Wait, you're telling me this isn't a Saints Row IV mod?

I'll set a couple arguments in favor of this game and its developer. Hold on to your pants, it's a long read.

If you take a peek at my profile, you'll notice I reviewed E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy, and gave it a 10. I'll be the first to admit that E.Y.E. was a buggy mess, with clunky animations, weird-as-**** interface and less-than-intuitive mechanics. But then again, that made it unique. That and the incredible story, the best I've seen in a game as of yet (once you find the true ending).

I was hyped when Deathwing started development by Streum On, for obvious reasons. And now that I have the game and played it for 20 hours, I can say that it isn't a 10, but it most certainly isn't a 4. I would say it's around a solid 7.

You see, combat might be tedious, but it's only tedious if you are not using Codex Rules, or if you are alone. Deathwing single player is tantamount to Left 4 Dead with bots: a really boring, wasted affair. Get yourself a party (as I have), hell, even a single friend will do, and play with Codex Rules. Codex Rules locks your class, gives you everything right from the start and limits respawns. The game really shines there, making the tedious waves of enemies more of a tactical threat instead of a boring annoyance.

That said, I'm not gonna parrot what the reviewer already said about the fabulous recreation of WH:40K aesthetics. But I will say that those of us who know what Space Hulk is, know that this is exactly what we knew were gonna get. Space Hulk has always been about maze-like corridors, CQC against Genestealers and a slow and deliberate pace. The lore is setup for it to be this way. Some comments below also elaborate about how some design choices are there to closely resemble combat in a Terminator armor: it's not meant to be super comfy or easy by any means. This is Warhammer: 40K.

Fanservice: galore. You can even read the texture. And that should add more points to the game. It's noticeably a work of passion. The combat mechanics are tight, and partying up to purge xenos is an exhilarating experience when done properly. Sure, there isn't much replayability, but given that the proper way to play it is with Codex rules, doing it all again as a different class brings enough new things to the table. And the classes are VERY different from one another.

Feeling like I'm writing a review here. Anyhoo.

TL;DR: The game might not be great, but it's an excellent Space Hulk. Codex Rules and party required to have tons of fun, otherwise, it might not be so much. Extremely loyal adaptation of the license. Bugs are tolerable (found an already fixed one on my end, no more). A visual feast. A niche game. Not nearly a 4, closer to a 7.

@realguitarhero5: You're right, of course. But the article should have mentioned those too, in order to make the point of "a trend". As it is, is not clear if it's industry wide or just UbiSoft.

And I'm cautiously optimistic with "promises". I no longer hate EA, I think they've made a great job in restoring consumer trust, but it's still promises. So I don't count Titanfall 2. Doom is a good example, though.

"Recent trend of developers executing post-release support well, evident with games like Rainbow Six Siege, and The Division."

It's just Ubi Soft. That's hardly a trend.

@itchyflop: Well, you could always argue that war is never an enjoyable experience xD

More seriously though, I think it depends on what kind of game you're making. Any trawl through trenches can be enjoyable, if that's what you expect when you buy the game (which is why Verdun is a good game). However, Verdun is a more... intimate game in nature, with less a focus on an entire... ahem... Battlefield than, well... Battlefield.

Also, depends on what aspects you make realistic. For instance, ArmA includes all the boring aspects, like starting waaaay away at base, having to walk your ass off for miles and probably get shot and die just to do it all again. By all metrics, that's frustrating. But with ArmA you know what you're signing into: the real deal, with all of its wrinkles. It's enjoyable, but only because you know its part of the game design.

To summarize, yes, it can be made an enjoyable experience. But you have to make that the core of your videogame, and sell it as such. Otherwise, you're trading realism for enjoyment.

@theTOBSTERRR: I think it has nothing to do with capturing the experience, it's more about the aesthetics. The market is crowded with modern-day or futuristic shooters, so one that goes to WWI is a welcome break. I agree with you that this is not historically accurate, and since that's what floats your boat, I understand that you much prefer Verdun. But as I said, this was always more about form than function.

Dunno, just trying to chip in on your point. I love historical accuracy, but I also enjoy the occasional action romp. I'll keep ArmA and Hearts of Iron for authenticity, give BF I a spin for action :D

It's a great article, as usual Zorine. But that title is terribly dumb.

" (...)coincide with what’s happening on the PC, considering a high-end gaming PC from 10 years ago is still largely able to play most modern games(...)"

Hahahahaaa... No. 10 years ago the new thing was the GeForce 8800 GTX. That VCard right now is less powerful than Intel's integrated graphics. Granted, plenty of modern game engines date back to 2004 (Source and Unreal Engine 3, for instance), but it's not about the engines, it's about the assets. One of the great things from Unreal has proven to be its scalability, to the point where back then the GPUs had memory for 1024x1024 textures tops, but right now we can easily handle 8192x8192 textures in the same engine. However, hardware needs to keep up, and regarding that, 10 year old cards don't cut it.

A different perspective might be that PC has great games that even now are extremely alive, like Doom (plenty of multiplayer servers and extra content), Quake (impressive extensibility thanks to recent fan-made expansions), Morrowind (a classic with plenty of overhauls) and a long etcetera. For those, you don't really need a powerful PC. But then again, it's like firing up your good ole' PS1 or N64, so I don't think it really counts.

So yeah, a high-end gaming PC 10 years ago is worthless right now. The hardware cycle on PC is indeed really short, with each generation of cards only 2 years apart. The thing is that, since GPUs come in tiers, usually the high end tier overlaps with the mid tier in the next generation, which can extend its cycle. But they never go beyond a third generation without suffering severe setbacks. Right now, hardware is reaching a sort of valley, where all that is left is crank up the resolutions and use VR. If you're content with 1080p gaming, nothing will demand you more than a last-gen (even before-than-last gen will do - the GTX Titan is only 3 years old!) can't handle.

Bottom line, I feel the consoles show up late to the "change frequently generations" party that we've had on PC for quite a while. After the GTX 600-700-800M-900 series frenzy (each showed up yearly!) software needs some time to catch up (particularly with DX12 comin' round the corner). I hope console manufacturers don't get too excited with this. PC is a different market, with slightly more spending cash.

@abcdefgabcdefgz: Yeah, I know all that. There's also the fact that id Tech is OpenGL based, and it doesn't get updated/has such technologic leaps as DirectX. Still, is like seeing one of your lifetime musical idols in a live performance nailing your favorite song, but without all the flair of the olden days, simply because it got old. It's a sad reality.

I've been having loads of fun, and consider Doom an excellent game. However, there are some things that nag me from the overall experience, from an individual point of view.

The first is seeing id Software, a company I admire, falling behind the technological curve. It wouldn't matter if it weren't because they were spearheading graphical technology for so long. It feels like the end of an era on that aspect. Don't get me wrong, I think Doom looks fantastic. But id Tech 6 just can't compete with Frostbite 3 or Unreal Engine 4. It makes me a bit sad, idol-wise.

The second is its poor art direction. While Rage's awkward graphics were carried by an outstanding environment design, here, so far, has been the same ole' foundries/space stations/ dank hallways we've all seen before countless times. Nothing new. I really hope to progress further through the game and find something more original. Something that really puts the engine to show.

That's my two cents. Once I'm done I will write a full review too. So far it's been great.