Codex Review RPG Codex Review: Battle Brothers

[Jimmious]

The experience is pretty engaging for a lot of people since the actual basic gameplay loop is so good and that is, for these people, myself included, enough.
To others maybe not

 

[Eyestabber]

But the vanilla game simply doesn't have enough content to keep the experience engaging past the first playthroughs.

The main issue is that late game becomes quite boring due to a terrible risk-to-reward ratio. AFAIK that was never fixed. However the game is amazingly fun and engaging for like 3-5 crisis or so. And the devs did release a lot more content over the years, so I'm not sure "lack of content" is still a valid criticism.

Replaying BB with the new expacs is def on my list, but underrail new expansion comes first so...

 

[Jimmious]

The main issue is that late game becomes quite boring due to a terrible risk-to-reward ratio

That's true. Also the late game is very grindy and quite slow since enemies have huge amounts of armor and big numbers so every battle takes quite a while to finish

 

[DJOGamer PT]

The main issue is that late game becomes quite boring due to a terrible risk-to-reward ratio

That too.
Another thing that bothered me about the late game is how a fully leveled character with good equipment can just mow down big groups without any serious repercussions or risks.
It was at that point that I decided that I just "won" the game, and there wasn't anything else it could offer me.

And the devs did release a lot more content over the years, so I'm not sure "lack of content" is still a valid criticism.

That's why I said the vanilla game...

 

[Eyestabber]

Stomping regular mooks isn't an issue, it's the expected consequence of your power growing. The late game still features some interesting challenges like the black monolith. Problem is that getting there involves some serious high risk/ low reward grind. And when it's done you're left with an unsatisfying "huh...I guess this is it?".

 

[ScrotumBroth]

You sure changed your tune since the first few pages.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

You sure changed your tune since the first few pages.

You referring to me or Eyestabber?

 

[ScrotumBroth]

You sure changed your tune since the first few pages.

You referring to me or Eyestabber?

Eyestabber

 

[Eyestabber]

You sure changed your tune since the first few pages.

You referring to me or Eyestabber?

Eyestabber

Did I? I don't quite remember everything I said ITT, it's been 3 years. My take on the game is quite simple: amazing early-to-midgame, gets kinda boring on the very lategame, you're better off restarting or playing something else. Have I ever said lategame was tons of fun? It should be noted, however, that "early-to-midgame" actually takes a LOT of time, perhaps even more so with the latest expacs, I dunno. If you want in-depth analysis of what exactly is "wrong" with BB, look up the game thread. Sarissofoi made some very good points, tho I disagree with his conclusion. I think the game is still pretty good, despite its flaws.

I clocked 760h into the game before starting to feel the initial "burnout". Very few games provided me with that much entertainment. The lategame issue is something 99% of players will never notice, simply because they won't play it long enough to have companies full of maxed out bros with maxed out gear. Perhaps the game needed its own "Cydonia or Bust" thing, but the developers chose to let the players have full control over their "game over" screen instead.

LOOK, here's a simple solution if you're on the fence: buy the game, create a company and put a stopwatch nearby to make sure you don't play it for longer than 2 hours. Refund it if you're bored within that time limit, because 100% of the game's merits lie in its core gameplay loop. If it fails to hook you from the getgo, the game just isn't your thing.

 

[Jimmious]

I also don't get the issue with the game being "not so interesting after 4-5 playthroughs".
I mean by then you'll have played what, 50-60 hours? Maybe more? Just how many hours of entertainment should a game like this provide to be deemed "worthy"?
I also have around 500 hours logged btw and I acknowledge the issues Eyestabber points out of course.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Absolute shit review for a great game. Some really weird criticisms too. Trees in between archer and target mess up line of sight... Ah, yes, physics are a bitch.

Only shieldmen, 2 handers, archers, duelist builds? Well how about throwers? Or how about nimble light armor shieldmen vs heavy battle forgged shieldmen? Nimble zweihanders vs battle forged pikemen? Builds around morale sapping vs berserkers? How many builds do you need? This game has a ton.

And the guy didn't even play on Ironman, which is THE ONLY way to play BB. Shame Roxorowski... SHAME!

 

[Darth Roxor]

that you in particular find this review shit only reinforces me in my conviction that i was right

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Ah, go back to playing Wushu Lo Mein... You edge walked for too long, and done lost your mind...

 

[BanEvader]

And when it's done your left with an unsatisfying "huh...I guess this is it?".

Very true. And then you just keep on grinding.
Also, you're.

 

[Mortmal]

Absolute shit review for a great game. Some really weird criticisms too. Trees in between archer and target mess up line of sight... Ah, yes, physics are a bitch.

Only shieldmen, 2 handers, archers, duelist builds? Well how about throwers? Or how about nimble light armor shieldmen vs heavy battle forgged shieldmen? Nimble zweihanders vs battle forged pikemen? Builds around morale sapping vs berserkers? How many builds do you need? This game has a ton.

And the guy didn't even play on Ironman, which is THE ONLY way to play BB. Shame Roxorowski... SHAME!

The battlebrother reddit is of better quality than the codex forums, there' more people who indeed speak of builds and how to build their bros. The game is cheap,well worth 50-100 hours of play at least now, really what else to request. But i really played this after getting every dlc at heavy discount, the game was less good when the review was published.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

The funniest thing about this review and thread is Roxor said the game gets boring after 25 hours, then people come in and they're like "Heresy! Lies! This game is great! It's at least 20 hours of entertainment!"

I did appreciate the short segue into the utter pointlessness of nihilism. Sort of... nihilism squared. Not wrong though.

But why on earth was this necroed, at least twice, in five years? Just sheer butthurt that some dude didn't like your favorite game? Or weirder yet, because while you agree with all his criticisms, he didn't try hard enough to win the game even harder? People are fucking weird, man...

So, Mr. Roxor, at what price point would you say this game was worth it? How much is 25 hours of enjoyable gameplay worth to you? I suppose that question applies to everyone else too...

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

What you forgot to consider is this:

Who the fuck cares? People have thousands of hours in fallout 3. Does that make it good?

Ok great. You like it. Why the hell would you necro the thread?

My impression is, the game is probably fun for about 5 hours, then peters off until you're like "Why am I even still playing this game?".

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

What you forgot to consider is this:

Who the fuck cares? People have thousands of hours in fallout 3. Does that make it good?

And people also have thousands of hours in Fallout 1, Gothics, Fallout: New Vegas, Euripa Universalis games, etc, thus making your statement have no point whatsoever.

Ok great. You like it. Why the hell would you necro the thread?

To point out the injustice of a retarded review of a beautiful game?

My impression is, the game is probably fun for about 5 hours, then peters off until you're like "Why am I even still playing this game?".

And my impression is, you sir are an idiot.

 

[Lios]

To be fair, Roxor's review (unless I'm mistaken) came before most of the DLCs, which means less weapons, less builds, less enemies, no origins etc etc. But to also be fair, even base or semi-base Battle Bros can potentially offer close to 100 hours of fun.

 

[Fargus]

Yep, the game definitely grew over the years. Origins, animal trophy hunting, crafting, more weapons, armor, artifacts, useables, enemies, addition of champion enemies, more bosses, more contracts and backgrounds, addition of arena fights and southern city state factions. The devs wanted to abandon it post release, but i'm glad they changed their minds.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

What you forgot to consider is this:

Who the fuck cares? People have thousands of hours in fallout 3. Does that make it good?

And people also have thousands of hours in Fallout 1, Gothics, Fallout: New Vegas, Euripa Universalis games, etc, thus making your statement have no point whatsoever.

The point being, the fact that people have played some large number of hours of a game is not an indicator of its quality. Your response would make sense if I was implying that the fact that someone spent thousands of hours meant that it was bad, but a non moron would easily grasp that I was obviously not saying that. Your butthurt has obviously infected your tiny brain.

Now, if you must defend thy lady's honor, why not bring up relevant details about it having been updated since the review, and then maybe even mention what about those updates makes it better than before? Do you understand the concept of a persuasive argument? I'll give you an example:

PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing. He makes non-sequitur arguments about numbers of hours played rather than considering more relevant details. He repeats the same claims without bothering to give examples, or even why the claims matter. He has a poor grasp of logic, and resorts to insults to cover for his obvious lack of intelligence.

See? I made a claim, then backed it up with various details and reasons. Now someone else could see my reasoning and decide for themselves "Oh yeah, PorkyThePaladin is pretty stupid" or "No, I disagree, smart people don't always grasp logic or make claims that make sense". They may or may not agree, but they at least have some context for my overall claim, which is that PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

To be fair, Roxor's review (unless I'm mistaken) came before most of the DLCs, which means less weapons, less builds, less enemies, no origins etc etc. But to also be fair, even base or semi-base Battle Bros can potentially offer close to 100 hours of fun.

Nonsense, the base game is a lot of fun and can be easily played for hundreds of hours. DLCs just add more fun on top of that.

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

What you forgot to consider is this:

Who the fuck cares? People have thousands of hours in fallout 3. Does that make it good?

And people also have thousands of hours in Fallout 1, Gothics, Fallout: New Vegas, Euripa Universalis games, etc, thus making your statement have no point whatsoever.

The point being, the fact that people have played some large number of hours of a game is not an indicator of its quality. Your response would make sense if I was implying that the fact that someone spent thousands of hours meant that it was bad, but a non moron would easily grasp that I was obviously not saying that. Your butthurt has obviously infected your tiny brain.

I love arguing with people with Homo erectus level IQs. Truly.

My post that you quoted and responded to about the number of hours played was in response to other morons of your ilk (and possibly you, I am too lazy to scroll back now), who explicitly said that BB can only be enjoyed for 25 hours or something along those lines. Thus you took my valid point to a previous argument, started arguing against it in the context of your own stupidity, and then when I showed you the error of your 2 brain cells, you strawmanned your way into another dumb argument, and had the gall to blame me for it. GJ but that's not going to work this side of Lasceaux Caves.

Now, if you must defend thy lady's honor, why not bring up relevant details about it having been updated since the review, and then maybe even mention what about those updates makes it better than before? Do you understand the concept of a persuasive argument?

Except I did bring up the relevant points earlier in the thread, but I understand how you missed them, what with having to constantly wipe your drool from your eyes.

I'll give you an example:

PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing. He makes non-sequitur arguments about numbers of hours played rather than considering more relevant details. He repeats the same claims without bothering to give examples, or even why the claims matter. He has a poor grasp of logic, and resorts to insults to cover for his obvious lack of intelligence.

And since I have demonstrated above that my argument about the number of hours was actually more sequitur than your ancestors descending from trees last year, it is evidently YOU who are bad at arguing, and thus may stick your puffy tail between your cloven legs and slither away from here.

See? I made a claim, then backed it up with various details and reasons. Now someone else could see my reasoning and decide for themselves "Oh yeah, PorkyThePaladin is pretty stupid" or "No, I disagree, smart people don't always grasp logic or make claims that make sense". They may or may not agree, but they at least have some context for my overall claim, which is that PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing.

The only context you have is the blurred outlines of my rapier-like wit carving a "drop mic" moment in your sizeable multipass ass. Porky out (for now).

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

To be fair, Roxor's review (unless I'm mistaken) came before most of the DLCs, which means less weapons, less builds, less enemies, no origins etc etc. But to also be fair, even base or semi-base Battle Bros can potentially offer close to 100 hours of fun.

Nonsense, the base game is a lot of fun and can be easily played for hundreds of hours. DLCs just add more fun on top of that.

I have almost a thousand hours in this game. So do many other people. Anyone who thinks it's only good for 25 hours is a moron on the scale of the original reviewer.

It takes several hundred hours to just begin to learn many of the more interesting mechanics of this game, and it is a shame that on a forum supposedly dedicated to complex computer games, the game that can be played and mastered over thousands of hours is shat upon by idiots who cannot even grasp that it needs to be played on Ironman mode to be experienced properly, or that it does indeed have a vast variety of builds.

What you forgot to consider is this:

Who the fuck cares? People have thousands of hours in fallout 3. Does that make it good?

And people also have thousands of hours in Fallout 1, Gothics, Fallout: New Vegas, Euripa Universalis games, etc, thus making your statement have no point whatsoever.

The point being, the fact that people have played some large number of hours of a game is not an indicator of its quality. Your response would make sense if I was implying that the fact that someone spent thousands of hours meant that it was bad, but a non moron would easily grasp that I was obviously not saying that. Your butthurt has obviously infected your tiny brain.

I love arguing with people with Homo erectus level IQs. Truly.

My post that you quoted and responded to about the number of hours played was in response to other morons of your ilk (and possibly you, I am too lazy to scroll back now), who explicitly said that BB can only be enjoyed for 25 hours or something along those lines. Thus you took my valid point to a previous argument, started arguing against it in the context of your own stupidity, and then when I showed you the error of your 2 brain cells, you strawmanned your way into another dumb argument, and had the gall to blame me for it. GJ but that's not going to work this side of Lasceaux Caves.

Now, if you must defend thy lady's honor, why not bring up relevant details about it having been updated since the review, and then maybe even mention what about those updates makes it better than before? Do you understand the concept of a persuasive argument?

Except I did bring up the relevant points earlier in the thread, but I understand how you missed them, what with having to constantly wipe your drool from your eyes.

I'll give you an example:

PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing. He makes non-sequitur arguments about numbers of hours played rather than considering more relevant details. He repeats the same claims without bothering to give examples, or even why the claims matter. He has a poor grasp of logic, and resorts to insults to cover for his obvious lack of intelligence.

And since I have demonstrated above that my argument about the number of hours was actually more sequitur than your ancestors descending from trees last year, it is evidently YOU who are bad at arguing, and thus may stick your puffy tail between your cloven legs and slither away from here.

See? I made a claim, then backed it up with various details and reasons. Now someone else could see my reasoning and decide for themselves "Oh yeah, PorkyThePaladin is pretty stupid" or "No, I disagree, smart people don't always grasp logic or make claims that make sense". They may or may not agree, but they at least have some context for my overall claim, which is that PorkyThePaladin is a stupid person who is bad at arguing.

The only context you have is the blurred outlines of my rapier-like wit carving a "drop mic" moment in your sizeable multipass ass. Porky out (for now).

Lol ok that's pretty funny. I guess I didn't get the bit at first. Well played sir.