User Reviews (171 - 181 of 216)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

getting better...

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 06, 2003
Author: Amazon User

This game is slowly getting better as far as crashing goes. but it still (sadly) looks a lot like the first game... they have added new ships and new abilities along with 2 new races... but it is really a lot like before. If you loved armada like i did this game is worth buying. Here are the pros and cons

---PROS
)2 New races
)Fewer Bugs
)New ships and special functions
)Better interface
)New maps and single player levels
)Has a tutorial level set

---CONS
)Seems to use more memory, hard drive space, processor time, and zaps more from a graphics card...
)still has some bugs on older systems
)Has only 3 (major) single player level sets
)Seems to have a weaker story.

Overall i would say... this is one you'll have to decide for yourself.

Powerful and wonderful strategic space simulator: S.T.B.C.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: January 02, 2003
Author: Amazon User

" Star Trek Bridge Commander "
by Activision, is the most important, powerful and wonderful strategic space simulator of history (2003).

First class simulator

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: December 26, 2002
Author: Amazon User

While not perfect it is a good simulator with lots of things to do in battle. Admittedly, sometimes I feel there is too many things to play with in the game, and in the midst of battle there is so much to think about. Makes one wonder how Kirk or Picard did it.

Anyway if you like Trek this is one game you should get.

Windows XP and possable ME

5 Rating: 5, Useful: 0 / 3
Date: January 20, 2003
Author: Amazon User

this game won't normally work on Windows XP and possable ME because it was designed for windows 95 but will run on 98 not al whole lot of difference between the 2 except mostly upgraded to except the newer tech at the time but they way XP is set up it won't run properly on XP because it is just reconfigured in numerious ways (thanx Microsoft) so it can better use your computers hardware better well atleast thats what microsoft will say so personally I don't like XP that much have had too much problems between 3Dfx cards and not being able to intergrate an older hard drive into the computer that was using XP

If I only knew

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 5
Date: January 18, 2003
Author: Amazon User

...

It took me about 3 hours to understand that that was it, this WAS the game, and I was not going to get anything else. By that time my eyes were closing and I was falling asleep.

This is what you do in the game - you listen to endless and pointless conversations directing you to do something, you go and do it, and when all of a sudden time comes to shoot, you shoot and run and shoot and run and turn and shoot and run and shoot and run and shoot and turn and run and shoot and run and run and run and shoot and shoot and shoot and turn and run.

This game cannot be called strategic, because you are totally limited in choices, it cannot be called arcade because it is not only slow, there is no word in the language to say how slow it is. ...

Trekkies will be well pleased, and others should take a look

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 24, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I have been a Trekkie for many years, and this game immediately appealed to me. I think any fan of the show dreams about taking the big chair and commanding a starship, and this game allows you to do just that. It is not perfect, but it offers a very enjoyable experience.

As far as the simulation goes, this game does almost everything right. You can choose from a nice array of both UFP and alien ships in combat, and each ship has its own way of handling. A few more would have been nice, but there is enough to satisfy almost anyone. The ships handle just as they should - not as fighters, but as capital ships. This means they are relatively slow, so combat is more like a battle between two giants than a run-and-gun dogfight. While this may sound boring, it actually makes the battles very strategic and complex.

The single-player mode is good for the most part. It has a good story, and some interesting situations. It is, of course, heavily focused on combat, which can get a bit boring over time. It is also very linear, though it offers a few choices once in a while. Another problem is the inability to save at will. The game autosaves between missions, but this can be a long time, and many events can take place between saves that could require loading from the beginning of a section. For the most part, though, they are well-placed and don't cause much of a problem.

The multiplayer component is pretty good. It only allows manual control of the ship, which may turn off some, but overall makes sense. There are several different modes in which to play, and integration with GameSpy makes games relatively easy to find and join. You can also play over a local area network.

I would probably give this game 3.5 stars, but I will round it up because of the great appeal it has to Trek fans. It offers fans a chance to sit in the captain's chair, and offers those with little or no interest in Star Trek an engaging and well-designed simulation. The single-player mode is fairly well-done, and multiplayer should give this game lasting appeal. Overall, I feel it as least worth a look for anyone interested in Star Trek or in space simulation/combat games.

Too Bad

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: March 27, 2002
Author: Amazon User

It is a great Idea and a good try. However, the problem is Activision tried to do it and screwed it all up. Yea it starts out ok. The Demo seems good. But once you try and get into the game, you will find that you will get nowhere, unless you can play for 3-5 hours strait. You are unable to save your game as you go along. The only saving is done when you complete a mission, and most take hours to go through. Now it's not because they are hard just lost of useless stuff to wait through. They try to bridge the Movie-Action game scenario, but end up making mud. I suggest you wait for it to hit the discount bin for $5.00 in about a month.

So Much Potential, So Little Support...

3 Rating: 3, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: April 16, 2002
Author: Amazon User

One of the things that you may not realize with the Star Trek genra is that 90% of related products are sold on concept alone. This holds true with this title. A good game by all rights, Star Trek Bridge Commander really delivers to both the single player and the multiplayer fans.

For the single player:
You're getting the conn. Yes, the promises are true, folks. You are indeed a Captain Kirk... a Captain Picard. Once you get past the frustration of a semi-steep learning curve and still (as of 4/16/02) buggy interface, you're in for a real treat.

The only real complaint I have for the single player missions is the inability to save your game at any time. The game saves your progress as you go, so you will find yourself in a situation where you fail, then have to restart from a save point from which you'll play a good 10 or 15 minutes until you get to try and die (or otherwise fail) all over again.

For Multiplay:
There are several 'vanilla' flavors here. You have the typical deathmatch (FFA), team deathmatch (TFFA), and good vs. bad type of play... but there's also a neat scenario in which you can defend (or attack) a starbase. Personally, I prefer this type of multiplay... and therefore I'm a little disappointed by the lack of similar scenario-based multiplay missions.

In multiplay, you are forced to be in total control of the ship and all its functions. That is, unlike the single player environment, you can't have your lackies allocate power, keep powered shields to the enemy, or bring charged weapons to bear on the target, for example. Which is fine... but wouldn't that still be nice to have as an option?

My only real complaint about the multiplayer play is in target selection. The target screen (L-CARS style) is tiny... even at higher resolutions. So, while you're getting pounded to dust by weapons of all flavors, you're messing with a counter-intuiative target selection screen... Frustrating, but you do get used to it.

One tip: go for their sensors...

ARMADA

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 3
Date: April 22, 2002
Author: Amazon User

I Like this game more than the first, and is great if you like the command & conquer games. The main differnce between the two Armadas' are the graphics and the ship selection (and it has a "quick mission" option).

SP rocks, MP is a dud

4 Rating: 4, Useful: 0 / 1
Date: August 02, 2003
Author: Amazon User

Well, as my subject heading says, the single player was pretty darn good, with the multi-player being quite a disapointment (I'll get to my reasoning in a moment).

SP had a good plot, graphics, map design, character interaction, etc., etc, that I believe is just as good, if not better, than the first game's SP (designed by Raven). Ritual definitely spent most of their efforts on this part of the game. The weapons and maps were nice and varied, the bosses nice and tough, and the character interactions (especially when the NPCs talked amongst themselves) quite entertaining. The love triangle aspect of the plot was also a nice touch. The only bad thing I can say about it was your team AI. They were not much use throughout the game, and most of the time, you went off alone to do your own thing. I was wishing for a bit more involvement on their part.

Now... as for the MP part. First, let me say that I am/was a big fan of EF1's multi-player. It absolutely rocked. EF's CTF was so addicting that I spent many a hours trying to get MVP and win the game for my team. To sum up quick, just about the best online game I have ever played.

So, to be fair, EF1s MP basically ruined EF2s MP for me. I had such high expectations. I wanted to believe that EF2 was just going to be an update on an already great game. Boy, was I wrong. It took less than a minute on a server to realize everything was different. The physics, movement, fire rate, weapons, power-ups, etc., were all changed. I don't think it's a matter of getting used to it. It just felt "wrong" and counterintuitive. I tried it for one night, and just game up after that.

I figure if you have never played EF1, you might be able to jump into EF2's MP easier than myself, but I think it's a waste of time. On a side note, on Ritual's support forum, Ritual had mentioned the possibility of a MP patch to make it more accessible. However, as I write this review, there is some sort of lawsuit between Activision and Ritual. So basically, any mention of a patch has died. IMHO, the patch itself is dead too.

There's also grumbling from the EF community abour releasing the source code (or GDK or something like that) so modders can get their hands on it and "fix" it themselves. No word on if that will happen.

To sum it up again, SP was great, MP was a stinker. You decide which is more important to you.

Review Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next 

Actions