Darkest of Days (a review)
I thought I'd give my hand a try at this, so here we go.
Darkest of Days is an FPS set in a number of time periods, although chiefly in the Civil War and First World War. You take the role of an 'MIA' somebody reported as missing, but not dead, in the history books. Theoretically, you were supposed to die at Custer's Last Stand, but at the last moment you're rescued by KronoteK, a time traveling organization dedicated to researching and preserving history. You go on to have an illustrious career as an agent of that organization visiting various periods in history and killing lots of people in them.
That nicely brings me to my first gripe about the game. With an organization theoretically dedicated to preserving history, the decision always seems to be to take the most violent possible route to any desired solution.
For example, a person you're set to protect has been assigned to attack a heavily defended German area in WWI. How do you ensure he survives? Why, go in and wipe out all the Germans of course. Worse yet, they apparently have no concept of subterfuge at all, because on this mission they send you in dressed as a Russian. Conviniently you ARE armed with a futuristic assault rifle/shotgun combo, but this isn't much comfort when you're assaulting a German artillery position surrounded by machine guns.
Fortunately the odds are somewhat balanced by the idiotic AI. This has got to be some of the DUMBEST AI I have seen in an FPS since 1995. Actually, all things considered, I would say that Doom's AI was smarter. Half the enemy soldiers seem totally oblivious to your presence. The other half will lock on to you and mercilessly bombard you with bullets no matter what is in the way. This leads to some highly annoying situations on levels featuring dense foliage, where enemy troops will shoot you with pinpoint accuracy through three hundred feet of bushes.
Likewise, the 'allied' AI is very poor. Your chief handler, a man named Dexter, provides some amusing quips but little else. On one particular level, where we were set to defend a Union held church from assaulting Confederates, he happily crouched in the corner, facing the wall with his bayonet ready to skewer any Reb foolish enough to attempt to phase through the wall.
For all the firepower being brought down on you, the game simply lacks the atmosphere of, say, the Call of Duty series. I felt no particular excitement past a little twinge of glee when I got to gun down lines of CSA troops with a modern assault rifle. This was somewhat negated by the total lack of reaction by anybody to my sudden appearance and the fact that I just gunned down a hundred men in two seconds. Artillery explodes, guns boom, but it lacks the zip and soul of a real experience.
I recall that on my first sitting at Call of Duty 2 I went away with my hands shaking slightly, feeling a little shellshocked. This is not that experience.
The game certainly has potential, but it is wasted for the most part. Further, the game features decidedly last-gen graphics, but strangely performs quite poorly, stressing even my shiny new rig. As an example, Dexter's mouth is not actually a part of his model, but apparently a rather poorly designed texture slapped over his face, which oscilates when he talks. It's quite disturbing, actually.
The sound is also a bit lacking. For each time period, soldiers on each side have roughly two 'things' they shout. Confederates shout "Yankees!" and "Yeehaw!", Russians have "Ourah!" and something which I think amounts to "take cover!". Germans shout "Fuer das fatherland!" in the most terrible German accent ever. Union troops don't say anything particularly interesting, I suppose, because I can't remember any lines from them.
There are also other signs of laziness in the campaign. For instance, Russian officers wield Luger pistols. The Confederates and Union both use the same model of musket, revolver, and sniper rifle. Confederate officers are recolored Union cavalrymen.
There are also several quirks which, personally, annoyed me. First, troops generally show no reaction to being shot. If you hit a guy in the head, he dies, yes, but anywhere else requires at least two shots (or three, for officers...for some reason) to score a kill. The concept of 'blue aura survivors', people who are set to survive the battle, is nice, but considering they seem to get gunned down by enemy fire just as easily as anybody else would indicate otherwise. The lack of foresight and strategic thinking displayed by the characters is staggering, as I mentioned before...
Overall, I would rate Darkest of Days as a below average shooter with a neat concept behind it.
4/10
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Sadly it might be the closest we'll ever see to a WWI FPS....a handfull of levels.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
The thing that immediatly turns me off is how much importance they give to American history. Of all history they can place in it putting both the American Civil War and the American Conflict against the Indians is just too biased. I don't wanna a playthrough the American history. And I don't mean for them to go into obscure or unpopular areas of history (I'd love to see a Portuguese campaign somewhere, like the taking of Hormuz or something), but things like:
Pre-gunpowder ages:
- Sparta's Battle of Thermopylae (This battle would be sweet in a game like Darkest of Days. Gunning down waves of Persians. :D)
- Alexander's Battle of Gaugamela
- Hannibal's Battle of Carrhae
- Attila's Battle of Chalons
- Charles Martel's/Arab-Muslim's Battle of Tours
- Genghis Khan's Siege of Samarkand/Battle of Baghdad
- Saladin's Siege of Jerusalem
- The Reconquista's Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa (Portuguese participate in this one :D)
- The Hundred Years War's Battle of Agincourt
Proto-gunpowder ages:
- Hernán Cortez' invasion of the Tenochititlan
- Ottoman's Siege and Conquest of Constantinople
- Sengoku Jidai's Battle of Sekigahara
Napoleon ages:
- Napoleon's Battle of Austerlitz
- Napoleon's Battle of Waterloo
- ACW Battle of Gettysburg (Already in)
WW1 age
- Battle of Tannenberg
- Gallipoli offensive
- Battle of Verdun
Interbellum age
- Spanish Civil War's Battle of Guadalajara
WW2 age:
- Winter War's Battle of Raate Road
- Battle of Dunkirk
- Battle of Stalingrad
- Battle of El Alamein
- D-Day
- Battle of Okinawa
I wouldn't advise going further if not into the future era, as after World War 2, wars get ambiguous and choosing a side for the player that fits the storyline could risk upseting the other side of the said battle.
And see that I've restrained myself to giving only popular battles of popular wars that the majority of the people know it took place. As it is now, nobody outside the USA really cares about the conflict it had with the Indians.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
There was an alternate WWI FPS, in which the war stalled for decades, until an evil dude took power in Russia and decided to create alternative steampunk weapons and send his hords of russians and mongols on the other belligerents. Iron Storm was the name, and it was pretty damn good.
There was another one released recently, which was mostly about zombie-germans shooting, and was quite a bad game I think.
All in all, WWI isn't really an exciting period for FPS. No heroic act, no awesome amphibious invasion, no plane, crappy tanks, and a lot of people getting mowed down by static machine guns. Hence why all game rather use an 'alternative WWI' setting.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sheogorath
Fortunately the odds are somewhat balanced by the idiotic AI. This has got to be some of the DUMBEST AI I have seen in an FPS since 1995. Actually, all things considered, I would say that Doom's AI was smarter. Half the enemy soldiers seem totally oblivious to your presence. The other half will lock on to you and mercilessly bombard you with bullets no matter what is in the way. This leads to some highly annoying situations on levels featuring dense foliage, where enemy troops will shoot you with pinpoint accuracy through three hundred feet of bushes.
Likewise, the 'allied' AI is very poor. Your chief handler, a man named Dexter, provides some amusing quips but little else. On one particular level, where we were set to defend a Union held church from assaulting Confederates, he happily crouched in the corner, facing the wall with his bayonet ready to skewer any Reb foolish enough to attempt to phase through the wall.
Huh it sounds as if the AI would be improved if it didnt take an exception to the player and just treated you like another AI.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Meneldil
All in all, WWI isn't really an exciting period for FPS. No heroic act, no awesome amphibious invasion, no plane, crappy tanks, and a lot of people getting mowed down by static machine guns. Hence why all game rather use an 'alternative WWI' setting.
:inquisitive:
No heroic act: So all those Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, Pour le Mérite, and Croix de guerre winners just got a shiny medal for showing up to the party?
Awesome amphibious invasion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipo...paign#Landings
"Awesome" is disputable.
No plane:http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/by_nation.php
Airplanes listed by nation.
Crappy tanks: True, I think you could out ride one in a bike.
Static machine guns:http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/machineguns.htm
A fairly accurate statement.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
I know they were planes, and tank, and I also think the guys who fought WWI were probably just as heroic as the one who fought WWII, knowing the huge casualtie rates, the terrible living condition and so on.
What I mean is that, WWI is not hollywoodish enough for a video game. People lived in the dust, waited for the next attack, ran at some trench while they were being shot at, and hoped to stay alive one more day.
No child-rescuing, no fight in a town while it's being carpet bombed, no 'protect the bridge', no sniping in an occupied town, no deal with the local partisans, no nothing
Despite the whole 'it looks real', CoD and Medal of Honor were still games in which the player was the true hero, leading his group against waves of germans and finally saving the allies. Something like this during WWI would be quite ridiculous.
Hence why they add zombies, ghosts, mutant germans and go for an 'alternative WWI' setting.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Actually, the Eastern Front of WWI was quite a bit more 'action-ey' than the Western Front. But hardly anybody even knows it existed and half of those that do think it consisted of the Russians hurling themselves at German machine guns with no progress. Trench warfare never developed to the extent it did in the West, simply because the front was so huge.
I'd pay good money for an FPS set on WWI's Eastern Front, especially if it carried through to the Russian Revolution.
Sadly, I don't see it happening. Even in Darkest of Days, where half the game is SET on the Eastern Front they do a rather poor job of things. DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Actually, the Eastern Front of WWI was quite a bit more 'action-ey' than the Western Front. But hardly anybody even knows it existed and half of those that do think it consisted of the Russians hurling themselves at German machine guns with no progress. Trench warfare never developed to the extent it did in the West, simply because the front was so huge.
I'd pay good money for an FPS set on WWI's Eastern Front, especially if it carried through to the Russian Revolution.
Sadly, I don't see it happening. Even in Darkest of Days, where half the game is SET on the Eastern Front they do a rather poor job of things. DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH.
A game with a German Uhlan cavalryman as the protagonist? Maybe you could play the Red Baron!
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sheogorath
Sadly, I don't see it happening. Even in Darkest of Days, where half the game is SET on the Eastern Front they do a rather poor job of things. DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH.
I read a preview, can't remember the link, which stated that the dev's were very focused on keeping the game historically accurate :laugh4:
From only playing the demo I agree with the madgod that the game seems to lack that gripping thrill from playing COD or maybe MOH in it's heyday.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azathoth
A game with a German Uhlan cavalryman as the protagonist? Maybe you could play the Red Baron!
Somehow I don't think playing as cavalry in a WWI game would be too exciting...
"You there, go charge that machine gun!"
Of course, the infantry didn't have it much better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mailman653
I read a preview, can't remember the link, which stated that the dev's were very focused on keeping the game historically accurate :laugh4:
From only playing the demo I agree with the madgod that the game seems to lack that gripping thrill from playing COD or maybe MOH in it's heyday.
The preview was LIES. I'm not much of a civil war buff, but the WWI era has several things in it that bugged me. Rocket mortars, for one thing. And apparently the Germans used them for anti-air work. Russian officers using the Luger pistols (Seriously, would it have been THAT hard to make a Nagant revolver model? You already had the civil war era revolver, so you could just base it on that. It'd be better than not even trying.)
Oh, and all of the Germans wear spiked helmets. And there's only one type of machine gun.
Further, in the WWII era, it seems the Germans issued MP-18's to every other soldier. With 100-round drum magazines, no less.
As to the thrill, I think it's mostly from bad presentation. There's no music. There's no real snap to the 'events'. When a Confederate officer tells you to man a cannon and defend against a Union charge, the Union soldiers are pretty obviously just spawning behind a ridge. And there's no aftermath. Once an 'event' is done you're immediately hauled off by the nose to your next objective which is generally halfway across the map with you on foot.
There is no 'kill the wounded' moment, nothing that makes you feel like a part of the action. You're just gunning down endless hordes of automatons.
Were it up to me, I would have added a moment before the march into the cornfield at Antietam where an officer gives a speech. I would have kept the bit where the player is locked into the marching formation, but I would have ha them walk the whole way across the field, watching as the guys next to them are taken out by musket rounds and cannon fire. I would have told the sound department that they damn well better get a decent 'rebel yell' sound effect from at least one hundred skilled practitioners, even if they have to go to Mississippi to do it. I would have then employed that sound effect in a massive charge scene, with the express purpose of making players click to quickly on the little 'reloading' minigame. I would have added drummers and flag bearers. I would have added a moment where, on the way to the battle, one of the shellshocked soldiers breaks down and starts crying for his mother, instead of just sitting there repeating a two second animation of shaking his head.
I would certainly not have placed the rebels on a cliff across a ditch. I definitely would not have the loner sections of the mission restrict the player to the single-shot musket. I would certainly not have retained the AI programmers who, when an officer informs you that "Gee, there's sure a lot of rebels in that camp, we better go around", triggers an event where the officer and his three scouts run into said camp.
I admit, if I was in charge there would be a lot more (not so) glorious charges. I have kind of a taste for those things. But you can't deny the power of a hundred NPC Russians hurling themselves over the trench edge shouting "OURAH!" as the German machine guns open up. And they'll damn well be led by an officer with a Russian pistol.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sheogorath
Were it up to me, I would have added a moment before the march into the cornfield at Antietam where an officer gives a speech. I would have kept the bit where the player is locked into the marching formation, but I would have ha them walk the whole way across the field, watching as the guys next to them are taken out by musket rounds and cannon fire. I would have told the sound department that they damn well better get a decent 'rebel yell' sound effect from at least one hundred skilled practitioners, even if they have to go to Mississippi to do it. I would have then employed that sound effect in a massive charge scene, with the express purpose of making players click to quickly on the little 'reloading' minigame. I would have added drummers and flag bearers. I would have added a moment where, on the way to the battle, one of the shellshocked soldiers breaks down and starts crying for his mother, instead of just sitting there repeating a two second animation of shaking his head.
Had it been up to you, the team might have been bankrupt before the beta phase. ~;)
I do think some of your criticism is probably valid though, but I also note that it's not some big game that was greatly advertised by rich publisher xyz so I can imagine how their budget was a bit tight or maybe they just made bad decisions. :shrug:
Thanks for the review anyway. :2thumbsup:
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Not really if they went to a Civil war reenactmen for the yell they would probably get it for free and it wouldnt cost much to just stuck a flag or a drum onto the allready existing models. Heck it probably wouldnt realy cost too much just to get the reenactors to record afew lines of wimpering and disoriented crys.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Husar
Had it been up to you, the team might have been bankrupt before the beta phase. ~;)
I do think some of your criticism is probably valid though, but I also note that it's not some big game that was greatly advertised by rich publisher xyz so I can imagine how their budget was a bit tight or maybe they just made bad decisions. :shrug:
Thanks for the review anyway. :2thumbsup:
Wasn't Call of Juarez made by a small eastern team? Even then, the game offers some trully cool moments. You don't spend it shooting at hordes of people, even though it's pretty straightforward (endless-corridors, even though you're supposed to be in the far west).
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Meneldil
All in all, WWI isn't really an exciting period for FPS. No heroic act, no awesome amphibious invasion, no plane, crappy tanks, and a lot of people getting mowed down by static machine guns. Hence why all game rather use an 'alternative WWI' setting.
"The true role of infantry is not to expend itself upon heroic physical effort, not to wither away under merciless machine-gun fire, not to impale itself on hostile bayonets, but on the contrary, to advance under the maximum possible protection of the maximum possible array of mechanical resources, in the form of guns, machine-guns, tanks, mortars and aeroplanes; to advance with as little impediment as possible; to be relieved as far as possible of the obligation to fight their way forward."
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Just how did Haig survive inspections of the front? There must've been dozens of opportunities to frag him...
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Presumably he didn't dress as an officer while doing it, seeing as generals who dress like peacocks and waltzed about with the infantry were being introduced to a bullet in the forhead before their time. That and inpecting the men is what sergeants are for so "officer and gentlemen" Haig probably stayed behind the lines the whole time.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
I don't know, I think the game is a total blast. Sure, it is a little rushed for sure, but it has very fun gameplay despite below average AI. It is humorous and original, and I may be simple, but I thought that the battle sequences were very exciting. I think that it compares favorably to COD all things considered. The graphics are pretty good too, and it runs smooth as oil on my machine. I would say that it is well worth the money, but nothing super spectacular.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
just beat it... 7/10 until
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
It was made by an independent team and IS certainly a little rough, but it is one of the funnest games that I have played in ages. I will give it 8/10.
Re: Darkest of Days (a review)
Well I've just tried out this sucker and I have to say its pretty good gameplay wise, I didnt realy notice the AI making stupid decisions but they did have a habit of falling through the floors every time a cutscene was initiated. I have 2 gripes about the game though 1.the last level felt like I had started a completely different type of shooter seriously the only thing that wasnt generic was the setting, and 2.the ending was pretty annoying.
Warning spoilers ahead:
