. Problems with the game, listed in order of severity, from severe and joy-removing to distracting and irritating: The game lags when the 'camera' moves, every time; it looks like the frame rate at times decreases as low as 10 fps. The AI worms can 'think' for 10 to 30 seconds, just to skip the turn. Horizontal rendering resolution looks like around 500 lines (except HUD), just too low to be on PS3. The textures are very poor when in medium to close view. Edges in environment are very jagged. I am not exaggerating! Please believe me! To compare, I will use Donkey Kong Country Returns as an example. While I adore that game, it could of course have looked sharper in HD. So how does Worms Revolution compare? Donkey Kong Country Returns' pixel resolution looks higher than that of Worms Revolution! Donkey Kong Country Returns' textures looks better than those in Worms Revolution! Donkey Kong Country Returns' environments are smoother and less jagged than those in Worms Revolution! Donkey Kong Country Returns' frame rate looks like it runs twice that of Worms Revolution, and I cannot remember seeing DKCR's frame rate ever slowing down! Imagine that! A game on Wii beating a 'HD' game on a HD console on every account with regards to visual presentation and performance. Worms Revolution is fun, but there just are too many problems! I should have waited, as usual, and evaluated the game after reading more reviews and gamers' arguments a few months from now. How is it possible to fail so badly? Maybe it can be fixed by Team 17. But will they? Maybe it is to severe to be fixed via a patch. Time will show, but I am baffled they released this wreck of a game! Reviews I read, heard and watched before I purchased the game; all positive: http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/03/worms-revolution-review http://www.nowgamer.com/xbox-360/xbox-live-reviews/1624445/worms_revolution_review.html The review I should have read: http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/worms-revolution A question related to the positive reviews above, and also a problem with many other reviewers: Why are many game journalists so extremely afraid to be critical? Have they no pride in their work at all? Edited October 11, 2012 by are1981
Magnus Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 I hear that to play local co-op in this game, everyone either needs their own profile, or they have to clone another player's team, meaning you'd get four teams of Bob 1-4, Bill 1-4, and so on. And of course they've left empty slots in the weapons menu for DLC, so that's nice of them. I spent about ten minutes reading up on this game on Wednesday, and that's all I needed to realize that it's not worth the hassle until they fix the many problems the game seems to be having. We must frequent different parts of the internet. Well, obviously we do, because I wouldn't be caught dead trusting an IGN review. :p
Cube Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 Why can't they just do a remake (i.e. do nothing but upgrade the graphics) of Armageddon?
Shorty Posted October 14, 2012 Posted October 14, 2012 The worms series is a shell of its former self. That inspired and original gameplay was improved upon exactly twice in the original games' immediate sequels, and has gone downhill ever since. XBLA games since have been decent, but inexplicably limited despite being almost entirely ports of W2/Armageddon. I still have Worms 2 on CD, and if I want to play a proper game of Worms, with 8 worms per team, good AI, a world builder and fully customisable options, I'll just fire that up.
Cube Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 almost entirely ports of W2/Armageddon. Worms 2: Armageddon is nothing like Worms Armageddon.
Shorty Posted October 15, 2012 Posted October 15, 2012 It is though. Port was the wrong word, but they're all built on that same style and gameplay that began there. It's just that they've actually gotten worse in many respects, and better in very, very few. Nothing new or fresh was added to the series until flowing water in this latest title, and according to the posts above, that was far from enough to breathe any new life into the games.
Recommended Posts