Darwinia

What exactly happens when a designer, a gamer, and a programmer get stoned and get to be friends? Well, that's the only explanation I can get for Darwinia. Yes, that sounds a little harsh, but when you play a game and honestly wonder what went through the developer's minds, that's a sad thing. It's especially sad when this game is toted on the Steam platform along with phenomenal games like Half Life 2 and Counter Strike. But, let me delve into why I'm already blaspheming what IGN and PC Gamer have given awards to like candy.

Darwinia can only really be explained by saying that it is a strategy game that is simultaneously not. Trying to take the theory of a "Techno-strategy" game, this game is seemingly featured in a computer where you control the Darwinians, programs living in genius Dr Sepulveda's network. Basically, as the game tries to explain, Darwinians are genetic algorithmic programs that basically are artistically styled people who fight overrun Viral Infections (Basically, viruses) running around.



The style of Darwinia is basically what gears the game. As seen way before the game's eventual somewhat quiescent release, Darwinia is all about the display. It appears, to my somewhat un-fashionable eyes, to be somewhat of a cross of oldschool pixel designs with 3D nonsense. Mix Tron with a RTS look that makes Civilization look complex and you have what Darwinia aspires to. Sure, this is unique, but considering that this game ends up being about as complex as any given cheap Nintendo 64 game, it really looks pale in comparison to other games. The audio is not much better- but let's ignore this. I respect indie gaming, and as such, I'm willing to let it slide if it's stylish and unique. Well, it's stylish, so let's see about what this stylish game can do, and I'll stop comparing the (Purposely?) pixellated Darwinians to Gordon Freeman.

Indie gaming is great. I just plain out love Indie Gaming. The Torque gaming engine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I absolutely love games that come out small yet are big enough to take down huge franchises, I say it in almost every review, to my detriment. But this is one of the few times I will honestly say I have played an indie game that actually was mediocre. While Darwinia, for all intents and purposes is unique, it still does not save this game from being just plain boring.

I have played a ton of RTS games. Age of Empires, Civilization, Command and Conquer, you name it. And I've seen a lot of gameplay methods, some good, some outstandingly bad. And Darwinia presented nothing new. Other than renaming basic things seen in other games, Darwinia just presents a RTS in a new package. The games basically end up being "Build programs, build defense, build up darwinians, kill the red things". While the game does get more complex as it goes on, the general theory stays the same- build Darwinians, kill red "Viruses".



The sad thing here is that comparatively, Darwinia actually deserves no interesting awards. Bigger selling RTS games such as Age of Empries have complexity. Even though they may get old and sometimes boring, it is overwhelming what Microsoft Game Studios puts in, from big monetary systems to the war strategies. This is dissapointing, because Darwinia has none of this. As a game reviewer, I want to slap everyone, especially IGN, who thought this game was such a great thing. They go over how innovative it is, but this game is absolutely no different than any RTS. Honestly, Populous had more depth, which is very depressing. Why is it that a game developer can throw together a simple RTS and get his rear kissed, whereas games like Civ 4 are considered in the same realm? It's insulting to other game companies, we've evolved past this.

I'm going to be very controversial here and say that Darwinia is not worth playing. Even though it is simple and somewhat unique, it still falls into such simplicity that I felt like a 5 year old could understand it. Gamers are looking for new, interesting experiences in video gaming, and repackaging a game in a super-simplistic form with a unique style is not exactly the way to do it. This would work for an action game, but in games like RTSes and RPGs, complexity is expected and liked- and they dropped the ball. This gets two stars, and the developers should be glad it did, being as I debated one star. Indie gaming has never looked so cheap.

2 star(s) out of 5

Discuss More PC Games More Strategy Games