Seneste anmeldelser af Jobko

Direct improvement over the first game; they've added multiple maps and vehicles, character customisation, and way more possible choices.

Each time you land on a panel you'll usually get 2 choices, making it more skill oriented than the first. You focus on getting different bonuses that will help propel you past your friends, and you can keep playing past reaching the end, allowing you to catch up on the panels you would have missed by going fast, and win outside of just having a good paying job. While the first game had random events and mini-games, 'The Game of Life 2' gives you more choice and balances out luck. It's by far not even close to being heavily skill-based, but if you enjoy a chill board game with friends, it's pretty fun.

The biggest downside is the other maps being DLC. This game doesn't scream triple-A, and I think the price is fair, which begs the question why the DLCs are a rip off. They're not THAT expensive per-say, but it's not something I would ever want to pay for, especially because you need both you and your friends to buy them. The game doesn't seem to have much upkeep or updates, so I personally don't understand. Not that it's much of a worry, as the base game is good enough imo.

Overall, a definitive version of 'The Game of Life'; worth a buy.

Best stacking simulator; worse physics simulator.

I was a lawyer and a brain surgeon, had 6 kids, 2 houses, and I still lost to a loser with 2 kids and a bunch of cards.

Good game, not as good as 'Cookie Clicker' though.

End game becomes repetitive as build variety isn't worth exploring due to the active build being way better than idle. With auto clickers available in game, the active build becomes the idle build anyways. While you have ascensions and transcendence to look forward to, as well as mercenaries, gear, etc., a lot of this becomes redundant. Ascensions and transcendence become the same loop, you never stay long enough on a new transcendence to make gear that useful, mercenaries come across as extremely p2w as they can die, forcing you to spend rubies to revive them... It just doesn't hold up that well.

Cookie Clicker on the other hand has farming, active with golden cookies + buffs similar to that of 'Clicker Heroes', seasons that actually change gameplay up, and add new things to work towards, passive buffs that change play style (that are actually useful), an ascension skill tree that gives you a lot to work towards, and isn't infinite scaling so it actually gives a sense of completion to it... On top of that it just looks better visually and its UI doesn't fall apart upon stretching the screen or clicking too fast (Clicker Heroes).

While I think Clicker Heroes is among one of the better clicker games out there, it feels like an abandoned project that was developed by a first year uni-student. 'Clicker Heroes 2' is now out, charging a ridiculous amount for what is the equivalent of "I click, numbers go up", the video game, and I've heard that that project was abandoned as well.

Despite this, I do enjoy the game, it's free, I got 60+ hours in it as of this review... Just don't expect the same quality as Cookie Clicker.

Amazing visuals, easy controls, lots of options for play - a definitive edition of Monopoly for the PC. Despite this, 'Monopoly Plus' lags a lot and doesn't have any matches for quick play going at all. On top of this, there are not enough settings to customize your experience, and every time you tab out it forces itself into windowed mode. If you have friends to play with, it's easy to look past these issues, but these issues still persist regardless.

If you don't have friends to play with, do not get this game.

Outdated, confusing UI, dead.

While it is an early-access game, there is a lot that it has to offer already, acting as a very refined equivalent to 'Stardew Valley'/'Terraria'.

Controller feels really tight on this, and there is a lot of QoL with quick placement, tool replace (when your tool dies, if you have another tool it will replace it instantly), ground highlights by default, and approachable UI. They should add a shift+click option for controllers as well, to make equipping and putting items in chests easier - I am constantly swapping between M+KB and controller when dealing with inventory management, this however is only a small issue among excellent UI and QoL implementation.

The visual style is nice, the warping effects on walls is neat, and overall it just oozes quality, which for an early-access release title is not common.

The combat is top-down hack-and-slash, similar to that of 'The Legend of Zelda' or Stardew Valley; the combat feels punchy/interactive, and not floaty like these two comparisons. The building is open-ended sandbox, allowing you to break anything you can see, and place anything you can see. There is no energy system, but there is a hunger system, which I prefer a lot more, and with the passive buffs from food it feels less of a chore compared to other titles.

The game opens up as you get access to deeper areas in the game, access to higher level crafting tables - allowing you to make more unique units, etcetera. Some of the cooler things I’ve seen: creating a minecart system, leveling/skill trees, and node mining rigs. I hope that they'll continue to expand 'Core Keeper', as I can definitely see this being the next big sandbox title.

Other reviews have said that this game isn't doing anything new, but I heavily disagree - while it is similar in a lot of ways to several other titles, with comparisons to 'Factorio', Stardew Valley, and Terraria, I think that the combination of these three to this level of quality hasn't been done before, and it fills yet another niche for those who would want to play a game like that.

Good game; can't wait to see it finished.

Despite its minimalist design, with only movement controls, Vampire Survivor provides a lot of gameplay and enjoyment in the time you'll spend with it. A ton of characters to choose from, permanent unlocks to buy, and a solid amount of items to get in game, the asking price is astounding despite its simplicity.

Vampire Survivor's gameplay loop focuses on understanding what items/upgrades to prioritize over other items/upgrades, understanding what enemies to prioritize, what enemies to avoid, and mastering a 'Touhou'-like precision when it comes to movement. It's simple, but it took me multiple hours to fully understand the route I should take, when leveling, to ensure survival, as for the first few hours I was hard-stuck on the werewolf wave. This is somewhat of a negative because I can't really see myself focusing on many alternative upgrades, and it's only the first few levels that really push you one way or the other, after that you can push for a certain build, making the game somewhat repetitive. While multiple characters and levels might keep things "fresh", I can see the game getting rather stagnant.

For its asking price this is a definite recommendation, and all I could really ask of the developer is to add more items and challenge runs.

A 2013 tech demo that can't even run on modern hardware. I have a 3070, and this game stutters so much. I tried playing around with the settings, but some settings just refuse to change, and no matter what I do I can't get it to run well.

As for the actual gameplay? It's basically an interactive movie, with combat similar to that of 'Shadow of Mordor' or 'Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice', but with less combat options than Shadow of Mordor, and timings that are more lenient than Hellblade, making this game rather boring. You even have this artillery section at the start where you fire into a crowd of people, but past a certain range the attacks don't even hit, and you have to wait for the game to lock on to enemies and tell you when you should fire. Taking away from the movie aspect, the game also has big inputs that appear on the screen, and characters that will glow to the input you should select... Which begs the question whether it even succeeds at being an interactive movie. The camera isn't good at all, making combat sections feel like it's you vs. the camera rather than the enemies.

On top of all this, the controls are just weird and don't feel natural to me. The menu is a fullscreen display of all the things the game has to offer, instead of being a simplified menu that pops up before backing to the main menu where you should have these options.

Everything about this game is just, "why?".

When reviewing a game like this you have to take in the time period, and the games that came out around that time. While Doom 64 holds up in its own right, it lacks a lot compared to modern FPS games, and even comparatively to other FPS games around this time. There is no vertical/diagonal aiming. To sprint you press the spacebar. There is no jumping. Doors don’t look like doors, and aren’t always obvious to the player. You have codes for levels that you’d have to enter to play that level (there are thankfully also saves, but they don’t show your time, so it’s hard to tell which one is the newest). Enemies are 2D while the environment is 3D; all of these things are odd and outdated, but I don’t think they detract as much as you’d think they would. It’s still Doom at the end of the day, and Doom is all about shooting and gore. In the same year, 1997, ‘GoldenEye 007’ came out, a game that had directional shooting, 3D enemies, 3D weapons, and was just in general leaps and bounds above Doom 64, on the same console. A year later, 1998, Half-Life came out, a game that defined what a campaign shooter would look like for the future to come. Half-Life had puzzles, voiced scenes, jumping, 3D everything, a showcase of many different environments, amazing graphics for its time, physics, platforming, seamless levels, and much more… Half-Life really puts a damper on a lot of games around its time period, and even after, so it’s a rough comparison, but one that gives ‘Doom 64’ no excuse for the supposed limitations.

Now what does the game do well? Doom 64 has a surprisingly long campaign, with a decent amount of variety while maintaining the theme. It has a wide array of weapons, and a lot of varying puzzles. The game is dense in scope, and while it’s not crazy hard, I’d imagine on the hardest difficulty I’d quickly change my mind.

Despite these positives, each positive comes with its own caveat. Its long campaign gets tiring and repetitive - this is doubled down by the fact that each mission itself isn’t that long, but most of your time spent is backtracking, making what is meant to be a fast paced shooter a headache at times. You have a lot of weapons, but because of the lack of directional aiming, weapon weight/drag/inertia, recoil, and other modern FPS mechanics, most weapons differ mainly in damage, with some differing in AOE.

While it’s still good in its own right, it feels very dated, giving me mixed feelings. Is the game still enjoyable? Sure. Would I rather be playing a lot of other games? Yes.