Tags: Avernum 4
<A href="http://pc.gamezone.com/">GameZone</a> has a <A href="http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r27697.htm">review</a> of <A href="http://www.avernum.com/avernum4/index.html">Avernum 4</a>. They score it at a <b>7.4/10</b>, faulting the graphics and it being a little too easy. Here's a bit on the combat:
<br>
<blockquote>One drawback (aside from the graphics issue) that I found also is the lack of strategic ability that could have been added into a game with a turn-based system like this, which would have really added to the overall gameplay. When combat begins, it runs similar to the combat mode in Eye of the Beholder on GBA. Basically, you move X spaces on a grid-like set of squares, then your enemies do the same … most of which (when melee based) will simply just run up to the nearest character to attack. Basically, most battles can be won (especially in the beginning) by just waiting when an enemy comes into view, because its pretty much a guarantee that they will run up to you, be out of action points, then you just surround him (or them) and beat the heck out of them. If you do happen to get into a bad spot and lose a character or two, have no fear … you can just walk through a nearby friendly settlement and your characters will come back … so you can just walk back where you were and try it again. While this was the main drawback, this is also a pretty big one and may cause some dislike. </blockquote>
<br>
In the beginning, combat is generally a little easy, sure. Later on, you'd better be fairly tactical about your approaches to dealing with spells, monsters, and such.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</A>
<A href="http://pc.gamezone.com/">GameZone</a> has a <A href="http://pc.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r27697.htm">review</a> of <A href="http://www.avernum.com/avernum4/index.html">Avernum 4</a>. They score it at a <b>7.4/10</b>, faulting the graphics and it being a little too easy. Here's a bit on the combat:
<br>
<blockquote>One drawback (aside from the graphics issue) that I found also is the lack of strategic ability that could have been added into a game with a turn-based system like this, which would have really added to the overall gameplay. When combat begins, it runs similar to the combat mode in Eye of the Beholder on GBA. Basically, you move X spaces on a grid-like set of squares, then your enemies do the same … most of which (when melee based) will simply just run up to the nearest character to attack. Basically, most battles can be won (especially in the beginning) by just waiting when an enemy comes into view, because its pretty much a guarantee that they will run up to you, be out of action points, then you just surround him (or them) and beat the heck out of them. If you do happen to get into a bad spot and lose a character or two, have no fear … you can just walk through a nearby friendly settlement and your characters will come back … so you can just walk back where you were and try it again. While this was the main drawback, this is also a pretty big one and may cause some dislike. </blockquote>
<br>
In the beginning, combat is generally a little easy, sure. Later on, you'd better be fairly tactical about your approaches to dealing with spells, monsters, and such.
<br>
<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.bluesnews.com">Blue's News</A>
