<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 9 of 9   
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/5/2009 15:26:56

DennisG
Level 2
Report
Hello,

I have reviewed WarLight over at http://www.PlayRiskOnline.net

I think WL has a great interface and is quite fun, however it is lacking in the community and maps aspect. WarLight.net could really be a cotender with some development in the right areas.

Just letting you know,

Thanks,

DennisG
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/6/2009 12:59:15


Doushibag 
Level 16
Report
Nice little review site.

"(though the sound effects are uneeded)"
I kept the sounds off at first when they were added as I too thought they were just an unneeded sound distraction. However after having them on some now when I turn them off it feels lacking and I find myself turning them back on.

"The forums are not very active"
Yeah they are fairly dull. The color scheme doesn't help much either. Hard to read the text on the black background. I'm sure he'll improve it and the forums will become more active with improvements and more players.

"No scoreboard though"
The developer told me he was a stat whore like me so I'm thinking this is coming eventually.

"the developer is active"
I think this is an important one as the game is still being developed and I think there are many improvements to come that will make this game better and more popular.

Seeing as you have a review site and I assume you've played all those games enough to give them a fair pace then I think you're in a position to provide some good feedback for this game if you care to see it improve. Suggest ideas that work that aren't present and follies that hurt some of the games that we could try to avoid here. Randy, the developer, is good about reading feedback and input and I'm sure we'd all appreciate some good input on the game that would improve the experience for all of us.


On a side note getting someone to proofread and help you fix spelling and grammar errors would up the class of your site a little. Doesn't change your points I know, but people notice that stuff. Confusing is/are seems to be the main offense. "The forums is where" - are. "There is 3 standard" - are three. "It's know as one" - known.

Thanks for including us on your site!
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/6/2009 13:24:53


Doushibag 
Level 16
Report
I didn't say it directly in response to the sound thing, but I'd like to say it. The sounds can be turned on or off. If you don't care for them you can make them go away quite easily so that's a win/win in my book and not worthy of any negative criticism. The game saves your setting as well so it isn't like you have to click to turn them off every time either.

I also noticed on that account that you haven't played any multiplayer games. Which for a game reviewer for multiplayer games seems a bit odd to me. Meaning you've played on another account or watched it be played on another account or you're reviewing the game without actually having really seen the game beyond single player. I know this doesn't inherently invalidate your points, but as the official d-bag of this community I feel it's my job to question these things. I'm not accusing you, I'm just hoping you gave the game a fair look and didn't leave out any positive or negative feedback in your review as a result of not having adequately seen the game.

Also I haven't played any of those games and am not part of any of their communities. I feel this may warrant extra note as a positive for Warlight and a negative for the rest of them. That's just my opinion though and you're free to be wrong about it if you don't agree.
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/10/2009 19:21:44

DennisG
Level 2
Report
Good eye. I have another WL account I play under. This one is non-playing. I prefer to keep my playing accounts a bit anonymous to protection the impartiality of my reviews.

I have played multiplayer and think it's pretty fun. I like the orders set up, and the arrows and such are a nice touch. I will re-review WL in a months time and hope to raises it's scores.
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/12/2009 18:33:03


devilnis 
Level 10
Report
I think you're spot on about the need for some more attention to the community aspects of warlight. I can never seem to find a new game when I want to, and it would be really nice to be able to invite people to games based on some point value representing their apparent skill at it, like chess ratings and whatnot.

The main thing I take exception to in your review is your take on the maps - you say they are lackluster, I say they are clean and put the focus on the strategy, not on cute little mountains and shading effects in the water. I don't care about cartoon mountains, I care about being able to quickly and clearly see what the strategic situation is. I looked at the UI for the game you rated the highest, and it was so cutesy and unfocused, it made me want to barf. If you look at risk, you'll see bold clean lines and solid territory colors with absolutely no detail. That's a GOOD thing.
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/12/2009 20:45:00

DennisG
Level 2
Report
Clean and focused are not mutually exclusive of high aesthetics. The perfect map certainly has both. WL maps are clean, but they certainly do lack flavor. Whether or not you care about flavor is irrelevant, as it is a factor of competition with other sites and something that other players care about.

The highest rated site has a low interface score, below WL, because you are right, it sucks. However that site has a good selection of quality maps and a large community which brings it's score up.

I think if you look at Risk boards across all their games, Regular, GodStorm, LOTR, you will see a very high level of aesthetics.
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/13/2009 18:49:36


devilnis 
Level 10
Report
Sorry, my mistake - I was reading your comparison under the "maps" category as referring to the interface, but I see now that that is broken out into a separate category, and that the game in question has a high score in maps because of the massive quantity of them, each with an individual aesthetic determined by the artistry of the map designer. And yes, though extreme austerity is my personal preference in strategy games, not everyone shares my opinion, so the eye-candy is a valid factor for comparison. Thanks for setting me in my place :)
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/19/2009 08:16:18

Yertle
Level 2
Report
Just noticed this, interesting site DennisG (any contact info?). Have you ever played Warfish.net http://warfish.net/war/home (still in Beta, so you have to be invited, but it's been in Beta for way to long)? But I believe it is where both Warlight and WarGear developers have come from and implemented a lot of their characteristics from. (I'd keep an eye on WarGear though :))
Warlight review at PlayRiskOnline.net: 11/28/2009 11:18:36

DennisG
Level 2
Report
Yertle,

I have played Warfish.net and will review once i finish up some games there. I would say that generally WG and WL are substantial improvements over the WF game engine.

you can contact me at risk@playriskonline.net
Posts 1 - 9 of 9