Dauntless07

I have followed these role-playing types of game a long time, but never got into any as I lacked the time and interest in the setting of the vast majority of them. Something about Fallout 3 grabbed me, so when the price finally hit an all-time low, I decided to pick it up off the bargain rack to see if this series was for me. Fallout 3 isn't a terrible game, but it's not an especially good game either. I knew something was wrong just by the way it began. The graphics ****, especially by PS3 standards. This is a minor complaint as gameplay is most important, but there's no denying the characters look like they were carved/painted out of blocks of wood, or that the environments are bland and uninspiring. Another problem I have is the voice acting. Liam Neeson does a fantastic job as James, but other characters can be incredibly annoying, or worse, have little to no personality. Too often, it didn't feel like I was talking to real people. Instead, they felt like they were only there to make the task of completing the game's story more difficult for me. No one will help you from empathy, they always expect you to do some favor for them before they give you just enough information to keep going, but never quite enough to reach your goal. Even the seemingly kind Moira of Megaton does not offer so much as a stimpack before sending you to do research for her book in a wasteland where she knows everything imaginable wants you dead. This was a serious impediment to my progress, especially for someone playing for the first time. Gameplay falls short too though. Ignoring some minor bugs and glitches I experienced, the world is deceptively empty. It's huge and full of lots of detail, but has little worth doing in it. AI also **** both for allies and enemies. Battles are more boring and AI more stupid than Call of Duty campaigns. Essentially, you stand out in the open and shoot someone 10 or more times to kill them before they can shoot you 10 or more times; not that it matters very much since you can heal mid-combat no problem. Use a stimpack, eat some food, even repair weapons and armor mid-combat, and you're back in the fight in no time. I don't think one guy should be able to kill 10 or more bandits like it's nothing, but it couldn't be easier here. The level system makes this process even more monotonous as later enemies are more resilient to gunfire for no reason. It really makes me wonder if any of the designers ever shot a real gun, because they don't seem to understand how powerful they are. It is here I must point out how overpowered the V.A.T.S. system is. Sure, getting a kill is satisfying the first few times, something interesting may even happen here or there, but it just takes what little strategy existed in gunfights and completely removes it. For these reasons, I didn't feel a sense of accomplishment when fights were over. I just felt grateful to still be alive and not have to redo the segment again. Perhaps this is an authentic representation of how one would feel in a real nuclear apocalypse, but it's not the kind I want to pay for. Quests are too confusing. I had to research tutorials and the Fallout Wiki more than once to solve some of them. There is nothing wrong with a game that challenges your mind, but when it becomes "You need to pick up the tapes in this order, then you need to talk to X person, then you need to go to X location," it is too much. Some parts are meant to be confusing, like how to get out of the Tranquility Lane simulation with good karma, but there you know the state of things, and you expect to do a bit of puzzle solving. Elsewhere, this makes no sense. Are there redeeming factors then? Well, yes. Otherwise I would not have talked about this game so long. The main story is very interesting, and the main characters are compelling. The sheer number of quests in the game can keep you busy for weeks if you insist on doing everything, and there is replay value in that you aren't going to see everything on one play through, from a single perspective. I had a lot of fun investigating the back story of this world too. There's the general information of course, a Great War brought a pervasive nuclear wasteland, but few people know much about what happened exactly. Scattered clues like Chinese equipment and bodies, the number of hideously mutated humans, and even some alien sightings raise even more questions. Uncovering the sinister ambitions of the prewar United States government, as well as its fascist remnants the Enclave, learning the story of how people were manipulated, and ultimately uncovering the truth of how humanity destroyed itself is intensely satisfying. I thought about scoring this a 4/10, but I have to admit the presentation of the game's setting won me over. However, no amount of professional storytelling can cover the fact that Fallout 3 is simply an incredibly mediocre game that doesn't deserve the acclaim it has received. 6/10.

Wow, where to begin? This is easily one of the best titles on the PSP. It's a little rough around some edges, but the multiplayer is near perfect, and this game was definitely built for multiplayer. Unfortunately, as is the case for all games that put their effort into multiplayer, once people stop playing, the game effectively dies, and with the server shutdown, this game will definitely have fewer people playing. For this reason, despite the high score, I can't recommend this game to anyone but the most hardcore of fans. All the same, just about everything is a step up from FTB1, with only a few nit picky things a possible step backward. More weapons and equipment, more customization, more maps and the best maps of FTB1 carried along and improved to this title, on top of this FTB2 looks more like a PS2 game than its prequil who resembled more the PS1 generation. Singleplayer is not very fun. Among other obvious problems like boring story/missions and bad AI is the most unforgivable of offenses; you die once and you have to start the entire mission again! For this reason, even though the higher difficulties were more challenging and fun to test my skills, I found myself running through everything on easy because I was tired of wasting time replaying missions unnecessarily. Overall, this is one of the best multiplayer shooters on the PSP, so if you have a group of friends willing to come together and squeeze the last bit of fun out of Socom after the server shutdown, you can't go wrong with FTB2.

For all its flaws, "Field Commander" still manages to be fun and playable. I disagree with reviewers who claim this game cannot be compared to "Advance Wars." After all, if this can't match that game, why waste your time? Pros: -The closest you're going to get to "Advance Wars" on PSP. -Actually improves on some gameplay mechanics from "Advance Wars." -Fairly long Single Player campaign with plenty of variety in map design. -An over the top story with over the top characters; just what you'd expect. -Plenty of unit variety to keep things interesting. -Multiplayer is great. Play every map, and even edited ones, over the internet, either live or by an email system. Or you can play on with a friend on the same PSP. Cons: -Laughable AI makes battles difficult only when the AI severely outnumbers you. -Unit models are... Meh. I prefer the straightforward unit appearance in "Advance Wars." The 3D models are creative, but made me a bit confused at times. -For a brand that builds its name on Graphics, this game can't say the same. The models could have looked a little better. -Only 2 people can play at once; that's a bit disappointing. I was looking forward to 3 player free for all, but no luck there. So, as you can see, the pros far outweigh the cons. Singleplayer will keep you busy for a while, but I think you'll find more enjoyment in the Multiplayer options. Find a friend, play, and you've remedied the main problem with "Field Commander," the AI. If you still play your PSP, add this game to your library if you haven't already. It's great to add variety if nothing else.

You may say "Go easy on this game, it's the first of its kind, where else are you going to get an RTS set in WWI?" but no, it just ****, and I don't hesitate to say it's one of the worst games I personally have played. The inferiority of this game to superior rts games set in WWII is astounding. It's based off the Cossacks engine, and by that I mean it's copy and paste. Literally there is no difference between this and Age of Empires style gameplay, except this is far worse. Pathetic AI, no trenches, building models and units that are only cosmetically different, extreme lack of realism (poping the archer out of the archer hut style gameplay,) ineffectiveness of any type of tactical nowhow, and confounding all these issues, the scale. This game is just too big. The most units that can be fighting in any of WWI's huge maps is 50,000, yet I only managed to get up to about 10,000 in my army in one of my battles vs the comp, and even at that scale it's unforgiving. Thousands of men can be mown down in seconds, and with such huge armies, the only thing you can really do is put the "Military Advisor" on to let the Comp take care of the army and focus on the economy. Likewise, economy is equally impossible to micromanage, and any attempt to do either without the comp will result in your quick defeat. It's lucky this game can play itself, because I didn't have the patience to sit though the entirety of these battles, which can go on for hours. Avoid this game at all costs, a war that killed 17,000,000 people deserves more justice than this piece of crap. critics are absolutely right.

I don't understand the reason for such negative reviews. Black Ops is a good game. It's fast paced, generally balanced, and more flexible than previous COD games. Does Black Ops still have some nitpicky issues? Yes, but overall, the game gave me the most fun I've had gaming since COD 4, and that's what counts right? ... Singleplayer is ok. The story is interesting and brings back Reznov from WAW. This is my main criticism. To connect the stories of the 2 games, I think more characters should have appeared. Namely, Polonsky should have returned as a Black Op. WAW's story already felt pretty detatched, and not bringing any characters back makes it feel even less connected. I will also say I really tried to play through on veteran, and specific chokepoints were just to hard. It's even worse than moments in COD 4. To be fair though, no COD game can match the greatness of COD 4. ... Multiplayer is where it counts, and Black Ops manages to deliver the COD experience with enough innovation to make me play it over the other games. The currency system is a love or hate kind of thing. I personally like the flexibility of buying the weapons and attachments I want. Contracts are unlikely to help you strike it rich, but are interesting to challenge yourself if nothing else. Weapon balance is a bit off at times. The Famas and AK74 are common sights due to their overpowered nature. Though, to be fair, 3arch has shown they are willing to fix their game, unlike IW MW2 disaster, and has patched the Famas to nerf its effectiveness. There's a 0 tolerance policy to cheating and boosting as well. Once you're reported, you're banned forever, and this is the main reason I prefer it over the other COD games infested with this scum. ... Zombies is fun as well. you only get 2 maps without DLC, but they're quite easily the most fun. The style is a lot different than WAW. You can't back into a dead-end and expect to make it far. It took me a while to get used to, and I still kinda ****, but it's so fun I have no complaints at all.

I always loved Army Men. As a kid these little plastic guys were one of my favorite toys. You didn't need a lot of brains to understand it; it was all so simple. Every figure had a weapon, and knew how to use it. When i first played the Army Men videogames on PS1, I went in with high expectations. Why not? Army Men was the easiest way to take everything we liked about WWII entertainment and put a fresh spin on it. Yet, I found myself disappointed. The games repeatedly failed to actually be fun due to boring gameplay, terrible AI, too few allies to fight alongside, and no was to play campaign with a friend. Then in 2002, 3DO finally got it right with Army Men RTS. Since then, 3DO went bankrupt, and the copyright on this game was not renewed. Meaning you can easily download it off the internet for free; which is how I first played it. This is definitely the best game in the series, though that's not saying much. Campaign mode is tons of fun. You get an over the top story with the over the top Army Men characters. What more could you ask for? It feels just like how you played with them as a kid, and that kind of nostalga gives this game an appeal that doesn't die. AI is pretty bad compared to a person, and the missions will all be pretty easy overall, but I'd far rather have this than the missions from other Army Men games which were either easy or rediculously hard. Online is where this game really shines. the game is very balanced, and battles tend to come down to skill rather than overpowered units. Not to say there are not overpowered units and cheap strategies, just to say that all players can indulge in them equally. The community for this game is small, but dedicated, and you can find plenty of user created maps to breath new life into online. Unfortunately, finding someone to play a map other than the extremely popular "Doubles" map can be frustrating. Don't worry, there are also mods. My favorites include the MP trainer mod that allows you to experience the multiplayer maps with AI opponents, and the realism mod that brought more believable performance and more balanced costs to units. Even new units are thrown in sometimes, including insects, the chinook, and the vulture from ExF's vulture island. the biggest flaw of AMRTS is unit pathfinding. The only thing effective in micro-management is individually giving units orders. It's a very unforgiving situation when you need to move a large mass of units, as factors like unit facing and spacing significantly determine who will win the battle. I would also criticize the lack of effective defensive structures. There are only 3, the guard tower, the pillbox, and the AA gun. Towers are the weakest, but good against infantry/Air only. Pillboxes are stronger, but only about as strong as a single tank, meaning if your pillbox goes up against even just 2 tanks, it will lose. Worse, a tank can park just outside its range and shoot it without fear of retaliation. This wouldn't be so bad if we had some kind of stationary cannon that could shoot ground targets, but for whatever reason, the AA gun can only target air units. Why? It fires huge missiles, and it seems pretty accurate and effective against choppers. Why can't it shoot tanks? Sadly, the only really effective strategy online is building tanks. Overall, Army Men RTS is built very safe. It's simple, and fun. under any other title, I'd say just pass this by, but under Army Men, this game does its job very well. Hardcore RTS gamers will find nothing noteworthy here. Pretty much everything has been done better in more difficult RTS games, but what's great about Army Men RTS is its simplicity; making this the perfect game to get into the RTS genre. It's also 100% free; who can argue with that?

Oh IW.... The original COD 4 is highly regarded as one of the best games in the series, and the favorite of many. Unfortunately, since then, the COD games have become progressively worse. By MW2, things really got out of hand with its overpowered killstreaks and perks. After that, I could never take IW seriously again. I stuck with 3ark, and enjoyed Black Ops despite its flaws. At last, we have come to the not so epic conclusion; MW3. I like COD, but I warned my friends to not buy this. "It's going to ****," I said. Most didn't believe me. Watching the playthrough of SP on YouTube,was I was amazed by how much was stolen from the previous MW games. "Back on the Grid" alone is completely stolen from COD 4's famous sniping stealth mission; down to the script, except now it in 10x more cheezy, predictable, and forced. References to past games arn't always bad; they can work. COD WAW had a similar mission, but there the elements are far more subtle, and the game still feels original. Here they just threw in whatever they could shove in there from past games with no originality; including ruining characters from COD 4 by pointlessly throwing them in only to die or disappear. I'm also tired of MW games always ending the same. You're hurt, lying on the ground, and you take advantage of a distraction to kill your foe. All this was cool in COD 4, but it's not original anymore! I havn't even touched the MP yet; what a disaster that is. The first warning I had this game would **** was hearing about the return of quickscoping. Just when we were starting to move past that in BO, MW3 would have us backtrack to help some selfish "COD pro" make his YouTube montage. This may be a controversial topic, but it is my opinion quick/trick/no scoping is something that ruins the game. From what I see on YouTube, the killstreaks and certain weapons are still overpowered, and we all know from MW2 how much IW cares about fixing their games once they've taken our $. Map design is also terrible, and have a clostrophobic feel to them. Is sniping wasn't dead already, it certainly is now, and quickscoping has replaced it; what an insult. Beyond that, I can't say much since I havn't actually played the game online yet, I'll let whoever has describe the gun on gun action. What a discrace for this game to be marketed as its own game. It's just MW2 with a few extra guns and whatnot and a forgetable story. IW, MW2 was bad, but it had a good story. This is just empty. The big review sites gave you the big reviews, but you get a 1 out of 5 from me for no originality or effort whatsoever. In short, don't buy this game, because that would only be rewarding bad behavior.