There are some who call me… Tim?

Yeah, you know it, new review.

Battlefront 2 was released in 2005 by LucasArts. It is largely an FPS, though there are some elements of spaceship combat in it.

Story: I’m going to neglect story for this one, since the story here is Star Wars. If your not familiar with Star Wars, I will refer you to here.

Visual Appeal: To be honest, when I was a little surprised to discover the release date was as late as 2005 because of the graphics. Although better then it’s predecessor, Battlefront 1, the level of graphic intensity is something I would have expected more in 2001 or 2002. Sort of disappointing, but still looks decent.

Because it falls short of the bar by several years, but not so much to detract from the game, I’m giving Battlefront 2 a 5/10 for visual appeal.

Interface: The interface is pretty intuitive: uses the common FPS mouse and WASD. My only complaints is that in Vista, scrolling down with the mouse scroll will change weapons but scrolling up will not. This has been true across a variety of mice. The spaceship combat uses the same controls, where W-S are acceleration and deceleration, and you look with the mouse. Spaceships even have afterburners which work the same as sprinting does in ground combat.

All in all, the interface in Battlefront 2 is easy to use, but I don’t feel it was really very creative. 8/10

Gameplay: The gameplay can get very intense, which is the strength of this game. Usual single player games have 50 or 60 soldiers on each side from a variety of classes. The AI is good enough that you see plenty of flanking, class changing to counter things, etc., making it an interesting game even to play on your own. Because this, however, a few of the game modes can be very frustrating, as you would rather be at more then one part of the map at once, since any decent player becomes a game changing super-soldier.

Despite it’s flaws, the game is fun to mess around with, earning a 9/10 for gameplay.

Difficulty: Difficulty is sort of a problem for Battlefront 2. As far as single player goes, if your any good at FPS’, Battlefront 2 won’t provide much of a challenge, even with the difficulty turned up. Multiplayer is a little different, since it depends more heavily on how good your opponent is rather.

Because of it’s lack of difficulty in single player, I’m giving it a 6/10 for Difficulty.

Replay Value: Battlefront 2’s medal system gives you an advantage if you play a lot. Newbies have to fend for them selves, vetrans get better weapons after enough kills, and even more advanced players get better weapons upon spawning. This means that a lot of the game becomes farming medals, but still enjoyable. The unfortunate fact is, however, Battlefront 2 is a little repetitive and become an excercise in doing the same thing over and over again.

Since repetitiveness is such a big problem, I’m giving Battlefront 2 only 5/10 for replay value.

Overall: I enjoy Battlefront 2. Not one of my top 10 games, but decent. It scores a 6.6/10.

Screenshots:

Droids!

Bombs Away!

That is it for the Battlefront 2 review.

Hope you enjoyed!

Jumble, End Post

Comments(1)

Well, finally, here it is. What was I doing in the mean time? Thats a looong story.

Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura was released in 2001 by Troika Games and Sierra Entertainment. Initial reponse was good, but somewhat critical.

Story: Lets talk briefly about Arcanum’s story. In all honesty, the story is what made the game so amazing for me. Winding and meandering, and sometimes slow, the plot has slowly grows, deepening the mystery of Arcanum. Although predictable in some parts, there are some major plot twists that end up throwing you off towards the end of the game. What really astonished me is that the story is so inevitable and fluid that killing several of the important NPCs that play crucial roles in the plot does not stop you from finishing the game. In fact, there are several points in which you could choose any of 3 or 4 completely different paths through major plot points, taking place in different cities, with different people. Of course, the “main” path is the most obvious, but they provide interesting finds to vetrans. In addition to the main plot, Arcanum has more possible side quests, and much deeper stories for their side quests then any other game on the market, including recent games such as Mass Effect.

Arcanum’s Story easily scores a 10/10, and I don’t give that lightly.

Visual Appeal: This is a place where Arcanum falls a little short. Admittedly, as a game that premiered in 2001, we cannot expect it to place too well among the beautified realm of modern games. Beyond even this, some of the particle effects, and a lot of the sprites, are unnecessarily pixelated. This is something they should have shored up a little before releasing the game.

Never the less, the graphics aren’t bad for their time, so I’m giving it a 6/10.

Interface: The Arcanum interface is largely intuitive. Sadly, a few short comings show up here and again, involving the fact that the hotbar does not actually allow you to use hotkeys to use potions (something that will cost in combat). Magic, which potentially plays a very powerful role in the game, is sometimes hard to use in combat without hitting two or three buttons that could have just been streamlined out. The Interface design itself is pretty with a steampunk tune to it; even before steampunk was popular.

For interface, Arcanum earns itself a 7/10.

Gameplay: Arcanum’s gameplay is a little choppy too. While the roleplay and speaking parts you play have a huge effect on the plot that is unraveling, as well as the final outcome of the game, the combat is lacking. Because of the annoying feature of having to click buttons over and over, I eventually lowered myself to turn-based combat from the default non-turn-based. Never the less, the combat ends up playing a relatively minor role in the game to the story-oriented mindset of most rpgers.

For Gameplay, Arcanum scores a 6/10.

Difficulty: Arcanum’s difficulty can be changed by simply toggling through the options on the options menu. The difficulty setting simply adjusts how much experience you get and how often you suffer a critical failure. As a result, the change has a resounding effect through the entire game that can have completely unexpected consequences later on. It does allow you to toggle up the difficulty, and even toggle it down if you eventually decide you set it too high. In the end, it gives you a nice scale that allows newbies access to the game, as well as grizzled vetrans.

Arcanum scores a 7/10 for difficulty.

Replay Value: Arcanum has a massive amount of replay value. Despite the fact it essentially follows one basic plot, there are about a thousand different ways to get there, tons of different character designs to try, and a good sized pool of different followers you can attract. Most people I know who play Arcanum end up playing it through 2 or 3 times before they are done.

For Replay Value, Arcanum scores a 9/10.

Overall: Arcanum is one of my favorite RPGs of all time. A definite must get despite its score of 6/10. Maybe I’m rating these games too harshly?

Screenshots:

Technologist in Combat

Talking to a Citizen

Newspaper

Dominate Will

Thats all for now. Expect a Review for Dungeon Keeper 2 to pop up in the next couple of weeks.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(2)

Peggle was released in Febuarary of 2007. By August of the same year, it had already gained recognition as one of the most addicting games ever, on the list along with the classic Tetris.

Story: Peggle has no story. Thus, it gets no score.

Visual Appeal: Being in roughly the same gaming genre as Tetris, Peggle does a good job of getting things done with the visuals it has. Although not particularly epic, the visuals of both the menus and the game are quite good. As such, I rate Peggle a 7/10 for visual appeal.

Interface: The Peggle interface is simply just a point and click interface, involving no keys at all. Its simple and easy to learn, but hard to master, making the game available to all gamers of all ages. 6/10. Nothing inspired, but they get the job done.

Gameplay: Peggle consists of shooting a ball and bouncing it off pegs. The pegs, once hit and the ball falls off the bottom of the screen, disappear. The whole point of the game is to clear out all the orange pegs. This is enhanced by blue pegs, getting in the way and also providing surfaces to bounce off of to hit hard to reach orange pegs, as well as point boosting purple pegs, and green pegs that grant special abilities. Once again, very simple, but it also makes for an incredibly addictive game, one that I will be playing for a long time to come. Peggle earns a 9/10 for gameplay.

Difficulty: While I found the first few levels blindingly easy, the later levels were nigh impossible. This gives the game a steady learning curve, that spikes dramatically after adventure mode is complete. As a result, I give Peggle an 8/10 for difficulty.

Replay Value : Peggle has some serious replay value. Although the earlier levels are easy, it has duel mode (against a computer or a friend), and tons of challenges (75 of them). Since the adventure mode has no actual plot, it can be replayed again and again and again, as far as you see fit. Admittedly simple in its design and gameplay, Peggle offers endless hours of fun. 10/10 for replay value.

Overall: Peggle was exciting to play, and a good way to kill some time on planes, in cars, or just in general. Peggle’s final score is 8/10. A definite must get and must play!

Screenshots:

Peggle

Duel Mode

Challenge Mode

Thats all for this one! Sorry it took so long to get around too.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(1)

Lets get to business.

No more reviews yet.

Sorry!

No good games have come out that I could get a hold of. So, have patience, and I’ll get to it when I can.

I’ll hopefully have plenty of time to get some good gaming in the next couple of weeks, so keep an eye out!

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(0)

World in Conflict was released September of 2007, devoloped by Massive Entertainment and published by Sierra. It was released initially for Windows on the PC, but will also be released on XBox 360 and PS3 under the title World in Conflict: Soviet Assault in 2008. Soviet Assault will feature a soviet campaign, as well as new maps, and new stories, and will be released as an expansion for the Windows version as well. While it is officially an RTS, but there is no resources or buildings to manage, so it is really more along the line of an RTT.

Story: World in Conflict is set in 1989, just before the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead of collapse, however, the CCCP instead makes a military push into Europe, in hopes of sparking the nation back into power. The opening of the game features a surprise Soviet invasion into the Northwest US city of Seattle. During the opening film of the campaign, it speaks of the invasion in both a humanistic and tactical stand point. Both my and The Tick, my fellow reviewer, experienced a huge emotional response to this opening. It struck home to us as Americans and, for me, as a Northwesterner. This response was even to the point where I was genuinely concerned with keeping my troops alive. Another thing that amazed me in World in Conflict is that, despite being an RTS/RTT, there is some amazing character development by NPCs. I can’t explain anymore without giving anything else away.

The moral of the story is that World in Conflict went way beyond the call of duty for the story of an RTS/RTT. Because of this, I finished the campaign extremely quickly, despite its length. The story changed the way I played the game completely. I’m definitely giving World in Conflict a 10/10 for story.

Visual Appeal: While the visuals are impressive, they are quite intensive. As a result, even on my relatively new laptop (about as old as the game), I’ve had to turn the graphics down considerably. Never the less, unless your zoomed in all the way, they still look great. Additionally, the menus are rather simple and easy to understand as well. The main screen is a work of art. Despite featuring the World in Conflict title directly in the middle of the screen, you hardly notice thanks to the balanced image.

For visual appeal, they get a 7/10. There are some mistakes, but you don’t notice them.

Interface: The human-unit interface of World in Conflict is actually very impressive. Most of the in game menus feature large pictures clearly defining each unit, with text that pops up in case you have more time to look into their specific abilities (what they are good against, etc.) It does lack a few of the classic commands like “Attack to here”, but that something that you can live without in most games, where your lucky if you have 6 squads/units. The rest of the menus are visually balanced, and equally easy to navigate without getting messy. It does get a little annoying when the Shift-select to select multiple units doesn’t work quite properly, or when double-clicking will select all of a type, while triple clicking (which is an accidental possibility in the heat of battle) will select one unit and move the camera to it.

For interface, World in Conflict scores a 8/10. Seriously, if your designing a game out there, with menus and interfaces, simplicity makes things a lot easier.

Gameplay: The gameplay of World in Conflict is by far one of the most intense I have ever played. I found myself so on the edge of my seat, I would start getting a headache from the tension in my neck. Despite being simple, it is extremely fast paced, with a lot of things to keep a hold of. Like I said before, “attack to here” doesn’t become much of a problem. With 4 or 5 squads/units against many other people/computers, the divide and conquer tactic rarely works. If you do end up having to divide, it does get a little on the nerves, and hot-keying certainly helps, but I get the idea that Massive Entertainment was pushing for a more human run battle with less computer guided attack to movements.

There are no resources to gather, or upgrades, or even any buildings to build at all. You have just one resource: command points. These are divided into to pools (three, if you want to get technical), one of points available, another of points that will become available, and a third of points of units you currently have in battle (not displayed). While these will always add to a constant number, when you lose units on the field, their points will go into your points to come pool. These points will then drain into your available points much like a bucket with a hole in it (faster when there are more, slower when not as much). Each unit costs a certain amount of points, yada yada. In reality, the system is much simpler then I just made it sound and is really easy to get the hang of.

For gameplay, World in Conflict earns a 9/10.

Difficulty: World in Conflict sports a relatively gentle learning curve. This isn’t to say the final levels are not hard, oh no, despite your slow training throughout all the levels, the final levels are extremely brutal. It does make it much more accessible to players that have not yet played RTS/RTT games much. This does mean an experienced player will find the first level or two quite boring. Don’t worry, it picks up

Certainly, on the other hand, multiplayer, even with bots, is a brutal training ground as well. That was my trial by fire, but it ends up being a ton of fun, and extremely intense as well. For being accessible, yet difficult, I’ll give World in Conflict an 8/10.

Replay Value: The campaign has a relatively low replay value. Once you know whats coming, tactically, the whole issue is much simpler. There are medals for secondary objectives that you might need to go back and grab if you missed them though. What gives World in Conflict its real replay value is the multiplayer. Even just against a bunch of bots with The Tick and the Super-Expert-Gamer-Pro-Guru Extraordinare, the games were a ton of fun, and we accidentally wasted 5 or 6 hours on a beautiful day playing instead of (rightfully) being outside enjoying the weather. Woops! No complaints though, it was a ton of fun nevertheless.

I haven’t personally tried the online multiplayer with tons of other people, but if the Guru speaks truth, it is much more intense then anything I have yet experienced in the game. Woah. For this replay value, I give World in Conflict a 7/10. Awesome, but if only the campaign had a bit more replay value.

Overall: I deeply enjoyed my experience with World in Conflict, and will probably continue playing it with my friends for quite some time to come. Overall, World in Conflict scored an 8.167/10. That gives it the scraping edge above Freespace 2 as the highest scoring game yet. I do suggest you pick this game up.

Screenshots:

Loading Screen

Taking the Hill

Upclose and Personal

Moving Out

Graphics on Medium

“Colorblind” Mode

Anyway, thats all I have for today.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(3)

Yay! Review up early!

Sudden Strike 3: Arms for Victory is a RTS released on April 1st in 2008 by CDV in Germany, and developed by Fireglow. It was the next installation of the Sudden Strike series, featuring 3d isometric graphics compared to the 2d graphics of its predecesors.

Story: Sudden Strike 3 follows World War 2, from the side of the Germans, the Allies, the Russians, and the Japanese. As such, they don’t get a story score.

Visual Appeal: Sudden Strike 3’s graphics were a surprising let down. Surely a game that comes out in 2008, only a year after Supreme Commander and only a few months behind Soulstorm, would sport flashy graphics, nice effects, and look just damn pretty. Sudden Strike 3 doesn’t do any of these. The graphics are something I would expect to find closer to the year 2004. In addition, their water graphics, while competitively pretty, crash my graphics driver, despite supposedly being compatible, and with my drivers fully updated. I give SS3 a 5/10 in graphics. Acceptable, but come on.

Interface: Fireglow got some seriously great music for the loading screens and main menu, but for some reason, they didn’t let it trickle over to game play. And thats about the best thing I have to say about the Sudden Strike 3 interface. For being an officially published game, it has to be among the most buggy I have ever encountered. Often when you tell a unit to “cancel” the order, it will instead deselect it and click whatever happens to be on the ground behind the cancel button. Lets not forget, of course, that selected units don’t actually give you useful information about the unit to tell you what you’ve selected, or even how many you’ve selected. If you give a special unit a special command (Technician -> Repair) after right clicking, it does not pop out of the repair command automatically, leaving you to wonder whether or not it actually registered. Of course, a snappy “Right on it, Sir” or something would have solved that nicely, but there isn’t any of that either.

While the menus are pretty and shiny, the in-mission interface is impossible. 4/10.

Gameplay: Sudden Strike 3 takes a different approach to RTS games. It takes managing resources, building units, and upgrading and gives them all a miss. This, in a lot of ways, makes it more interesting. With a given set of units, you have to accomplish the goals you’ve set out to do. Success brings reinforcements. While an extremely interesting approach, Fireglow botched it.

The obvious approach is that if you have only a few units, you micromanage and use them wisely: flanking maneuvers, distractions, traps, whatever you can manage. However, most of this is impossible. With the interface they gave you and the clunky movement of troops, these finesse maneuvers are impossible. In the end it basically comes down to shelling the bejeebeez out of a location, then doing a combined infantry/armor rush. While effective on some level, it is sort of repetitive.

The reinforcement idea gets really annoying too. You only get more troops if you are successful. You lose men, but as long as you kill tons, your in luck. If, however, the enemy makes a major push, and you manage to push it off with heavy casualties, your basically dead in the water. Enemy artillery shelling your troops and you can’t find it? Too bad. That was also something that seriously bothered me: enemy artillery doesn’t actually need spotters. Occasionally, they will use them, but usually they won’t.

With limited resources and without the ability to manage those resources well, Sudden Strike 3 just manages to get you frustrated. 3/10.

Difficulty: Sudden Strike 3 makes for realistic. Each and every soldier has counted ammo that needs to be replenished, armor and vehicles have fuel which needs to be replenished. This is all fine and dandy, but even on normal, the AI just takes out all your ammo trucks and fuel tankers, then just sits back and shells you. Armor is devastated without infantry, and vice versa, but it is not uncommon to have a machine gun that was spared from the preceding shelling to mow down your infantry, leaving your armor exposed. Even on normal, Sudden Strike 3 is an extremely difficult game. The tutorial isn’t any help either. All throughout the tutorial they will tell you to do something, but never tell you how to do it, making the learning curve so steep, it was hard for even an experienced gamer like myself to figure it out. (”Alright, well, how do I repair the bridge?”)

I don’t think this would be true if they gave you the ability to manage your troops to the extent that other, modern RTS’ do, but Sudden Strike 3’s fatal flaw has given it a low score in this category as well. 3/10.

Replay Value: I honestly stopped playing out of disgust and frustration before I could properly measure replay value. As a result, I can’t justify giving Sudden Strike 3 a replay value score.

Overall: Sudden Strike 3 had two fatal flaws: a horrible interface, and sketchy graphics. These combined to give it a whopping 3.75/10. While it looks interesting, I personally advise you do not buy this game. It is simply a waste of money. If you are looking for the same sort of style with crazy-limited resources, I have heard wonderful things about World in Conflict. Pick that up instead.

Screenshots:

Heavily Defended Position

Shell and Take

The Height of Action

Pretty Menu

Thats all I got.

I was referred by a friend to Company of Heroes, which may be next on the review list.  For now, I’m going to uninstall this god-forsaken game.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(0)

Just an FYI, expect to see the review closer to Sunday night.

At the request of my boss, I’m going to be focusing on my academic responsibilities on Saturday rather than Sunday. As a result, I won’t get a chance to poke around the game completely until late Sunday.

Just letting you know.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(0)

Oh what a week, what a week!

Stressful, but overall quite enjoyable.

In any case, this weekend, the Secretary of the Treasury over here at graydenadams.com gave me the go ahead to get a game on the cutting edge.  Good news, that is. As a result, this weekend I hope to publish a review of Sudden Strike 3: Arms for Victory.

Don’t get your hopes up too much, I was forced down from some of the nicer games that recently came out (like Assassin’s Creed) because of their still hefty price tag ($50 was too much). We’ll see how it goes.

Expect more this weekend, probably on Sunday.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(0)

After mentioning briefly to my brother that I don’t have any games recent enough to be worthy of reviewing, he pointed me towards an internet cult classic: Freespace 2.

From what I understand, Freespace was made a long time ago (about 10 years ago now) by a company that eventually went belly-up. Just before they were dead to the world, they released the sourcecode for Freespace to the internet. Lo and Behold, the internet took it and ran with it. Now adays, the graphics are comparable to modern day games, and the source has been updated for better streamlining, etc. etc. Essentially, the game has been completely remade by the internet and its goons. The game has turned into a heavily modded game, with things such as a Battlestar Galactica campaign, as well as Star Wars, Bablyon 5, basically every scifi you can name (though I don’t know about Firefly).

Seems like it might be an interesting trip. A little about the game: Its a first person space fighter game. You play a pilot of a spacecraft and engage in battles and encounters fighting against some enemy. Not really sure who that is yet, but time will tell! Seems to be like it will be interesting.

If you don’t think so, thats okay. You don’t have to play it, but you still have to read the review. Muahaha!

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(0)

Sins of a Solar Empire was released in February of 2008 by Ironclad Studios.

Story: Sins of a Solar Empire did not have enough of a story to qualify for a story score. In fact, what little they had basically sucked, something that I would expect a 3rd grader to write, not even the depth of most FPS’. I will, however, use this space to provide a synopsis of the different races.

TEC: (Trader Emergency Coalition) The intro to the game (which provides the only information on any of the races that we actually have) is taken from the point of view of the humans, on a Terran planet. A prosperous trade civilization what has grown squishy thanks to years of peace. The Vasari show up (see below) and start kicking their ass, and the trade group comes together to use their vast wealth to defend their homes. The TEC tech tree focuses on resources and culture.

Advent: Described only as “Sinners cast away”, the Advent speak often of the “Unity,” which is their religion. They return to exact vengeance on the (now) TEC for casting them away. Apparently, during their exile, the Advent have become psychic. Not much more is described. The Advent’s tech tree focuses mostly on culture.

Vasari: The Vasari is an alien race that is fleeing some other threat. Shattered from their old homeworlds, they attack the (now) TEC just before the Advent arrive. Information regarding their background is limited. Their tech tree focuses a lot more on aggression and combat upgrades.

Visual Appeal: While the makers of Sins of a Solar Empire paid a lot of attention to the fine details of not only individual craft, but asteroids, planets, and space junk, you never see any of it. As a strategic game, most of the time you are on a view that allows you to monitor all of this and, thanks to SoSE’s “epic” scale, you can’t see any of the graphics you paid so much money to see. Very disappointing. Because of this, I give SoSE a 5/10 in visual appeal. Its there, you just don’t have time to see it, well, actually, you might. (see below)

Interface: Sins of a Solar Empire tried their very hardest to avoid screens popping up to clutter the screen, and tried to shoot for more of a minimalist approach. The result is not as good as they hoped. While planet management and troop management is relatively easy, the new events that occur have very little information and don’t include an option to jump to them. Suffering rebellion? Hope you remember where Zelic VI is. For this, SoSE scores a 6/10.

Gameplay: Sins of a Solar Empire is epic, I will grant them that. It is also, however, one of the biggest flaws in the game. Me and a friend played a game that had 8 players total, including ourselves (6 computers). The game took 10 hours, 3 of which were spent just building up, and the last 4 of which Brian spent reading. Epic means big. Big means you need a lot of troops. Since you build a single unit at a time, you spend hours building up a force, hours moving them. Additionally, the research is not as in depth as games that came before it, such as Master of Orion 3, or even Civilization 4. If you take a research focus, you can be done researching far before you actually win. Even with research, the same unit you started with is still the staple of your fleet. I know the Advent Disciple Vessel looks neat, but at hour 10, I was simply tired of looking at it. Too slow, and not enough to take up your time. Sadly, SoSE scores a 4/10.

Difficulty: Difficulty in Sins of a Solar Empire means “more ships” and little else. A hard computer simply shows up with 100 instead of 50 a medium opponent would have had, and will still fall for all the same mistakes the medium AI does. While the AIs in Soulstorm, or even Civ 4, will exploit your weaknesses, and won’t easily fall for deciet, a legitimate tactic in SoSE is simply to pull your fleet out of the system and wait for the other fleet to show up and pounce. Otherwise, if you attack them, they just rout, because a fleet big enough to destroy theirs is way over the AI’s “they have superior forces” cap. As a result, me and Brian spent a large amount of time simply chasing massive fleets around, trying to get them cornered somewhere so we could finally destroy them. Even if you wipe out a race, their fleet remains, and will even colonize more planets, meaning you do actually have to eventually corner the fleet otherwise they will always be a problem. Finally, their is one victory condition: destruction of all enemy planets. All of this leaves the player slowly marching towards victory in a fashion that leaves much to be desired. I’m only giving SoSE a 4/10 in this category as well.

Replay Value: While a lot of fun occasionally, after a 10 hour game, the 2 hours a simple one on one game takes, I found it very hard to keep playing this game. It does, however, have pretty expansive multiplayer, so if you sit down and play with a bunch of friends, I can see how it could hold its own. To increase replay value, they added in achievements much like we see now in console games. Many of them are painful, and rather unnecessary (only conduct military research and still reach the last tier of research) others are blindingly simple (finish a game as the TEC). They do help, but single player still quickly becomes a chore. 5/10.

Overall: While it does have some appeal, and I will probably continue to play it, Sins of a Solar Empire falls short in a variety of ways. Master of Orion 3, while with less graphics and more charts, surpasses SoSE in a lot of ways, despite being 7 years its junior. The final score is: 4.8. Still worth getting, but wait until the prices drop. And finals are over. You’ll need a lot of free time.

Screenshots!

Basic Look

Graphics

Planet

Final Weapon

Thats all.

Jumble, End Post.

Comments(1)