I wasted my money, but you don't have to. It's not worth it. Mediocre at best.

[Lexinator]

Finding reviews for this game was pretty difficult, because while publications like GameSpy (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/confrontation/1224805p1.html) and Destructoid (http://www.destructoid.com/review-confrontation-226285.phtml) gave it poor scores, users (other gamers) gave it fairly high marks. I trust user reviews over those of official "journalists", so I bought it during this sale and tried it out.

Wow, what a joke. Imagine Dragon Age, now take away EVERYTHING that's fun, well done, or adds to the excitement - and you will get Confrontation.

Confrontation is the only game that I have played so far (other than Game of Thrones Genesis (http://store.steampowered.com/app/58550/)) that I actually stopped playing after a few hours of gameplay. Yes, it's that bad. This is the most generic strategy RPG I have ever played, and that's saying a lot.

Everything from the horrible story, to the incredibly bad voice acting, to the terrible AI and pathing - all point to a sloppy and rushed game. Combat is incredibly simple, and the character development is extremely shallow and linear (as is the level design). Check out this YouTube review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRpSgO48K8g) if I still haven't convinced you to avoid this game like the plague.

And I won't even mention the lame DRM (5 machine activation limit) :p

[Dedmeatzz]

Saw the description, all the right ingredients for me, fantasy, rpg, strategy, boardgame, it's a shame that it doesn't do any of it very well. Played for 6 or 7 hours to give it a fair chance, just a linear 'follow the path' walk..fight..repeat, no loot except bandages in something billed as an rpg? No exploration, limited stat increases, not really a sense of strategy, Sorry to say it but it all just feels dull. I made the mistake of getting it on preorder too just to make it worse, never again !

[Godeke]

I find it a warning sign when the user reviews differ markedly from the professional reviewers, *especially* for games with a small market.

It is fairly easy for a game to find a small cadre of diehard forum dwellers (the beta testers often fall in this category), even if the game isn't all that great. Deploy them to Metacritic and your user score looks great, no matter what the game is actually like.

It works the other way around: I have seen competitors ask their forum users to neg-rate a product.

Either way, large differences from the paid reviewers and the users means something is probably not as it seems.

My personal distrust of the paid reviewers has normally paid off in discounting too *high* of ratings, rarely do they pan a product that doesn't deserve it as that would be very dangerous to their career.

[Lexinator]

I find it a warning sign when the user reviews differ markedly from the professional reviewers, *especially* for games with a small market.

It is fairly easy for a game to find a small cadre of diehard forum dwellers (the beta testers often fall in this category), even if the game isn't all that great. Deploy them to Metacritic and your user score looks great, no matter what the game is actually like.

It works the other way around: I have seen competitors ask their forum users to neg-rate a product.

Either way, large differences from the paid reviewers and the users means something is probably not as it seems.

My personal distrust of the paid reviewers has normally paid off in discounting too *high* of ratings, rarely do they pan a product that doesn't deserve it as that would be very dangerous to their career.

I used to think the same way actually, until I spent my money on Modern Warfare 2. When I bought the game for PC, I found out that it was a hollowed out console port, with no team chat, no dedicated servers, a ton of hackers, and a plethora of other issues that the professional reviewers did not mention (but the gamers did).

The same thing happened with Dungeon Siege 3. While not as critically penned as Modern Warfare 2, it was well reviewed (but not by the users). I bought the game after looking at said reviews to find the WORST multiplayer game ever conceived (and a shallow single player experience as well).

I could go on and on, but why bother? There are many cases where a game is hailed as the next big thing (by the professionals), only to suck the big one. Yes, there are a lot of hammer legion members that post a lot of false threads and reviews of their game of choice - BUT it's often safer to buy a game that has a high scoring user mark than a game with a high scoring journalist score.

I have my own system now. I simply go on the Steam or Amazon forum and ask the gamers what they liked about the game and if it's worth the current asking price. So far this method has not steered me in the wrong direction. You get a lot of helpful people giving you their advice and reasoning... And that's just aces.
That is also the reason why I try to review and give my opinion on as many games as I play. This way I am not only helping potential buyers, but also stopping people from making the same mistake that I made (if the game is terrible, as is the case with Confrontation).

[Peckpogydah]

I used to think the same way actually, until I spent my money on Modern Warfare 2. When I bought the game for PC, I found out that it was a hollowed out console port, with no team chat, no dedicated servers, a ton of hackers, and a plethora of other issues that the professional reviewers did not mention (but the gamers did).

The same thing happened with Dungeon Siege 3. While not as critically penned as Modern Warfare 2, it was well reviewed (but not by the users). I bought the game after looking at said reviews to find the WORST multiplayer game ever conceived (and a shallow single player experience as well).

All of the major gaming Sites/Magazines rate for the general public. The same general public that think shows like "Two and A Half Men" and "The Big Bang Theory".

The dumb masses matter more then us solely because there are more of them. Look at DA:O on Steam, it has 3029 recommendations now check MW2, it has 56,672 recommendations. We all know DA:O is a much better game but over 53,000 more people recommended MW2 to their friends. Sad really.

[FAButzke]

All of the major gaming Sites/Magazines rate for the general public. The same general public that think shows like "Two and A Half Men" and "The Big Bang Theory".

The dumb masses matter more then us solely because there are more of them. Look at DA:O on Steam, it has 3029 recommendations now check MW2, it has 56,672 recommendations. We all know DA:O is a much better game but over 53,000 more people recommended MW2 to their friends. Sad really.

Well, to be fair, people can recommend a game on steam and tell bad things about it. So perhaps a share of thos 56000+ recommendations are bad ones.

[serky]

Woah, I really wanted this game to be good!! Good tactical RPGs are so rare these days! It's all mmo and action rpg now... :(

I really need my fix and I don't want to beat DA:O or King's bounty for the 10th time!!

[Lexinator]

Woah, I really wanted this game to be good!! Good tactical RPGs are so rare these days! It's all mmo and action rpg now... :(

I really need my fix and I don't want to beat DA:O or King's bounty for the 10th time!!

Did you ever try the first 3 Fallout games? Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics. If not, you should look into them. Tactics for sure. The HOMM games are also all excellent.

[Dedmeatzz]

Woah, I really wanted this game to be good!! Good tactical RPGs are so rare these days! It's all mmo and action rpg now... :(

I really need my fix and I don't want to beat DA:O or King's bounty for the 10th time!!
Have you tried Elven Legacy? Good fantasy strategy title if you like good old turn-based combat, artifacts to find, troops level up, and a regular in the sales. Ruined by the turn limits so to get the best from it you have to use the editor for each map (except the defensive ones). I increased them to 99 turns then you can think about your tactics and explore the maps for items. Hours of fun !

[Stexred]

this game is decent i enjoyed it
i rate it 7 out of 10

[targetbsp]

You know... if this gets a really good sale (like MUCH better than it is now at 40% off) I'm still going to buy it. It so looks my kind of game.

And I have pretty strange tastes anyway where gaming is concerned. I don't like some extremely popular stuff like Skyrim and Deus Ex. And one of my top 3 games of the year last year got all of 48% on metacritic!

[dave_]

Yeah, I would get this at 75% off but no less.

[targetbsp]

The only chance left then is a flash sale or this sale it won't even gone as low as it was in a sale a mere 6 weeks after release. :(

[targetbsp]

Finally 75% off. :D

[fnazz]

It still has stupid 3-rd party DRM?

[ZanyCynic]

It still has stupid 3-rd party DRM?

mmm, would like to know too. Nothing about it on the store page anymore.

[fnazz]

Nothing about it on the store page anymore.

Yes, but on bottom of the page: INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED FOR ONLINE GAMING AND GAME ACTIVATION. And this notice in all (almost) Focus games. :confused:

[targetbsp]

Their new Blood Bowl game no longer has securom. Not sure if they will have patched it out of old games though?
I'm not really sure how to tell. I uninstalled the older retail Blood Bowl Legendary, revoking the licence and reinstalled it in Steam and i didn't have to activate it...

[fnazz]

targetbsp You haven't Confrontation?

[targetbsp]

Not yet. I will likely have it later but... XCOM is out here soon. :D

[targetbsp]

Right, I can't yet speak for Confrontation, but they have patched out securom in the previous Blood Bowl game. I re-installed my previous version and refused to activate it so it refused to ran. I patched it with the new patch and it was happy to run without bugging me for activation.

And it still says "SecuROM™ 5 machine activation limit" on the store so clearly that information can't be trusted anyway. :D

[{Yotsuba}]

INTERNET CONNECTION REQUIRED FOR ONLINE GAMING AND GAME ACTIVATION.

Well that defines Steam perfectly. So it's not necessarily a sign of third party DRM.

And it still says "SecuROM™ 5 machine activation limit" on the store so clearly that information can't be trusted anyway.

Yeah, the store page for Far Cry 2 still mentions the long since removed third party DRM. Valve were informed that DRM was no longer present several years ago but they chose not to update the store page.

[targetbsp]

OK, I caved in and guinea pigged this for us! You'll be glad to know it did NOT need activated. :)

It only has a multi player key used when you create an online account in game, not an activation key.

[ZanyCynic]

OK, I caved in and guinea pigged this for us! You'll be glad to know it did NOT need activated. :)

It only has a multi player key used when you create an online account in game, not an activation key.

thanks a lot for the info

[{Yotsuba}]

OK, I caved in and guinea pigged this for us! You'll be glad to know it did NOT need activated.

Good to know. You might also want to report that to the big DRM list (of which I forget the link, I'm afraid). I also ended up getting this as $9.99 seems a good price for some old infinity engine style combat.

[targetbsp]

I'm surprised they haven't announced this themselves around here. It's quite a big thing to some people on here and they seem to have covertly removed the activation on both this and Blood Bowl LE without telling anyone! And they only told us about CE when we asked on their forum.

I'm going to test my Cities XL 2011 now. :D As it's not the current version it's probably less likely to have been updated.

Cities XL 11 and Blood Bowl DE still use securom so it does seem only their newer/current games they've patched.


You might also want to report that to the big DRM list (of which I forget the link, I'm afraid).

Thanks for the idea. Done!

[targetbsp]

Hmm... looking at that big list of DRM, Confrontation wasn't securom anyway? It was something called ACT Control. I don't actually know how that works so I might have to take this back. :(

Can anyone who got the game when it first came out confirm if it used to prompt for a serial on first launch? or does ACT work differently?

It looks it should have prompted for a serial number: http://activate.actcontrol.net/Help/
But I wouldn't want to swear its gone and isn't instead working in some automatic way until someone confirms it used to come up with that.

[targetbsp]

Aha! The FAQ suggests it should prompt for activation and also the file it names for manually activating doesn't exist: http://www.confrontation-thegame.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=703