Ulasan

• gamedeal user

  Nov 2, 2021

  Game is absurdly easy once you figure out that literally nothing matters except extracting scientists of ANY focus to your home base and shoving them in any project. This will always build up enough points to win while crippling everyone else. You can make sure to ensure a win by taking down the 1st or 2nd place country with repeated harassment. That's really all there is to it. They bamboozled me into thinking the game was deeper than it is by making it seem like you have a lot to keep track of. You don't. Too late to refund because I fell asleep after buying it with it running lol.
• gamedeal user

  Aug 11, 2022

  Sigma Theory is a game that's best described as "misunderstood". When I picked it to play out of my huge backlog, I expected something like XCOM with cyberpunk spies. I was wrong. What I found, after getting over the initial confusion was a board game of intrigue. It reminded me immediately of franchises like Diplomacy, Democracy or even to some degree, Plague Inc. There's no action, it's all about tact, decisions and patience. There's a certain learning curve to it and at first it can be daunting. The game throws a lot of information at you and has a very bad habit of spawning random events at the worst possible time in the playthrough. Frustrating, sure, but after a couple of failed attempts and nuclear world wars, I've learned that playing it safe is not always the way to go, just as being a hot gun isn't always as bad as one expects. There's a degree of RNG to the game, sure, but most of the time, it's not unfair and if it seemed unfair, I then realized that I had been tricked and pigeonholed into the result by my own chain of actions. The artwork is beautiful and the music is very atmospheric. The game's beautiful to behold, even if most is just static images. Agents have personalities which will either grow on you or make you hate them. Decision-making is also important, as stated earlier. Some decisions are more important than others, but generally, the game has enough cohesion to make a storyline of sorts. Some decisions can have unexpected results and sometimes it leads to question one's self-conscious. I dismissed my husband's call to tell me he loves me because I was too focused on some operations at some point, only to find myself several turns later embroiled in a conspiracy involving his kidnap and ransom. The next time I saw him was in a body bag. Game or no game, that stirred something in my consciousness and told myself "what if that actually happened in a similar real-life scenario?". To be fair, the game is not without flaws. The UI glitched on me a few times, but luckily, you can ALT+F4 and reload the last turn as it's autosaved. The UI can also be clunky at times and if you cram enough agents in Europe, you'll have a hard time selecting them. Nothing major or game-breaking, but still, breaks immersion. Also, the AI sometimes makes very weird decisions, especially towards the end-game, decisions which give the player too many advantages, sort of like it wants you to win... It's a charming and immersive game but you need to accept it for what it is, not what you hope it is.
• gamedeal user

  Apr 19, 2019

  Played one game only (and won) and here is my first impressions : +Number and variety of agents are really good , traits are well designed as well +Gameplay is fun and there are different approaches you can choose +You actually have to think and research before you do anything, i do not think anybody can play this game carelessly and random , and win. Minor -I saw that they mention drones a lot , but you actually dont use them as actively as you think you do. (I am not saying they are useless , they are actually active and useful but they called it a "drone fleet" or something and it is not like that. It is just like a cool add-on.) Minor -I saw no benefit from the spouse at all , it is just useless imo. -I played it for 2 hours and finished my first game , it was really fun and intimidating but i do not see a reason to play it again. it is just different agents different country but still the gameplay is going to be repetitive. Overall: Considering it is Early Access , it is actually really good. I know i have more negative comments than positive but negatives are really minor things and the early access factor kinda eliminates my negative impressions. It is cheap too , if you're interested in these types of games you should buy it. EDIT: boy was i wrong on how im seeing no reason to play it again. Its addictive.
• gamedeal user

  Apr 19, 2019

  To set the tone for this review, I will mention that I'm one run into Sigma Theory and yet I feel perfectly at ease making a review. So, while I'll make this a recommendation for the promise that the game hold, this should serve as an example that it currently lacks depth, replayability and difficulty. That said, this is an early release and the future of the game is very much in the hand of the devs. Now. [h1]The pros:[/h1] - Artistic Direction: I actually love the way Sigma Theory "handles" itself with graphics, sound and ambiance. By not making the game the usual palette of greys and blues of the spying game, it distinguishes itself while highlighting the "scientific revolution in progress" of its theme. - Little to no procedural generation: This is perhaps ST's boldest choice, and one I wholeheartedly support as it goes against the trend of most grand strategy spying games. Every character in the game is hand-made and written, with matching art, and only a handful of "traits" being procedurally generated. While right now this is an underused aspect, I find it extremely coherent with the notion of a spy-flick, as procedural generation will always have quirks that can completely break immersion. [h1]Neutral:[/h1] - User Interface: It's not good, it's not bad. On one hand it's very clear and the whole game will play nice on low-end computers, on the other I found myself fiddling on more than one occasion. I would say there's a general lack of information once choices are selected so you can coordinate the actions of different agents (for example in investigating several targets in the same place). - Depth and replayability: This is a neutral for now, because while the game is rather shallow, it is also early access. The architecture to build more elements onto the game seems to be there and I expect both complexity and difficulty to creep up without too much technical and design debt. Perhaps released a little early to my taste, I will admit. [h1]The Big Con[/h1] - Writing: I don't know what's going on there. What I hope happened is that a whole bunch of writing had to be made quickly in order to match the amount of game content, and that it will be adjusted with time. But so far, the game is just poorly written, which is *criminal* for a game depending that much on ambiance. Concepts that have held entire series of sci-fi books are eluded in two lines with a disarming lack of wonder. It often tries to be subtle and informative, but ends of naive and transparent. There is not a single area that is spared, "dialog" is artificial and without personnality or mystery, biographies are depersonalized, technologies seem somehow both impossibly magical and completely retarded. I have even explored both french and english to compare and found the same general lack of style. A *massive* effort will be required there to improve the flavor of the game, in an area that it absolutely relies on. As a mitigating factor, I will mention that the story elements included are indeed solid and will provide the kind of background necessary for good writing. For now, it has more than one completely broken my immersion, which is a death sentence for a game which is currently quite shallow in its gameplay. [h1]The Way Forward:[/h1] The reason why I'll end up "recommending" this game is because I can easily see a great way forward to it. First objective should be to integrate the writing within the art direction to make it a coherent, high-quality whole. Every day this is not done, the game will accrue an "immersion debt" that would be impossible to fix. But if it's done, the devs have definitely created the necessary architecture for the game to gain depth and replayability as time and features go on. One thing I consider absolutely indispensable for this game to be a success though, is to integrate mod support as early as possible. Not only because the underlying architecture can be used by modders as well, but because the lack of procedural generation means that experienced players will inevitably reach an "end of content" status eventually. Integrating mod support would not only allow players to mitigate this by pouring in their own content, but also fuel the objective of increasing game depth in the next few months.
• gamedeal user

  Apr 20, 2019

  It hurts me to give a thumbs down despite sinking a little over 8 hours of enjoyable gameplay (3 playthroughs) within 2 days of buying this game. But here goes. This is a very light and less burdensome techno-thriller espionage / negotiation game. You'll get little vibes of Invisible INC, FTL, and hell, even XCOM with how batshit crazy some of the technologies are you get to research. It's nice to see elements of these applied on somewhat understandable level of modern day settings instead of totally fictional geopolitical shape. Extorting foreign diplomats using our very own implanted ransomwares can produce lots of hilarious results. What's the catch? Elements from those two boons of espionage and negotiation are a lot more shallow than it seems. Do not let the trailer fool you, this game is arguably very much suited for light casual mobile game users and all those cool looking interactions are in reality paper thin. Very narrow set of randomized encounters allow you to game the system exceptionally quickly as long as you don't carelessly get your agents killed or captured. Negotiation becomes stale when you realize that the same trick you've used for your advantage in your previous playthrough works exactly the same in all future runs. You will have very little replaying value after the first or second play. "Early Access" excuse doesn't work quite well here, as it becomes abundantly clear that they have all the potential ways to fine tune these ready but for whichever reasons they haven't deployed them in the full build. There is potential to make this game much better, especially with expanding the wanted and unwanted repercussion of interactions and choices allowing your choices to actually make more stuff happening. Difficulty can use some help as well, as so far the only way to enforce this on ourselves is to intentionally gimp us by choosing mediocre agents. The game can certainly get better. Do check back again after a bit, but if significant improvement isn't seen within the first few batches of their work, I fear that there is not much to look here.
• gamedeal user

  Jun 11, 2019

  The game has so much potential in it and I would like to mention several details to be changed, please check these out! • Having a spouse is an interesting option, however, their nationality or our answers against their questions barely affects anything which makes it useless. • In Recruitment Database page, sorting system should be placed. So that we can easily select who is seducer, hacker, firearms expert etc. (also, if we can sort them by nationality or gender that would be a nice feature too.) • Seeing that we start the game from 2029, drones should be much faster on travels. • Countries that undertake military operations are so random. (e.g. India is in a war with Bolivia which doesn’t really make sense to me). It needs to be more realistic and not every single country should ask for our help. • Dialogs with scientists and bosses are repetitive. Our boss almost repeats the same thing right after what my scientist tells me. • When I support one of the influential groups, concerned countries are able to figure it out right after, which kinda makes it unrealistic. It needs to give us certain amount of time so that we can work on strengthening our relations with that country beforehand. • When bribing scientists or making agreements based on money, we should be able to see how much money is spent. If a $-bar feature is added, the concept would be much deeper, I think. • When exfiltrating, there’s too much RNG and that should be adjusted based on which agent we’ve chosen. (and why are we able to use Attack Drones only once?) • My scientists just randomly die even though I’m able to locate spies in my country and capture them, how is that possible? • When making negotiations with diplomats, awkward that it’s still possible to fail even though the satisfaction bar is over 50%. • When I’m at war, I’m not able to get the appointment from the opposing country in a sooner time which technically finishes the game, the Doomsday Clock. • I don’t know if it’s to balance the game but when a country abandons the Sigma Challenge, I’m no longer able to find the scientists in that country (if I haven’t found them beforehand). In my opinion, it should have been better if we can still locate scientists there and bring them over our country. • Last of all, once a country starts on its latest Sigma Project, it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to interrupt them. I stole thousands of their Sigma Data and I stole at least 2-3 scientists from them but their improvement kept resuming like nothing happened.
• gamedeal user

  Aug 12, 2019

  A spy manager. Fascinating idea, great potential, surprisingly not a bugfest - a good start. However, the game does not flow, let alone flourish, for eight reasons. 1. Far too many negative random events. Since there is no way to prevent them or reduce their impact, one feels like the mole in whack-a-mole, not a mole in a spy thriller. I also love scripted events like the one, where suddenly every minion has an arrest warrant, no matter where on the globe they are. Makes me feel so gleefully useless. And I haven't even gotten to the advanced techs. 2. Far too many negative random factors. No matter how favorable one stacks the odds. And according to the devs, by design there are no safe answers (other than in recruiting). 3. Irreplaceable losses. It is far too common to lose an operative or a scientist, mostly randomly without making a mistake. The mechanics to replace either are a joke. Also, when the game smokes your hacker, the campaign is instantly dead in the water. 4. Far, far too excessive damage. Both individual and national. At an average an operative can take four hits in an extraction, that has twice as many events. Since every result is random, that means eight chances to eat four hits - regardless of your decisions. The national consequences are worse. The penalties in alert level are cruel. Also, following one (successful) extraction I lost some 200% of influence in six nations, regardless of their relationship to one another. And no, I didn't use a combat drone. 5. No-can-do traits. Fifty potential operatives sounds peachy. Except that it works against you. Traits like bloodthirsty end a campaign all by their lonesome. The problem is that the game smokes an operative at random and eventually you get a single random replacement with a fat chance to have a skill that would murder the campaign, if you would use it. So you don't. In effect, you may as well park your replacement at Disneyland. Have fun with the pacifist trait, which single-handedly cuts the overall success chance of extractions in half. Have more fun with the charlatan skill of scientists. Or more to the point, good luck avoiding either. 6. Bullies. Unavoidable contacts with deadly consequences, that is. Worst are your own terrorists, who will clip one of your scientists 100% of the time, if you are not their devoted lust slave. Close second is your wife, who forces you to divert operatives to her cause with no reciprocity, but with a decent chance to lose the minion. You dare defy her, because she bullies you the second time this week? I quote, "This will have consequences." End quote. Ain't love wonderful? 7. No home defense. In one playthrough, I used an intelligence skill 7 operative for nothing but sitting at home. I detected and prevented one single intrusion, while losing three scientists, before I gave up. 8. The downward spiral. If all of the above would not be enough, the game ails under the effect, that bad events invariably trigger bad follow-up mechanics and events. Doesn't matter, if it's your fault to begin with. Once the campaign balance crosses the point of no return, all you do is watch and suffer. In summation, in its current state this game is not a spy manager but a one-armed bandit. Pull its arm, lean back, and be dazzled by spinning wheels, while hoping for a jackpot.
• gamedeal user

  Sep 17, 2019

  This game certainly has potential. I like the concept of running a team of elite agents with the goal of scientific domination. There's different types of missions you can send your agents on ranging from hacking, recon, investigating diplomats for leverage, locating scientists, and ultimately getting them to work for your side. The only tactical map seems to be when doing exfiltrations of scientists. Your agent travels on a street map and at each point there's a short description of the event and then you decide what your agent should do. I like that it's a brief encounter and not a long drawn out 30 minute slog. Early Access = there's going to be things that don't quite work right, probably some balancing that needs to occur, etc. However for it's current state it seems like a decent game.
• gamedeal user

  Nov 23, 2019

  I realize the RNG has "gotten better" since the game's inception, but it's still there. You could have a well-statted agent do something they're good at, and they'll fail. That's a huge bummer, and it happens often enough. However, the problem isn't that they fail, it's that it's unclear why they fail. That's not to say the few numbers you can see are meaningless, but the game simplifies your choices to an extreme that makes Sigma Theory less "streamlined" and more "dumbed down" compared to similar titles. This is also true of diplomatic negotiations--you could have an incriminating dossier AND ransomware installed on an enemy nation's systems and still not get a scientist out of them. There's a vertical meter that shows their disposition as you negotiate, but there's not an indication of how that meter's position affects your chance of success besides green = good and red = bad. It goes up and down, but it's more arbitrary than the game seemingly wants to admit. One thing would help tip this game over to "recommend" for me: a success/fail chance for actions. Currently, the chances of success are hidden. You basically have to guess based on arbitrary numbers, and even then you might still fail based on RNG. I probably wouldn't say there's more than a few hours' fun to be had in it, but it would make it a better experience. Ultimately, this is a game that shows some polish and embraces a likable aesthetic, but its mechanics are skin-deep. For the casual gamer, this might provide a few hours' enjoyment. Veterans of tactical games will find ennui within half an hour.
• gamedeal user

  Nov 27, 2019

  Randomly stumbled upon this little gem. So, what is Sigma Theory? It's an espionage and diplomacy simulator. But you are not a field agent in this one, oh no. You're the head of your country's intelligence division, scrambling to gain an edge in a technology/arms race against nine other world powers and be the first one to discover the coveted "Sigma Theory", a breakthrough so game-changing that not being the first one to get your hands on it is simply not an option. What will you need to do to achieve that end? Hire a team of four operatives (from 60 available at this point - but many only unlock as you play the game), all with their strengths, weaknesses, backstories, and sometimes even agendas. Send them out to rival nations to discover dirt on their diplomats, hack their research data or set up ransomware to gain a diplomatic edge; kidnap or otherwise acquire their top scientists to get them to advance your projects, counter or even capture and interrogate their agents; all while keeping your head low and keeping the official relations from deteriorating into open hostilities which could very well push the doomsday clock to midnight and blow it all up in a global nuclear war before anyone has a chance to reach the ultimate [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] through technological supremacy - if your agents leave behind one dead civilian too many, or if you interrogate an enemy agent too hard, war may be just around the corner, and once it starts, it's a pain to end. In the middle of it all, the rival nations will try to thwart your advances while pursuing theirs, and no espionage kerfuffle would be complete without pressure from lobbies, interest groups, and even terrorist organizations with their own agendas and a very real ability to set back your efforts if you choose not to play along with their plans. And in the middle of all that, you also need to balance your personal life, because your spouse will also have their needs, and will also work against you if you neglect them. Sound exciting? Well, it is, but not in the nail-bitingly action movie Bond-or-Bourne-or-Bauersque sequences. You're in charge, which means what you deal with is reports, top-level decisions (for example, whether to share the universal cure for cancer with the world, or to sell it to a lobbyist group), diplomacy, and probably phone calls and emails. You'll have some limited decisions to make when your agents are trying to get someone out of a rival nation, but that's all your "hands on" involvement. So, in the end it's still a game that works very well with imagination, if you're more of a mechanical or "meta" player, you're likely not going to enjoy this one. Diplomacy could be better, though, it seems like you're always in the center and only have bilateral relationships with other nations, who only have relations with you (they still act covertly against each other, but won't go to war), which is honestly, my main gripe with this game. Multilateral diplomacy, mediation and intervention mechanics feel like they belong in a game like this, but they simply aren't there. Still, if after all that you're interested in giving it a go, I heartily recommend it.