IGN: Under Siege Review

Colin Moriarty writes:

"Don’t get me wrong. Under Siege isn’t a bad game. It’s an RTS title with promise, but one that’s just too damn hard and unforgiving. For gamers like me – players with only some RTS experience – you’ll find the price of admittance way too high, the frustration level way too over the top, and the potential for fun gameplay completely destroyed by the fact that there’s no room for error. There’s no ability to grow in Under Siege. It’s not an experience you can ease into. It’s a game that will beat your ass mercilessly until you completely lose the will to play it."

Presentation - 7.0
Graphics - 7.0
Sound - 6.0
Gameplay - 5.0
Lasting Appeal - 5.0

[Solans Scott]

I thought I was the only one who found this game extremely difficult, even on easy.

[TheDivine]

Completly agree its so frustrating its not fun. Wish i had waited on this review. Yea i beat demons souls it wasnt hard like this. Demons souls was learning and being cautious, this is just so unballanced its not fun. Sucks cause it started out fun but then you hit a brick wall. HARD=fun or a good game. I talked to a few people who grabbed this and everyone says theyre stuck so its not just you. Even in DS if ur not good/stuck u can go level up, not in this. If a single troop dies r fu***d. Id avoid it unless your a serious hardcore rts player. Then u might enjoy it.

To all the people commenting yea the difficulty totally ruined this game. Ul understand if u try it.

[darkdoom3000]

Lowering the score... because it's difficult?

:/

[ambientFLIER]

Yes...what is the problem there? If a game is difficult and frustrating then it shouldn't get a high score. I don't play games to be annoyed.

[despair]

This review never should have seen the light of day, he couldn't beat the first chapter and there are 5 if I'm not mistaken. To give a score on the game when you get your ass kicked by it before even 20% complete and then write a review with a score and category breakdown is unprofessional.

The reasonable thing to do is give the review to someone more competent, its not like the game is impossible, as I know a few persons who have completed it or at least multiple chapters(I don't own the game myself so I can't judge it), just very difficult and the score should reflect the quality of the game, not just difficulty.

That's like saying Ninja Gaiden and Demon's souls are bad games because they are difficult, and I know people who cannot complete either of those games also, but does that mean they are terrible games?

This review reads like a frustrated person getting his frustrations on paper and that's not an objective position. I advise anyone who wants to know the quality of the game look for a review where the reviewer actually finished the game.

[Takoulya]

"It's not an experience you can ease into. It’s a game that will beat your ass mercilessly until you completely lose the will to play it."

"Under Siege isn’t a bad game. It’s an RTS title with promise, but one that’s just too damn hard and unforgiving."

...didn't Demon's Souls get multiple GOTY awards for the same reason this game is getting low scores?

[despair]

he didn't even beat the first chapter, so don't listen to his review, ironically one of the lowest Demon's Souls scores came from a reviewer that could not beat the game, I think he game it a 1/10 or 3/10...can't remember him or his website.

To me its the same principle, he's frustrated he could not beat the game and scores it low as most reviews I've read average a 7/10 score so far.

[Infernostew]

I guess everyone at IGN play their games on easy. Play the game a lot and get good at it. That was the only way to beat most games in the 8 and 16 bit days. Gamers are so pampered now with difficulty settings (beginner, very easy, very easy, very very very very very very easy). I think games should be harder. I've played through too many games this gen that have held my hand the whole way through and only has 1 difficulty setting. Sometimes it's just not fun since there's no challenge to it.

[Takoulya]

"I've played through too many games this gen that have held my hand the whole way through and only has 1 difficulty setting. Sometimes it's just not fun since there's no challenge to it."

I'm looking at you, Assassin's Creed!

[STK026]

I haven't played this game, but I would assume IGN's gripe with the game is that it's more of a "so difficult it's frustrating" as opposed to the "just difficult enough to be gratifying" experience found in Demon souls

[Takoulya]

That's true. The issue seems very patchable, though. It's good to see that the devs aren't holding back difficulty for people new to RTS's, though. This game's been on my radar since the trailer came out.

[OhMyGumz]

This was a waste of money. Back to C&C I go. Its not the fact that it is hard...It's so unbalanced.

[grailly]

I wish I had read this review before buying the game...

to everybody saying IGN are noobs for rating the game lowly for difficulty, just go play the game yourself, and tell me it's not dumb. on the forth level I encountered a guy with a canon with seemingly infinite range and that killed my party members in one blow. I'm not going back to that game!

[xyxzor]

I completely understand this review. This game is needlessly difficult. Even if you take things in a tactical approach you still get your ass kicked. Enemies all of a sudden become way more difficult then they should be, and if your going to base a game on small skirmishes, then they should be spectacular, and they're clearly not. Not worth $10 IMO.