|
quinns
|
|
I know this doesn't have anything to do with Civilization (directly), but I couldn't resist. I think some of you will enjoy it! 
-------------------------
Game Review of Chess
The latest offering in the rapidly overflowing strategy genre is hard evidence
that strategy games need a real overhaul, and fast. Chess, a small-scale
tactical turn-based strategy game, attempts to adopt the age-old "easy to
learn, difficult to master" parameter made popular by Tetris. But the game's
cumbersome play mechanics and superficial depth and detail all add up to a
game that won't keep you busy for long.
Chess casts you as king of a small country at war with a rival country of
equivalent military power. There is little background story to speak of, and
by and large the units in the game are utterly lacking any character
whatsoever. The faceless, nondescript units are dubbed arbitrarily such
labels as "Knight" and "Bishop" while their appearance reveals nothing to
suggest these roles. To make matters worse, the units on both playable sides
are entirely identical aside from a simple color palette swap.
The setting of the conflict is equally uninspiring and consists merely of a
two-color grid so as to represent the two warring factions. Adding insult to
injury, there is only one available map - and it's pathetically small, an 8x8
matrix (Red Alert maps are up to 128x128 in size). The lack of more
expansive battlefields makes Chess feel like little more than an over-glorified
Minesweeper.
In a definite nod to Tetris, Chess eschews any kind of personality and styling
in order to emphasize its supposedly addictive gameplay. Unfortunately, that
gameplay is severely lacking. For one thing, there are only six units in the
game. Of those six, two are practically worthless while one is an
overpowered "god" unit, the Queen. She's your typical Lara Croft-esque
1990s "me, too" attempt to attract the fabled gaming girl audience from out
of the woodwork to help solidify a customer base for a game that simply
cannot sell itself on its own merits. The Queen can attack in any direction
and she is balanced solely by the fact that both sides are equally equipped
with only one. Otherwise, the functions of the six Chess units feel entirely
arbitrary. For instance, Rooks can only move in horizontal lines, unable to
attack enemies at diagonal angles; yet Bishops can move diagonally, but not
horizontally.
The result is a frustratingly unrealistic effort at creating balance and strategy
where there is, in fact, very little of either element to be found. Inexplicable
pathing problems also plague Chess - the irritating Pawns can only move
straight ahead, but for some reason or other they attack diagonally. Worst of
all, your units are always deployed in exactly the same fashion. While there
might have been some strategic element involved in cleverly deploying one's
troops around the undeniably constricted map, the designers saw fit to
enforce a "rule" about how the game should be set up. In the end, Chess
matches may often go on for a great length of time because your Pawns
always begin in front of your more useful forces, thereby blocking them off.
Only two players can compete simultaneously, thus severely limiting any play
life to be found. There is only one gameplay mode - no capture the flag or
team play - and that involves the two players taking turns moving their units
one by one. The moment a player's King is threatened, that player is placed
in a state of "check." At this point, the player must defend his King with
whatever means are available. If he cannot defend his King, he is defeated.
Yawn. All units are killed by a single hit, so even a lowly Pawn can be
instrumental in defeating an opponent if you plan accordingly. While the
artificial balance of forcing equivalent deployment for both sides turns Chess
into something of a battle of wits, the turn-based play is poorly paced and
never really picks up speed until halfway through a game, if then. And half
the time, because of the limited troops available (and no resources with
which to purchase more), matches end in disappointing stalemates.
This game attempts to accredit itself by virtue of its tactical play mechanics.
Yet those mechanics are tedious and difficult to grasp and exacerbate
Chess's other numerous failings. In fact, should you actually memorize all the
infuriating little rules governing how the game is played, you'll find yourself
growing weary of it all in short order. There's just no payoff to a properly
executed game, because the restrictions on the units mean there's a "right"
way to play. Thus no real variety can exist between competent players. The
sluggish turn-based nature of Chess bogs the package still further and
renders this strategy game an irreverent exercise in wasted time for all but
the most die-hard turn-based strategy enthusiasts. It's more than likely that
Chess, due to its self-conscious though not entirely elegant simplicity, will
garner a small handful of fans. But in light of this game's boundless oversights
and limitations, there is no chance it could ever enjoy the sort of success that
makes games like Westwood's C&C: Red Alert and Blizzard's Warcraft II
the classics they are to this day.
|
15-08-2001 02:19
I hear the latest versions of this game has superior AI. Rendering the SP game almost completly unwinable to all but saddest freaks.
|