If you get a good deal with the bundle, then you might as well. But the first game by itself is still the best bit of the series.

It was given pretty heavy blanket acclaim on release. If anything, I thought the critical acclaim died off a little because each expansion was a bit more rubbish than the one before. But if you go back to the original core game, US vs. Nazis, it’s still excellent.

It does seem to be very underrated. I thought it was a pretty solid RTS games. I don’t think it was as good as CoH, but for a pure, old-skool RTS it was very good.

I would not jump in with the sequel. I just don’t think it works as well and some of the stuff in it (the campfires to stop infantry freezing) sounded good but ending up being busywork. It’s not awful, but it’s nowhere near what the first game is. The single-player campaign also sucks in comparison.

It’s an interesting game where speed is less important than in other games. It is important, but certainly not as critical as in StarCraft. The single-player game also has quite a good difficulty curve. I’d suggest giving it a go. The toughest thing to crack is how to deploy in the early stages and the first few units…

I’d say yes. Resource management is low-key. You have to capture points on the battlefield and hold them to generate more resources, which encourages more focus on combat and less on harvesting tiberium or something. It’s also a clever game with some interesting tactics possible between the asymmetrical sides.

You can build new units mid-mission, which I think does rate it as an RTS game. You can build new units to respond to the way the battle is proceeding. I think a key feature of an RTT is that you can’t reinforce mid-mission and have to adapt the troops you already have on-site. So Men of War is an RTT, but CoH is an…

When I’m playing a game, so little of my attention is on the base after early game, and nearly entirely on the battlefield instead.

Ground Control was the better game. It even had a far better, minimalist interface which was lightyears ahead of the cluttered interface from the second game. And yes, the artillery in GC1 was insanely good. The artillery in GC2 was far inferior by comparison.

I actually prefer CoH1 with the fan-made Eastern Front expansion to CoH2.

Stoic are very much not rich people. They used their previous money earned from BS1 to fund BS2, but because they didn’t crowdfund it no-one covered it and it’s sold poorly, despite getting a much better reception.

There’s a few spells in the game, presuming you’re using the magic-using characters.

You can start a default game of BS2 and make a number of choices on which characters start the game.

To be fair, a lot of people said that about Half-Life 2 (the six-year wait between HL1 and 2 was hard going) and it was still a huge success with insane reviews and monster critical acclaim.

True, and they deserve respect for resurrecting Homeworld, but they also didn’t do it themselves. They got almost the entire original game development team (who’d moved from Relic to Blackbird Interactive) to make the new game.

Gearbox have made two Half-Life games and the first was excellent, so fine. I’d be down for that.

The figures I’ve seen (and these are from before GTA5's PC release) are well, well over 10 million on PS4 and XB1 alone, not even including the several million sales on PC from the same codebase.

An ex-employee of Rockstar once revealed why over on NeoGaf:

Day 1 purchase.

That’s always been a problem, but FO3 made it worse by making DC look like it was maybe 10 years tops since the bombs. In fact, there was a rumour that originally FO3 was going to take place earlier, but then Bethesda decided they needed all of the iconic factions and series tropes from FO1/2 so set it later. NV and…