BigDegs29

Had this one on the bench for many years, as I wasn't sure I would enjoy the combat system and the "sim" aspects of the game, which I often find tedious and boring in other games. But now that I've given it a shot I'm completely loving this game. I'll start with a caveat though: I found the game frustrating at the start. You pretty much **** at everything, by design. The game really wants to simulate a rags to riches story of a peasant who knows nothing outside his life of blacksmithing with his family and getting up to trouble with his friends. You'll **** at fighting at the beginning, having trouble with one opponent. But a few dozen hours in and you'll be fending off a half dozen bandits. Once you get good at the combat it becomes very fun. This is similar to other aspects of the game. Not only do your own skills improve through practice, but your in-game stats improve for those same skills, and the compound effect is organically noticeable. I'm now 60 hours in and still enjoying the gameplay, as well as exploring the world, which is incredibly beautiful and immersive. Speaking of the world...things aren't just haphazardly placed because the devs felt it was time for another point of engagement to fill out the map, which often break immersion. Everything makes sense in the world of Kingdom Come, and has a reason for being where it is. But my favorite part is simply the writing, characters and story. These elements have been seriously lacking in modern games, to the point where I assumed the greatness of 90s-00s game writing was over. The story and characters in Kingdom Come are compelling and engaging. There's none of the Millennial humor or hipster crap that prevades modern gaming...again, which can easily break immersion. The characters feel appropriate to the setting, rather than plucked out of the modern world and thrown in like Alice in Wonderland. Add in some incredible voice acting, and you have greatness. I'm very much looking forward to finishing out this game and picking up the sequel!

Thought long and hard trying to decide whether to give this game an 8 or 9. Finally settled on an 8. And I'll tell you why. Positives: • The story and characters are well written. • The graphics are gorgeous. • The attention to detail is astounding! • The integration is amazing. Characters will remember your actions, react to you interacting with others, respond negatively or positively based on how they relate to your actions, respond to what's going on in the world around them, etc. The "Meh": • Immersion. It's a little too much. It's too slow. I like to get immersed in a story, not immersed in chores, you know? • The open world isn't all that different from other open worlds. On the surface level it appears great, but if you dig a little you find out how shallow and empty it is. • I've never particularly found that Rockstar games have great controls or engaging gameplay. That's still the case here IMO. The gameplay is passable, which is enough if the story is engaging (which it is). The controls are rough, as usual. I've enjoyed the 40 hours I've put into it. The first 20 hours were story heavy, and the other 20 hours were exploring. I'm going to go back now and finish the story now because I don't think the exploration is worth it.

A good, fun game, but over-valued. It's designed as an endless runner, so I'm not sure why people are complaining about it being what it set out to be. Toad Rally is a nice addition, though it should be unlimited instead of hidden behind limited tickets. The biggest flaw with the game is Nintendo's tendency to over-value their games relative to competitors. Their "AAA" console games can't compete with other AAA console games value-wise, and their first mobile game has the same problem. A more acceptable price would have been $4.99 - $5.99. Wait for the price drop.

Holy crap guys! So I just finished this game. I actually dropped it in the middle of episode 4 a couple years ago because I had a backlog of other games I wanted to play. I remember people being depressed by the third episode and thinking it wasn't so bad as they were claiming. But my god, that 5th episode just rips you apart! If you have any kind of heart. I think that's the most broken up I've been over a video game ever. Actually, I don't remember being that broken up by any kind of media since The Road. Brutal! The human story it tells is simply amazing. Maybe even more so for me because I can identify with the protagonist and having that protective instinct. I'm rating this a 9/10 based on the experience it offers. It's not a traditional game, and you shouldn't go into it thinking that. But if you want an incredible, interactive story told by amazing voice actors and stellar writing, pick this up immediately! The weakest episode is definitely the first one, so if you're on the fence about going through the entire season, I'd suggest you stick it out. I do have some nitpicks with the game. There are some minor logic fails in the story. Something will happen that doesn't quite make sense or someone will react to something they should be completely unaware of. Minor details. Another nitpick is that the game is supposed to be all about choice, but you can't actually impact the direction of the game itself. Most, and arguably all, major plot points are set in stone. What you can do is impact the surrounding details: your relationships with other characters, their fates, and how they react with each other. For me, that's enough. But I am hoping that season 2 offers more in the way of choices that actually impact the story's direction, as difficult as that is to do. That's it; I recommend picking this up if you haven't yet. But be prepared for a rough ride!

As much as I enjoyed the original XCOM, this one still improves. Somehow they managed to make everything easier to do, while also adding additional depth to the game. That's a difficult balance to get right! The game is highly addicting. Here's a caveat; it's been over 6 months since the game release, so I'm reviewing this based on the game after several patches. As far as I can tell, most of the bugs have been ironed out. The only bugs I seem to encounter is that sometimes the mouse jumps from tile to tile without your input. The other "bug" is more serious. As with its predecessor, the "hit probability" appears to be inaccurate at times. Not a lot of the time, but in a game where you rely heavily on the hit probability to make up your strategy and where the life the death of your squad is determined, it's incredibly important to have accurate information. I was playing a location and it came to a critical point where I had to make a short, otherwise several of my characters would die. The probably showed 60%, so I made the shot...missed. Normally I don't reload saves unless something catastrophic happens, but the death of half my squad and the impending failure of the mission made me reload. Again, I took the shot...missed. I reloaded again, and again, and again. All the same result: missed. I did this fifteen times in a row to see if the game really was screwy. All misses. Finally hit the 16th try. Now, that is statistically possible, but the odds are 1in 931323 that it happens. I've run into these situations numerous times. It's virtually impossible that those stats are completely accurate. It seems to me that the game sometimes misrepresents the hit probability to the player. For whatever reason. The game loses a point for this rare, but critical flaw. Another point is lost through repetition. One, timed missions are annoying unless used infrequently. The game is dominated by them. I modded them out. Two, they have limited number of mission types. Rescue the VIP, abduct the VIP, hack the terminal, plant charges, and kill all enemies. Hack and plant charges are basically the same type of mission, and rescue and abduct the VIP are basically the same. So three main types. But the biggest fault of them all: too many missions require that you completely neutralize alien forces, even in missions where it doesn't make sense. This undercuts their "concealment" mechanic, which is a great addition to the game. You should be able to complete missions in a variety of ways. If you're required to always kill all aliens, that type of gameplay gets boring after awhile. Other than those two gripes, the game is fantastic. I'm sure I'll end up putting 100 hours or so into it.

I'm highly anticipating Civ VI's launch in the Fall, so thought I'd give it's predecessor a short review given how obsessed I've been with it. I had never played any of the other Civs before this, but one boring afternoon I thought I'd pick up my first: Civ V. 8am the next morning I was left wondering what the hell just happened! I had literally played the game 16 hours straight!! That was the first of many marathon sessions with this game. I'm almost at 1000 hours recorded on steam in the last three years. That's insane to me. I think probably my second most played game after Civ V was Age of Empires 2 way back in the day, where I maybe put 400 - 500 hours into it. But no where close to 1000 hours. That's half a work year! No game is so addicting as this.... While the game is damn near perfect with the BNW expansion, and a few tweaks with mods make it even better. Fair warning, don't pick up this game unless you want an extreme time sink!

The problem with this game is simply that no one expected it to be the success it is. It's the PREMISE of the game that is the phenomenon, not the game itself. The premise of being able to go out into the real world and catch virtual creatures is an incredible and, in hindsight, natural idea for the Pokemon genre. But the game itself is incredibly shallow, geared towards the typical shortcomings of free-to-play / pay-to-get-ahead games. Traditional Pokemon games have not undergone any major transformations over the decades for one reason: the original concept is solid. Aside from collecting Pokemon, Pokemon Go doesn't actually subscribe to the same concept. Which is a problem. Which is where its unexpectedly, unbridled success comes in. What do they do now? Do they take the game away from Niantic and revamp it to be more like traditional Pokemon games (I can hope!). Or do they double down on the Ingress-style gameplay? Doing the former may mean the complete revitalization of Pokemon. Doing the latter will, in my opinion, lead to ultimate failure as the novelty wears off. Where will they go from here? They can make this something great, or they could drop the ball big time. Only time will tell. As it stands, it's a game with great promise, but one that in its current iteration fails to deliver.

I am addicted to this game! It makes me say "just one more day" like Harvest Moon never did. Frankly, it's Harvest Moon as it should be. I won't write a giant review, simply because I agree 100% with IGN's. I'd suggest going there and reading it. It's a game with a lot of diversity, from growing crops and raising livestock, to fishing, to exploring the mines, to developing relationships with the townsfolk, to customization of your farm, to completing quests, etc. It mixes Harvest Moon and Minecraft, and it's a marriage made in heaven! Usually I do appreciate good graphics. But for this type of game you don't need it and I don't even notice now. There is one negative I can see in the game: the social aspect. It lacks depth. I think VG developers have improved in this area a lot in the last decade, so I may be spoiled in that regard. I just felt it was lacking in **** Valley. Villagers don't have a whole lot to say, and unique events are limited. I would have loved to see this part fleshed out a lot more. Regardless, it's an amazing game. And for the price, you can't go wrong!

This is basically Civilization V with some improvements, and some drawbacks. Improvements: -Trades barbarians for more versatile aliens. -Trade routes are improved (but needs a mod to remove the annoyance factor). -Very much prefer the skill web to the old tree. -Very much prefer the virtue system to the social policy trees. -Spying is actually useful. -Affinities add a dimension to gameplay. Drawbacks: -Few civilizations (er, sponsors) to choose from; DLC anyone? -Sponsor perks seem unbalanced to me. -You'd think they'd incorporate some of the great mods from CIV:V, but no. -Similar enough to CIV:V that fatigue settles in a little too quickly. I'm giving it a 9/10 because that's what I would give CIV:V. Because it's basically on the same level. I don't give penalties for not fixing what aint broke.

Much has been said about the illusion of choice in this series. I have to ask: what exactly do people expect? If the stats at the end of each episode are any indication, there are five major "choices" during the episode. If each choice creates a distinct branch in the story, that means the developers have to create ten different paths for just the first episode. Take five distinct choices in the second episode and you now have 100 branches. By the sixth episode the developers would have to create 100,000 different story branches! Just in the first season! While there could be some overlap, they'd have to track and trace all those paths to make sure there's no inconsistency. An impossible task. Where this game shines isn't in branching story paths; that would be impossible to pull off on a large-scale basis. Where it excels is in that your choices affect how different characters feel about you, and that when those few major divergences come up, the way the various characters feel about you can have an effect. This game feels authentically Game of Thrones. It's not predictable. It puts you in impossible situations with no outs. It'll beat you up, then kick you while your down. But through it all you'll have the desire to keep fighting...because you care about the Forresters. And you want revenge on those who wronged them. Will you be defiant, even if it puts you at risk? Will you bow and **** hoping for a few table scraps? Will you fight for what's right, or be ruthless to succeed? Can you outmaneuver your rivals? Can you see the twists coming and prevent a horrible outcome? Good luck.

This is my least favorite Elder Scrolls game. I find it somewhat boring and repetitive, with no significant improvements to the series. It's a good game, but its got nothing on Skyrim, and frankly I enjoyed Morrowwind more.

This is the best DLC I've ever played. It's exactly the right way to wrap up this series. Too bad they didn't have more of this in ME3's ending! It's full of charm, wit, and emotion. A last hurrah with your crew. Perfect, if not still overpriced.

This is the Tomb Raider game they always needed to make. Amazing story, amazing characters (especially Lara), and amazing gameplay. My only main criticism of the game is the tombs themselves. Tombs should have been incredibly expansive puzzle-fests. Instead, they're very short, single-puzzle distractions. Very disappointing. Some of the scripted events are lacking, but otherwise the gameplay is phenomenal. Although, I do think it focuses too much on action and too little on puzzle solving. Hopefully they'll fix that in the sequel. It was honestly a toss-up between an "8" and a "9", but ultimately I choose "9" because I didn't feel it's action-oriented gameplay should detract from the score, even though I think Tomb Raider should have more puzzle elements than action.

This game is better than its successor in only one regard: the story. And that's not saying much. In every other regard it falls short. It's clunky, uninteresting and leaves very little lasting impression. I honestly believe this game is way over-hyped simply because it attempted to take RPGs to a new place. Unfortunately, that new place isn't exactly as shiny as they claimed it would be. There are some fun bits, like the arena, but mostly it's a slog-fest. I'd recommend giving Fable a try just to see if you like the style of gameplay, but I wouldn't recommend buying the game until you know.

This game is way too short. Several great ideas, like the ability to purchase properties to bring in a constant income, are negated because (a) the games too short for that to have a positive impact, and (b) at some point you won't know what to do with that excess money anyway! People talk about Fable's charm, and while I somewhat see that, sometimes it just boils down to fart jokes and constant flipping the bird. That's not charm folks; that's child's play. Combat is somewhat more enjoyable than the original, but that's not saying much. For a game that prides itself on choice, you really only have two impacting choices in the game: be good or be evil. The story if lackluster, which is typical of all Fable games. The characters are a little more interesting. It's just not enough to keep you hooked. I struggled to finish the game, which is terrible considering how short it is! Some of the mini-games are fun though. I'm not sure I'd recommend any Fable game, and after this one I didn't even try the third (although I hear it's more of the same). Look elsewhere for fun RPGs.

Full disclosure: I haven't really been a GTA fan since the first game. I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe it's how easy the games are. Like it's incredibly dumbed down so everyone can skate by with ease. GTA IV is no different. They really need a difficulty level option or something. This particular GTA I found somewhat boring. The variety of things you can do is nice, but each mini-game is even more boring than the main game, which at least has some interesting aspects to it. I find the protagonist bland, and most of the supporting characters highly annoying. The story is lackluster, at least as much of it as I saw. I only got about 10 hours in before I gave up on the game. Here's hoping GTA V will hold my interest when it comes out on PC this January!

I enjoyed this game every bit as much as Dragon Age: Origins, and hence I'm giving it the same 8/10 rating. Where Dragon Age 2 excels is in Bioware's mainstay: story and characters. It's a sizable improvement over DA:O in both regards. As much as I loved the characters in the original, I have to say I was even more invested in the characters of DA2. And the way Varric narrates the story is just genius! It's obvious focusing on a smaller world led to a more focused and detailed story. I also like the wave combat that some people deride. The problem with large battles that don't use the wave mechanic is that you get overwhelmed to begin with, but if you somehow manage to make it through that the battle becomes a breeze as you mop up. The wave mechanic takes care of that by preventing you from getting overwhelmed early, and still presenting a challenge later on in the battle. Unfortunately, I think they'll steer clear of this in the future given the negative criticism they received. Graphics also received a bit of a boost, though not as much as could have been hoped. Now the bad. The world is smaller than even I would like, and I'm not a huge proponent of open worlds (I've yet to find an open world that offers the amount of detail I desire in games). You're confined to one city and the surrounding area. What's worse is that even though the game area is small, different locations look almost exactly the same. It's blatantly obvious and very disappointing. However, if you can overlook that laziness it doesn't really have an impact on the gameplay. Another thing I don't like is that they seem to have gone away from tactical combat and focused more on action-oriented gameplay. I dislike this direction a lot. I can get that from other games. I want Dragon Age to to tactical. DA2 is a great game that people have unfairly punished for being too small. 0/10? Get a life! 10/10? Get real! This game is worthy of at least a 4/10 from even the strictest critic, but it has too many flaws to be perfect. I give it as 8/10 because I truly believe that's what it deserves. It's a hell of a lot of fun, and could have been even greater if Bioware allowed themselves the time to polish the game.

For those obsessed with open world (seems like everyone these days for some reason), this game is not for you. This game is about story, characters, and the choices you make. Which is absolutely fine by me. I don't need a huge expansive world with little density of activity. I want a smaller, richer world and Dragon Age delivers on that. While the story is good, the prime draw here is the characters and how invested you get in there own personal stories. Very few games can achieve the level of concern for the well-being of fictitious characters! The choices you make in this game bleed over into the second (in limited ways) and the third (hopefully in more ways) games, giving you a sense that you really are shaping the world. I love how tactical the combat is, something that gets somewhat lost in the sequel in favor of more action-oriented combat. Don't do that Bioware. Dragon Age should always have the option of tactical combat. A few criticisms though. First, the graphics are strangely a little lacking for its time, and it holds up worse now. Second, the Fade section is a HUGE drag. I hope if we do Fade sections in the future they aren't like that! Third, I would have liked a more customizable tactics interface. As it is I rarely use the tactics menu because it's not effective enough to bother. Finally, costly DLC that affects the main story is a big no-no. DLC is only acceptable if it's for non-essential items. This is still a great entry into the series, and I'd suggest anyone thinking about trying a Dragon Age game start here. While it doesn't have the polish of the Mass Effect games, it's still a very good game.

It's a shame the original release has saddled this game with such a negative score, because as the game stands today it's a masterpiece. I was looking for a game just as addicting as Diablo 2, but with improvements across the board. While I was dismayed by it's original state, I can happily say post-patches and post-expansion it is everything I wanted and more. Even as it was in it's original state I would have given it a 7/10, so it's obvious that those giving it below a "4" have the typical "gamer butt hurt syndrome". Some gamers have no sense of responsibility and just want to rag on a decent game because of one or two mistakes. Disgusting. In this day and age people listen to those reviews and act accordingly. Why bother posting an inaccurate review? This game as it stands today is highly addicting, fast-paced, loot-gathering fun. The only thing I missed was not being able to assign attribute points, but I understand the reasoning behind taking it away. Thank god finally everyone gets their own loot drops! That was my major gripe about Diablo 2. Any fan of Diablo games needs to pick this ****! And everyone else should strongly consider giving it a try.

It's a shame the original release has saddled this game with such a negative score, because as the game stands today it's a masterpiece. I was looking for a game just as addicting as Diablo 2, but with improvements across the board. While I was dismayed by it's original state, I can happily say post-patches and post-expansion it is everything I wanted and more. Even as it was in it's original state I would have given it a 7/10, so it's obvious that those giving it anything below a "4" have the typical "gamer butt hurt syndrome". Some gamers have no sense of responsibility and just want to rag on a decent game because of one or two mistakes. Disgusting. In this day and age people listen to those reviews and act accordingly. Why bother posting an inaccurate review? This game as it stands today is highly addicting, fast-paced, loot-gathering fun. The only thing I missed was not being able to assign attribute points, but I understand the reasoning behind taking it away. Thank god finally everyone gets their own loot drops! That was my major gripe about Diablo 2. Any fan of Diablo games needs to pick this ****! And everyone else should strongly consider giving it a try.

Decided to pick this up on a whim, and I'm glad I did as it led me to one of my favorite RPGs of all time (The Witcher 2). This game is great for two reasons. First, it has some great ideas. Unfortunately, many of these great ideas aren't fleshed out as much as they could be; the developer being a small Polish company restricted how far they could take the game. Nonetheless, it still takes RPGs down roads they've never been before. Second, it's not afraid to be dark and realistic in its themes. As an adult, I want tough, no-win choices, I want realistic violence, I want shades of grey in the story, I want dark humor, I want sex/nudity, and I want deep, interesting characters. The Witcher has all of that. The Witcher is a worthy entry into the series and a good precursor to the amazing game that is The Witcher 2.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

The Witcher 2 is one of very few games I'd give a 10/10. It improves on its predecessor dramatically, while retaining what was good about it. Combat system is incredibly versatile. It's literally the only RPG I've played where I didn't just prefer and concentrate on one aspect of the combat (such as physical sword/shield or Magic). No, in this game I used regular sword combat, potions, bombs, traps, AND signs. Some battles were tough enough that you had to get creative and think beforehand, which is awesome and exactly how a strategic RPG should play out. I heard that some people complained about the steep learning curve. While I didn't personally have a problem with it playing on dark difficulty, that's perhaps because I was introduced to the series with The Witcher. I've played TW2 both with a m/k setup, and with a controller. As a rule for all but RTS games, I usually prefer a controller, but this game plays well either way. Graphics are gorgeous, though a few lighting elements are slightly annoying. Where this game really shines is the mature story and character relationships/personas. Choices actually matter and have great impact (I mean, the game completely diverges for a third of the game based on one choice). Overall, a fantastic game for anyone who loves story-driven RPGs.

I've never, ever played a game I'd give a 0/10, so the people reviewing this great game as 0/10 are being ridiculous. Too bad metacritic can't filter out idiocy. I've never really been a fan of Assassin's Creed games. But this game has the most polished controls of the series to date. While most of the game isn't ground-breaking, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It looks like they took the path of refining their game formula, rather than re-defining it. Where the game really shines is the naval combat. I've been looking for that kind of thing since I played Bethesda's somewhat lacking Pirates of the Caribbean. Taking on the legendary ships was quite the experience. The slow part of the game is, of course, everything outside the Animus. Wish they'd rein that in a bit. I'm a perfectionist, and tracking down all the optional content was a bit much (especially the deep-sea diving segments). But overall, this game is fantastic, and gorgeous on PC.

All these 0/10 ratings are ridiculous. This is a game flawed on many levels, but still enjoyable. Pros: (1) A deep strategy game that combines turn-based strategy with real-time tactics. Has the potential to be great, if not for the below cons. (2) Gorgeous on ultra. I haven't had any problems with frame rate, though I admit my computer is relatively powerful. Cons: (1) Naval combat is frustrating as hell. Whenever there's a joint naval/land battle, I always immediately dump my troops on land. (2) The AI. I don't mean the skill of the AI components (that seems to be relatively good post-patch), but the system's response to your own actions. Often I'll be issuing orders and the units will either ignore me, or do something else instead (especially naval in naval combat). (3) The UI could be a lot more intuitive; it's incredibly confusing for newcomers.