DustyPig

I was hooked for the duration of the main quest, but once I had killed the evil villain I realised that I had just played it so much because I wanted it to be over and done with. The dungeons were set in a hellish realm that I didn't enjoy at all, and the dragon riding was a bore. On the upside, it was fun exploring the new island and seeing weapons that I hadn't bumped into before. But upon completing the main questline, I just felt empty. It's a shame that Bethesda forgot what made Skyrim so good; a multitude of quests and a story that never really ended.

This is a must for anyone who is a Transformers G1 fan. No, they didn't recreate the first part of the first G1 episode into the game. And for some reason Bumblebee is shot, hinting at a future where he is mute; and both the Aerialbots, Combaticons and Dinobots exist. But despite all this, its just awesome seeing and indeed being a faithful modernised version of the G1 characters. The shooting is tight, although enemies are pretty tough eveb around Normal difficulty and the lack of a cover system or a crouch button means that you'll be going less gung-ho than you'll want to. However, this is everything a sequel should be it fixes on the original's many mistakes and puts in some new content like the grappel hook to jazz up the game (see what I did there?). And just when it starts to get repetetive, you get Grimlock, an unstoppable robotic T-Rex. And then the hectic final mission, which is just awesome.

I've never been immersed in an MMO before, but I felt like giving SWTOR a try due to it being, well, a Star Wars game. It didn't make me like the combat system commonly used in an MMO, but I began to see why someone would. The graphics aren't great but they do the Star Wars world justice; after all, who sees Star Wars for the realistic and detailed content? Being a Sith Lord is awesome, and anyone who appreciates Star Wars will enjoy emulating their favourite character or creating their own. The free to play option is decent; it's annoying to get less XP and be forced to grind to progress in the story, but it doesn't feel restricting in terms of PVP battles and space missions. Overall, my main complaint is the grinding, but it's only bad because of the story focus something that is rare in MMOs. And if the player finds it that bad, all they need to do is get a subscription.

The world and characters really make this game what it is. Contrary to other popular shooters, its story has depth and the conspiracy is more than just a shock betrayal. The gameplay is good, though some parts restricts the player to just use stealth or die and the boss fights play just like a shooter; which is a shame because in all other respects Deus Ex: Human Revolution isn't JUST a shooter. The world feels great but doesn't look great due to the mediocre to good graphics that lodge somewhere between the perfectness of Crysis 2 and the far up awe but close up disgust of Skyrim. However, the Blade Runner-esque world design and colours do combine to make an engrossing experience that is as fun as it is thought provoking.

Minecraft has a unique visual style and gameplay premise - you can do whatever you want to survive and/or create things that emulate your personality. In the core singleplayer mode you are dropped into a randomly generated infinite world. You can be what you want - be it warrior, archer or forager - but the night brings horrors in the form of monsters. This is a great start but it also confuses you and there is nothing to tell you what to do. Multiplayer is amazing with a group of friends. The creations and ideas that can be produced are all astounding. But, however, the confusion and the fact that there will be nothing to do sometime into your adventure creates negative points that cannot be ignored.

Overall not a bad game, just an unpolished attempt at making money by Activision. However, I can't deny that it was fun. Singleplayer was mediocre, I really grew to hate the constant enemy spawning and there weren't any memorable characters like Ghost or Gaz from the previous Modern Warfare games. The story wasn't emotional like Call of Duty 4 nor full of 'oh my God' moments like in Modern Warfare 2 (aside from the massive building getting blown up here and there) and I just didn't care in the end. Environments were bland and monotonous, but as said before, I can't deny that it was fun. After Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer was where the Call of Duty series was at. Following past Call of Duty titles, Modern Warfare 3 seems to try to push everything from the singleplayer campaign to the multiplayer in the form of killstreaks, which are as crazy as ever. The multiplayer mode was addictive and I found myself enjoying new modes like Kill Confirmed, but being a PC Battlefield player I found the fact that you don't know where the enemy is half the time and the constant sprinting annoying (I've never not known where the enemy is or needed to sprint for really long distances that much in Battlefield 3 on the PC). However, the multiplayer was a step up from Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, though it failed to improve on Call of Duty 4 chiefly because of all the gimmicks that as well as being useless were sometimes discouraging. Whenever I got a deathstreak I always thought 'I must be going badly', and I started dying even more. So to sum it all up, Modern Warfare 3 is worth a bit of your time, but if you have a decent PC then I'd go with Battlefield 3.

A repetetive and broken third person shooter in which you run around as a giant robot killing other giant robots. Or just the one giant robot whos a bit harder. Or escort some people while fending off some more giant robots. Or fly/drive around smashing into glowing objective markers. That basically sums up the whole campaign, which revolves around the aforementioned missions. The good bits from the first game, like the freeroam and destruction, are gone, replaced with boring level design coupled with almost no destruction. Shooting is twitchy, due to the fact that you have to hold down the 'pull out gun' control then fire, and melee isn't all that fun. Transforming is great and all and the driving has greatly improved from the last game, there is no longer the nitro and drift and jump mechanics that made it feel like a driving game (a poorly designed one, however). Now, transforming is simply sprinting, which is a good thing as theres not so many details that the design team didn't have enough time to make it. Multiplayer is sub-par, with a decent mathcmaker but only 4v4 matches. There is no progression and some characters are too powerful, though all feel the same in terms of handling.

Though it was a month late in release, the Batman Arkham City PC version is a definite console port. The only graphics change that you can apply is an automated 'Benchmark' feature that wastes five minutes of your time changing nothing. I'm sure it changed something there but after the test the game still looked exactly the same, and I couldn't know if it did change anything because there was nothing to tell you the current specs that the game was running on. Another problem was the seemingly rushed PC changes. I was playing a Silent Predatorn Riddler Challenge and when I accidently mashed the buttons after doing a wrong thing I didn't see the 'F' hovering about a nearby gargoyle, I saw an 'RB'. Thats just one example of some really un-PC like elements of this game. However, past the fact that this game took longer to put on PC - to no changes whatsoever - there is no doubting that the game is really good. Arkham City is as filthy as Arkham Asylum, and as fun to explore. There are new features like Beat Downs, smoke pellets and multi-person counters and takedowns. Overall this wasn't worth the extra month that PC players had to wait, but playing Batman: Arkham City is definitely fun.

This can be interpreted as good or bad, but I finished the short but sweet campaign in nearly one day (not a continous day, I just played for around five hours that day). The multiplayer tries to bring new things but ultimately it becomes unbalanced, but theres no doubt that its a lot of fun. Highly recommended, but treat it like a Bond film, think about it and you won't like it (why does every faction have an arsenal of nuclear missiles?...). Just a word of advice however, avoid the PC version. If you have an Xbox 360/PS3 and a high-end PC, and MW2 is $100 on the Xbox 360/PS3 but $2 on the PC, I would still recommend you get the console version over the PC version.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Unfortunately, the last good Call of Duty was also the first good Call of Duty. The singleplayer is an action-packed ride but the multiplayer isn't what its really cut out to be. Sure, its addictive, but it gets boring really fast. However, it is highly recommended.

Its hard to rate this game, because what would be an average PC/console game would be a completely awesome game for iOS. So, I gave this game 7/10. Its basically a combination of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Homefront, with a bit of Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor thrown into the mix. So good so far. Three enjoyable PC/console games in one cheap iOS game. However, thats also where it fails. Theres the multiplayer from Call of Duty which gets boring really fast (some may disagree), the 'meh' factor of Homefront and the terrible AI of Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor. On a couple of occasions some enemies would run past my teammate and up to me and... reload. My teammate, meanwhile, would just stare at a leaf caught in the wind. And this was on Hard difficulty. I half expected my teammate to invite the enemy soldier for a cup of tea or pat him on the back. He probably didn't though, because all the teabags in the world couldn't make half a cup of tea for each enemy thrown at you. Then enemy I'm talking about is the KPR, the Korean, Pakistani and Russian (no points for guessing that Russia was bad). For some reason they have close to unlimited troops that they use to try and kill you and three other **** story basically revolves around that, nuclear bombs and prison escapes. However, Gameloft Montreal did do put in a lot of effort. Graphics are good, and the close observer might know that Korea, Pakistan and Russia all supply nuclear arms to Iran. Shooting feels fast and fluid (even though I did miss the fire or knife 'buttons' a couple of times), and overall Modern Combat 3: Fallen Nation is a genuinely enjoyable game. An average PC/console game but an awesome iOS game.

Great game but it gets really bland after a while with next to no unlockables and maps from Battlefield 2 designed for 64 players (the maximum player limit is 32). However, its been great to see the game evolve over time, from the laggy beta that involved only a few weapons to the newest version (December 2011) which involves deep character and gun customisation. However, it is to be noted that the aforementioned customisation is very limited if you aren't willing to pay, and with the amount I've spent in Battlefunds I could have bought Battlefield 2 or even Battlefield: Bad Company 2 in some stores.

I applaud DICE for trying to make an innovation with this game, but some features are unwelcome. Origin, for example. Why replace Steam with your own site? Both are free, and I'm sure EA could make more money getting a fraction of Steam's shares rather than having their own platform. Another is Battlelog. I appreciate the fast server browser but launching a game isn't as easy as it should be and you can easily overlook messages from friends. However, on the other hand are some nice innovations and a good multiplayer. Singleplayer is bland, Black Ops style and linear. The menu is clear, another take from the Call of Duty series (I am NOT a Call of Duty fanboy, I just couldn't help seeing that both menus (the Battlelog one not the singlplayer one) are similar). However, its the multiplayer that makes Battlefield and Battlefield 3's is great. Theres only six maps, which is sad, but it is overall a great blast. Torches (a very powerful weapon), prone and destruction 3.0 all help in the mix. If you don't know Battlefield multiplayer of late, you're basically tossed in a large destructable map with 63 other people, heaps of vehicles, some objectives, a team support item and a gun. If this game was multiplayer only and featured an actual main menu (not Battlelog for launching), I would easily give this game a 10/10.

As far as graphics are concerned the GoldenEye 007 is a looker on the Wii, despite its constant straight lines and lack of curves on weapons (maybe this is due to its licensing limits, the only licensed guns are the AK-47 and P99 and even the AK-47 isn't completely accurate in terms of curves and straight lines). Call me a kid, but I haven't played the original GoldenEye so I can't really make any judgements on the new installments stealth functions. However from a CoD and BF background I must say that they were good and different from what I was used to at the same time. Definitely worth checking out, but make sure you have a Classic Controller Pro handy.

Stripped off most Zombie maps, sub-HD graphics, split-screen and Theatre mode, Call of Duty Black Ops continues to fight the good fight and earn money while doing it. Does it succeed? Kind of, because while it is immensely fun it feels like its rushed and lacking a certain thing. For some reason, you are given the option to choose maps in the Zombies mode when theres only one map! A good game without many of the key features that it deserved, Call of Duty Black Ops for the Wii is a good game to buy... if you're not interested in one of its funnest features, Zombies.

While the combat is enjoyable, the game overall is bland and rushed. The controls are almost non-responsive, and if you climb on a building and look at say, a park, you'll find that the park is an almost Minecraft-ish block of land with no curves at all. I could have done that on Paint, and they have it in a high production game. Pah.

Bad graphics, bad gameplay, worse responsiveness, and the silliest, arcade gamiest setpieces that I've ever seen. Please, for your sake, don't get it. Its not even fun.

An extremely nostalgic third person shooter with robots. And its not bad either. The firefights are fun, the weapons are easily recognisable after a few plays, and it feels well made. Compared to past Transformers games, I would give it a 10. However, its not THE BEST third person shooter out there so it ultimately gets an 8 from me.

A great game, but it lacks any real development. Its just a port of the console/PC version in Call of Duty: World at War, plus a new menu and some achievments. This isn't a good thing, as the console/PC Zombies mode of the game was just a gimmick, and it shows in the iOS version. There is no levelling or progressing of any kind, and the achievments aren't all that compelling in the long run. However, it is a fun game, and has great controls, graphics, and multiplayer. Its just a shame though, as Call of Duty revolusionised the whole levelling up process and there was character customisation in Black Ops. It would've been nice to see a customisable loadout like 'automatically change to so and so weapon at so and so wave' or character customisation to fit the quirky comments that are shouted out in the battlefield.

Battlefield Heroes in a nutshell - Pay if you want an awesome game, don't pay if you want to watch continous killcams. But look on the bright side - at least EA doesn't charge for bullets!

An absolutely ridiculous storyline combined with laggy multiplayer choc-full of hackers. Don't get me wrong, I loved the first Modern Warfare, but this game had a more repetetive storyline that isn't nearly as emotional as the first, and basically had the same multiplayer but with crazier killstreaks, more exotic weapons and attachements, and no dedicated servers. Which basically means that the only mod is when the matchmaker puts you in a black and white 'this class only' server that you can't get out of without a window popping up saying 'are you sure?'. Also, a question to Infinity Ward - How did Brazilian mlitia who wear cheap jackets get a tactical nuke? And how is a nuke tactical?'

With an emotional singleplayer campaign and addictive multiplayer, Medal of Honor might sound good at the start, but the game is riddled with problems. In the singleplayer, the enemies are extremely dumb, and the game has too many 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Dante!' and 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Rabbit!' moments. I'm sure thats realistic in war nowadays, but if the game was meant to be realistic I guess pistols wouldn't have unlimited ammo and there would be no invisible walls. Multiplayer is fun... for a day. After you play through every map twice it simply ends up being a case of 'Oh its this map. Now, lets see, I go to this position, enemies will come through here...' etc. It doesn't bring anything new to the table but DICE did a good job with the levelling up, which makes the multiplayer slightly compelling.

Fun, but basically the opposite of the console/PC version. Terrible sound, OK graphics, and even worse AI than it's console/PC cousin. Or more like father's mother's brother's uncle's aunt's sister's grandma's grandpa's step-brother's son-in-law. The HUD is straight out of the first Bad Company game, and I found the characters not nearly as funny or interesting in it's console/PC... counterpart. Oh, and NO destruction. Maybe this game should have been titled Battlefield: Bad Company 0.5?

A hard PC game to rate, because at times it feels like a console port and at other times it feels like a PC optimized game. Running on a three year old Windows Vista at the worst settings it feels clunky and unsmooth, but on my Windows 7 laptop it runs amazing. After the update the game is much better and most PC disks will come with a free VIP map pack, which is a nice addition. In the end, if you have a good computer (my laptop is an i7 Intel core with 1GB graphics), then the game is really good, but if you don't, then you may as well get a CoD title (the graphics are more adjustable) or an older Battlefield, playing on the worst settings isn't fun.