GOG.com
Donate to Codex
Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games

GamingTrend can't stand Hammer & Sickle

Click here and disable ads!

GamingTrend can't stand Hammer & Sickle

Review - posted by Vault Dweller on Fri 9 December 2005, 16:53:29

Tags: Hammer & Sickle; Nival Interactive

Another day, another retarded Hammer & Sickle review. Gaming Trend has torn the game apart for failing to please the reviewer visually and featuring concepts he didn't understood. The game got 64% and the Coaster Award.


Graphics - 65/100
Hammer & Sickle uses the Silent Storm Engine, which was fabulous when it was first introduced, but is now showing its age. Many of the NPCs and characters in the game have a bad case of the "jaggies". Straight lines and corners can be seen everywhere. My system far exceeded the specs, and I had every setting as high as it could go, and it still looked very dated.

Gameplay - 100/200
Well, I should let the score do the talking as I found this game to be extremely aggravating to the point I couldn't stand it anymore. I even tried some of the save games the developers and publishers provide so that reviewers can quickly access different parts of the game. Let me tell you, I have never had to use those to review a game, but I gave it a try here just to see if there were any great moments I could write about.

Sorry to say I really didn’t find any. Continuous issues with invisible guards, guards that only showed character state icons and no bodies, and random deaths for no reason was enough for me to truly hate this game. Add to that the occasional "missing" key items that would be needed to progress to another area, and I just don't know what to say.​
Game companies should start adding "Minimum IQ" to the list of requirements

Spotted at: RPG Dot

There are 7 comments on GamingTrend can't stand Hammer & Sickle

Site hosted by Sorcerer's Place Link us!
Codex definition, a book manuscript.
eXTReMe Tracker
rpgcodex.net RSS Feed
This page was created in 0.19731998443604 seconds