Space Siege Review

[GameBanshee News]

Big Download Blog has a write-up of Space Siege, and they don't like it much more than anyone else.

Much of the game's hype hinges on the player's decision to install cybernetic components. Installing cybernetics isn't necessary to win the game, but they provide performance bonuses, plus a number of special abilities and weapons will require some kind of cybernetic augmentation. However, installing cybernetic parts irrevocably lowers one's "humanity," measured by a humanity bar. Having cybernetic body parts mostly works in place of a difficulty slider. Staying 100% human will result in a more difficult game and installing new parts and unlocking special powers will ease that difficulty. Now, if the game were challenging to start with. We played through as completely human, partially augmented, and completely decked out with a robotic body. Apart from the coolness factor that comes from unlocking cyber-powers and carrying around gigantic cyborg-only guns, the enhancements only make a relatively easy game easier. With the exception of the final boss, you can plow through most of the game without much trouble. Lobbing a stun grenade followed by a handful of explosives is usually enough to wipe out most groups. Using upgrade components (the game's only collectible resource) alone to boost up armor, health and damage stats work extremely well in overcoming the game's enemies. Furthermore, there are two final tier powers reserved only for characters that manage to stay at least 90% human, and they make Seth so powerful that there's practically no point in cybernetics.

The game's greatest disappointment comes from shallow treatment of the "man or machine" theme. It's fine to leave the human or cybernetics decision to the player, but the feature doesn't have nearly as much impact as it should. There's not enough NPC interaction to judge whether cybernetics are really eating away at your humanity. Characters simply chime in over the radio to comment on whether or not you should install something to get a fighting edge. The end sequence generally hinges on one decision that doesn't directly relate to cyborg enhancements, but the game plays out the same way, right down to the final boss, using slightly altered dialogue and motivation. Similarly, there are only slight changes the end cinematic and narrative based on your decisions.

I am not surprised to hear "moral depth" is actually moral shallowness.

[Fiberfar]

Has Space Siege gotten one positive review at this point?

Looks like it could have been a good game (if they took the best parts from DS, DSII and added depth, plot and dialogue from Space Siege)

Too bad it doesn't have much of anything by the looks of it...

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Fiberfar

Has Space Siege gotten one positive review at this point?

One, yes. And half a dozen negative ones.

[Siberys]

Originally Posted by Brother None

One, yes. And half a dozen negative ones.

And according to internet rule #45, any review done of a game over and over suggesting the same lack of or goodness of features should be taken in exact opposite stride.

I'm buying Space Siege.

[DesR85]

I gave Kane & Lynch a go even though there are several bad reviews of it (including the 'controversial' Gamespot review). Unfortunately, it turned out as what most reviewers have been saying all along: Disappointing. Even worse than Freedom Fighters.

Not saying that I agree with the reviews 100%. If the negatives include very serious flaws, I'm avoiding the game entirely. That also include glowing reviews of over-hyped games. I have made a lot of bad purchase decisions in the past only to find out how disappointing a game really is both hands-on and the reviews.

Those people would be wrong. Space Siege is actually a survival horror game that's more closely related to isometric shooters like Shadowgrounds than action RPG's like Diablo.

Shadowgrounds? That's it. I'm avoiding this game entirely.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Siberys

And according to internet rule #45, any review done of a game over and over suggesting the same lack of or goodness of features should be taken in exact opposite stride.

Really?

I just figured that good or bad reviews are generally determined primarily by all sorts of factors, like PR and hype, but rarely actual game quality.

That doesn't mean "bad reviews is good game" or "good reviews is bad game" it just means "reviews don't mean anything".

I just refer to a handful of sites I feel I can trust, and if they agree the game has its strong points I'll start considering it.

Though to be fair, I was never interested in Space Siege. Demo was awful.

[Siberys]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Really?

I was being sarcastic.

It's really a matter of opinion, especially considering people still love Oblivion, and some of those people play it unmodded too.

However, that rule applies to me, that's for sure. Dungeon Lords, Mage Knight Apocalypse, and Loki: Heroes of Mythology got some pretty bad reviews but I enjoyed all three of them and was patient enough for Mage Knight and Dungeon Lords to come out with patches to fix a few necessary problems in the game.

[Fiberfar]

Originally Posted by Brother None

One, yes. And half a dozen negative ones.

I got the impression that "this game sucks, but we'll give it 4/5 anyways." out of reading that.