Epik_Ninnja

Ascension is a prequel story that didn't really need telling but still offers a good game. Like Gow 1 and 2 I was able to play Ascension through PSNow and I can tell you that although this game gets some hate, it's still easily worth a play-through. The story offers a look at a less ruthless Kratos although the combat is just as brutal as ever. Graphically, the game looks great for a 7th gen title and the set pieces do not disappoint. The multiplayer is a decent addition but it's just not balanced. If you're up for more bloody combat, puzzle solving, and mythological storytelling then you should certainly enjoy this prequel.

If you own GoW3 on the PS3 the remastered version isn't worth a purchase but if you don't have a PS3 (like me) then it certainly is. It provides an epic, brutal finale to the trilogy of God of War games with awesome set pieces, great bosses and the tried and true hack 'n' slash combat fans know and love. It also offers some decent puzzles just as the previous entries did. One pretty big complaint is the senselessness of the story (even compared to the other entries). The game looks great at 1080p and 60fps and there's also a photo mode which is fun to use but again, it's not worth it unless you haven't already played the PS3 version.

Betrayed by the other gods, Kratos seeks the sisters of fate to exact revenge against them in this sequel. Boss fights and locations are not as memorable in this game but it still has its fair share of epic moments. Also, the combat is as good as you'd expect, this time with multiple weapons for a little variety. While I think it's perhaps the least enjoyable of the God of War trilogy, it's still certainly worth a play even today (I think I played it in early 2014 and I could tell it had aged well).

This game has just as much mayhem as the second one as well as another huge open world. It also has some cool new tricks up its sleeve like the wing suit and pulling two things into each other with tethers. However, the gameplay is too much of the same and never gripped me the way the second entry did when I played it a few years back. Another sub-par story and more stuff to explode hardly counts as a full-on sequel (and its progression system is not ideal). Ultimately, if you liked the second game (or if you're an action fan in general) you'll probably like this game but don't expect to be blown away (no pun intended) this time around.

Just Cause 2 offers a massive open world full of things to blow up with a variety of ways to do it. From a desert to a mountainous region, the game world provides some decent variety. However, the gameplay is not so varied. Blowing things up is surprisingly fun but it doesn't constitute an excellent game even if the premise is executed as well as it is here. Another complaint is that the shooting mechanics are very average. I still have to say that I enjoyed this game quite a bit and definitely recommend it to action fans.

A large open world, an intriguing interactive story, satisfying combat including a good variety of enemies, high-quality graphics and animations, excellent side quests, plenty of loot and items, good voice acting, nice music and a good card game are what make up The Witcher 3. Here's a title that is the sequel to a great game and yet still manages to vastly improve upon it. Frequent bugs (and frame-rate issues at launch) are my only real complaint, none of which drastically effected my experience. This is a fantastic game through and through and is still my #1 favorite game. I rate it 9.5/10.

The original Darksiders offers the combat of God of War and the dungeon formula of Zelda while adding up to less than either of them. It's still fun but it's basically just a string of fairly average dungeons you traverse for the sake of lengthening the fetch quests the main story is made up of. Nothing about it is as good as its sequel but if you enjoy action/adventure games it's still worth a play.

I played this game from mid 2016 to early 2017 and I can assure that it's stood the test of time since I honestly enjoyed it almost as much as Skyrim. The combat is clunky and graphics and animations are very bad by today's standards but the game still offers a good main quest, a pretty big open world, factions to join with quality quest lines and several fighting styles with numerous spells. I put 60 hours into the game by the time I finished it and there's probably another 60 worth of content. Over a decade after its release, this is an RPG you can enjoy long after its release.

Inquisition aimed to be more open ended than previous entries with various regions to explore and combat that combined Origins' and II's. The result was a quality game that offered a decent plot, a good deal of customization and play styles, and plenty of content. Much of the content was not exactly above and beyond, though. Inquisition would have benefited from an open world over small regions filled with random side content. It's still a good action-RPG to be sure (and a little better than DAII) but it doesn't feel as worthwhile as Origins.

Focusing on a group of misfits struggling to survive in the crime-riddled city of Kirkwall, this sequel takes a different direction. Its combat is more action-based but pretty much as enjoyable in its own right and its story and characters are as good as you'd expect from a Bioware game. Sure, the game mostly takes place in one city but it still works. However, the copy/paste areas are a legitimate complaint. I get that some people don't like change and they preferred the larger scale of the first game but I honestly enjoyed this game almost as much as Origins.

Once you get past the steep learning curve (if you're not used to the style of combat) you'll find a fascinating fantasy RPG that almost lives up to Mass Effect in terms of character interaction and world building. The 360 version looks pretty bad and other elements of the game make it feel older than 2009 but aside from those issues great characters and stories as well as hours of engaging in (semi) strategic fights, collecting items, exploring and conversing can be enjoyed.

With more content including factions to join, the ability to customize weapons, a bad*** power suit, the ability to create settlements and improved shooting mechanics, Fallout 4 fixes a lot of Fallout 3's flaws and adds some completely new elements. Still, the talking/choice-making system was simplified (perhaps due to the added voice acting) and the graphics and animations look poor for 2015. While it's not a perfect game, I thoroughly enjoyed my playthrough, which gave me plenty to do and didn't end sooner than expected like Fallout 3. I'd give it an 8.7; flawed but at the time certainly in my top 20 favorite games.

Mindless gore at its finest! Using a variety of awesome weapons, you and up to three other players take down hordes of various forms of undead. Unfortunately, that's just about all there is to say. For a free ps plus download, the game was a lot of fun but I would never pay $30 or $40 for the game. It's a simple, straightforward game about brutally killing zombies, which is why it's fun but also why it isn't great.

What started as what seemed like an interactive low-quality horror movie the first time I played it almost had me staying up until dawn playing it the second time I booted it up. Some of the scares were surprisingly effective and the decision making had real impact on the story. Also, the game's graphics are some of the best I've seen and the animations are well done (although cutscenes look choppy for some reason). It isn't a masterpiece and some parts were disappointing but overall it's a pretty good game.

Many would hail Arkham City to be one of the greats of the 7th generation. Arkham Knight breaks into the 8th gen bigger and better than ever. The game world is the largest it's been, the combat is more satisfying than ever, detective mode has been improved and the batmobile has been added. Sure, it's sort of overused (especially the tank sections) but it''s still an awesome addition. Overall, Knight is like a refined City with maybe a slightly inferior story and characters.

This post-apocalyptic action-RPG offers engaging gameplay, a great leveling system, an awesome targeting system (VATS) and a branching story that changes depending on your choices. However, the actual shooting mechanics are poor even for 2008 (and being an RPG doesn't excuse poor mechanics). Also, the story is quite a lot shorter than I expected and side quests are less abundant than I'm used to from Bethesda. It's still very much worth a playthrough in 2017 but don't expect the amount of content from Oblivion for example.

MGS2: It's fun but it feels awefully outdated with annoying controls and some frustrating bits. Ultimately, I understand why it's considered a classic, with a unique style and engrossing stealth. 7/10. MGS3: It's an improvement over MGS2 in its stealth, story, and overall game mechanics. Still, the controls are a real inconvenience (but they're not so bad once you get used to them). You can actually eat snakes! Also, it has a very good ending. 8/10. MGS PEace Walker: I never finished this one due to its painful steps backward. I thought, although a handheld game, it'd be better than the others because it's newer. However, the stealth is **** in this game. You can't even crawl! Its plot is interesting but its gameplay is just too focused on co-op, which doesn't work well in Metal Gear, and it sacrafices so much to try to make it work. The mother base adds more content to it and so does the multiplayer, but the latter of the two is garbage. 5.5/10. Overall, good value and all but Peace Walker is 'meh' and the controls are far from ideal (the Dualshock 2 had 2 sticks, why not use them for moving and aiming?). Despite the complaints, buy it if you like stealth games.

It's a short adventure/puzzle game about two brothers going out into the dangerous world and bringing back medicine for their sick father. It's fun and all, with frequent creative bits on display, but it's no more than a 7/10 until the last half hour. The ending is esecuted excellently, and in a game this short, that ought to boost its score a point. In short, play this game for its inventive gamwplay and its ending.

I understand all the hate; the multiplayer is imbalanced and overly frantic and the whole game is too similar to MW2. I agree to both of these complaints. However, a 3.3? Absolutely not! The campaign is even more intense than MW2's, with incredible cinematic moments. It really feels like the finale to the MW trilogy. The multiplayer, well, it can be fun but it's not up to the CoD standard. It is "okay" at best and I supposed that's why this game gets so much **** from gamers (I mean, it's what made CoD so famous). Taking these two modes into account, it's a 6 or 7 out of 10. But let's not forget the game's best mode, the co-op. It's like two modes in one; there are a series of 1 or 2-player missions like in MW2 and then there's a fun survival mode. The co-op adds so much more content to the game that it earns an 8/10 for its co-op and campaign, with its multiplayer more aorund a 6/10.

MW2 is what some claim to be the last good CoD game (even though Black Ops, the very next game, is better than it). The campaign is full of intense battles and cinematic moments (which weren't as impactful because I've never played CoD4MW). The multiplayer felt imbalanced or something but it's still fun to play. I've almost capped off leveling but haven't presitged (whereas I've presitged 3 times in Black Ops and played enough to have done so five times). The co-op consists of numerous 1 or 2-player missions (some only 2-player) that range from stealth to massive shootouts (mostly the latter). It's a great shooter; it's not the masterpiece that some claim it is but it's much farther form the dog **** that others claim it is.

Such hate because it's not quite the same Gears game. Yeah, it's inferior to Gow2 and 3 (I think it's probably a little better than the original due to how much more content it has), but it's still fun. The metacritic score of 79 is about right. The campaign is less enjoyable than ever not only because the story is mediocre but because the whole campaign is split into little segments so they can keep giving you challenges to apply to each little part. I prefer the longer, larger scale battles of 2 and 3 to this type of campaign, although it's still a pretty good campaign (7/10, I'd say). There's nothing wrong with the multiplayer or co-op but nothing is "standout", either. Why an 8? Well, I really enjoy the overrun mode, which is like a multiplayer version of horde mode. Kind of imbalanced or not, it can provide hours of fun. On top of this, there's jus a lot of content, just like GoW3. The content isn't quite to that level, but this game is at least a 7.5/10 in my opinion. Again, I understand the hate and I was kind of disappointed, too, but it still stands as a good game with plenty of content (oh, and mroe new guns).

GoW3's campaign is about as good as the second game's. It's an intense finale with some truly epic moments. New enemies and guns are introduced and eveything is still fun (except the lambents, which I found annoying and a little overused). The multiplayer and co-op are as good, if not better than before and there's also a fourth mode, Beast Mode, where you play as various locusts, form mini ones with little claws to hulking mound of meat with giant melee weapons. With four modes, there's plenty of content in this entry, making it another fine entry in the series. I'd give it an 8.5/10, just like GoW2, but it pulls slightly ahead perhaps because of the extra mode.

I'm not sure why this game has a lower user score than the original, except maybe because it's not the original. I personally enjoyed this game more. I bought it when it was on a digital sale six months after playing the first GoW game. At first, I felt like the campaign was the same old thing but it quickly got better. Not only are there more guns (and more guns=more fun) but the sale of battles can get pretty immense. You'll ride on the back of massive locust creatures and gun down dozens of enemies. You'll rain mortars down on your foes. You'll travel to a hellish city udnderground. On top of the epic campaign is the multiplayer which is just as good as last time, but again not the reason to buy this game. GoW2 features an all-new co-op mode (it was all-new, I mean), which adds to the fun! I'd give GoW an 8.0/10 and I'd give this great sequel an 8.5/10. And one last comment: the story is better this time around, with more reason to care about the characters.

At nine years old, it still holds up as a fun shooter. I first played this game a couple years ago (when it was a Games with Gold game) and I enjoyed the single player thoroughly. Some parts were a bit frustrating and the shooting didn't feel quite varied or exciting enough at times, but I would say the single player is a solid 8/10 overall. The guns are fun, the mechanics work well (switching cover, etc.) and it's very gory! The multiplayer is fun, too, but I'm not a huge fan of it. I'd give multiplayer a 7/10. Basically, it is what it looks like: an action-filled ultra violent game with stereotypical soldiers. It's fun, though, so therefore it's a good game.

This game is so much better than the original Wii Sports! It has a lot more games and, of course, more accurate motion controls. All of the minigames take place on a little paradise island that you can fly around in Island Flyover, the second best part of the game. The best? the swordfighting mode! It's so much better than the stuff offered in Wii Sports, plus it includes bowling and some of the other stuff from the original title. I give it a 7.5/10. It's good family fun, as I have described, but that doesn't mean it's outstanding.

This game was a fun party game to play to get a hang of the Wii U Gamepad. It's a nice bonus as part of the deluxe bundle but as a standalone game? Well, let me just say that it would not be worth $60; more like $30. It's better than Wii Sports (as it functions as an actual party game and not just a tech demo) but it doesn't excell in any way and is pretty forgettable. Now that it's over 3 years old, I'm sure you can get it on the cheap, though. It has some fun references to Nintendo games in it, so it's at least a good rental.

Telltale Games’ The Walking Dead (season one, which is essentially the first game) offers not just something that’s unique but something that’s great. It’s a decision-based game mixed with a well-crafted point-and-click adventure. The game was made to look like the comic book but follows its own story. As Lee, a man who was being tried for murder just before the zombie apocalypse, you meet up with new survivors as you watch over a girl named Clementine. Your morals are used time and time again during your adventure. Plot twists are around every corner as you fight for survival, sometimes making decisions without thinking due to the limited time provided to make them, which is realistic. The survivors you’re with change frequently and the situations you’re in are consistently unique from each other so things don’t get stale. My only real complaints: this game has too many glitches and it stutters and loads too frequently. So are you a generous helping hand or a cold survivor? It's up to you!

Halo Reach breaks away from Master Chief and follows a team of Spartans that are ordered to protect the planet Reach against the Covenenant. You can play the campaign alone or co-op online. Then there’s matchmaking which includes a wealth of modes (one in which you can play as an Elite). You can choose which ability you want before respawning; a jetpack, a deployable shield, etc., which is new to Reach and improves every game mode. On top of this there’s a firefight mode that you can either play as a survival mode with limited everything or unlimited ammo with powerful weapons and 20 minutes to score big. There’s also a map-maker (forge) mode and theater mode. Your custom Spartan carries over all three modes, which you can buy new armor for with money you gain from playing (and from the addictive daily challenges). This game exceeds all previous Halos, in my opinon, and should be experienced by any shooter fan with an Xbox 360. I give it an 8.7.

Both the campaign and multiplayer surpass that of BF3s. That’s not saying a whole lot about the campaign (although it is pretty good) but considering BF3’s multiplayer, that’s saying that BF4’s is phenomenal, which it basically is. It does best what the Battlefield franchise does best; well-balanced team-based gameplay of an immense scale (with 64 players on PC and newer consoles) with vehicles ranging from jets to boats to armored trucks to ride in. BF4 takes this to a new level with “levolution”; one map-changing destructible piece in each map, be it a **** which can collapse into the sea, moving the objective which was on top out in the rubble, or a dam which will then flood the bottom floor of the entire map. You can also play modes that use small parts of the map, such as team deathmatch. All the while, you will level up, unlocking new guns and equipment. As for the glitches...well, I started playing this game a few months after it was released so I didn't suffer the brunt of that. Even with that considered, it should be no lower than a 7/10. I recommend this game to all shooter fans.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I can see why some people gave this game a 10/10. If I would have played it at launch, I might have given it a 9/10 myself. It was a real step up from the first game (not that I've played the first game as of this review). You'll play as Ezio Auditore as you assassinate targets, buy rennovations, etc. in multiple beautiful Italian locations. It works well but I'm afraid I must say it's not the best Assassin's Creed. There, the forbidden words have been spoken! It's still a great game, though (even today).

In Assassin’s Creed III, you play as Connor, a half-English, half-Native American assassin. The game takes place during America’s Revolutionary War, with historical figures such as George Washington making appearances. As Connor, you will assassinate groups of enemy soldiers as well as specific targets (in which most of your enemy targets you actually get to know before you kill them, which can’t be said for every AC game) with a variety of weapons, as usual, but you can also hunt deer, bears, etc. This game introduced naval combat with both naval battles that were required to progress in the (above average) story and extra ones as side missions. Multiplayer is more of the same but it does add more value to the game overall. The game gets a decent deal of slack, but mostly for reasons I don't agree with (like some people think Connor is boring but I think it's fine that he's stoic). People complain that the architecture is less interesting but the game is only staying true to AMerica in the 1700's. I agree with some of the complaints, though, like the ending was kind of 'meh'. I still think this game stands above the AC’s before it as a more entertaining adventure (at least slightly).

Monster Hunter Tri offers dozens of unique monsters to hunt on a large number of epic quests. Some quests have you acquire resources but most require you kill or capture a monster. To kill these monsters, you’ll need the right equipment; a good weapon and good armor, which can be forged with monster parts or oar (only some can be purchased), as well as items such as traps, potions, and whetstones (which you can make or purchase). With numerous types of weapons and tons of abilities to obtain and manage, different climates to survive and, of course, all different kinds of monsters to face, this game certainly has some depth to it. On top of all the offline content, there’s loads more to do online with up to three other people and the multiplayer works fantastically. Why not a ten? Well, it just doesn't quite reach that level of awesomeness. Oh, and beware of a learning curve; this game is brutal before you get the hang of it. With the deep RPG elements and abundant quests, this game kept me captivated for a long while (I've played it for at least 180 hours and there's adecent amount of content I haven't touched).

Ever imagined swinging around a sword as a little kid? Then this game's for you. With the precision provided by the Wii MotionPlus accessory, cutting down foes is fun and generally responsive. On top of the swordplay, you'll obtain a few firearms that you can upgrade. You can also learn new and awesome moves. Also, the art style is neat. So, there are no clear major flaws but this game just pales in comparison to some of the best games out there and I simply didn't enjoy it enough to give it more than a 7 or an 8 (I'd say it's a 7.5). To sum things up, if you have a Wii, play this game because it's a fun action game.

It isn't bad but it's not all that great either. The campaign mostly has you travelling through a forest, shooting various dinasours with various guns. It's fun, I suppose, but the story is dumb and, well, it's not that fun. The survival mode is single player, which is downright stupid. You patch windows to keep the dinosaurs out as you fight to make it to the highest wave you can, buying new guns as you do. What does that sound like? Yeah, it's kind of a copy of **** Zombies but it's far inferior. I sound like I'm bashing the game but, again, it's fun. I wouldn't give it a 6/10, a decent score, if it were garbage, but nor would I give it a 6/10 if it were a must-play.

This game deserves a little more recognition than it recieves. It isn't incredible by any means but it offers a fun two-player campaign that pits you against both human enemies and akrids, fierce aliens. Boss fights are crazy and some of the technology you get to use is awesome, like the mech suites or this giant cannon. The multiplayer is plagued by people rolling constantly to avoid damage among other annoyances, though. Also, the story is never superb. It's a game that shooter fans (third-person shooter fans, in particular) should play but it isn't something that will blow you away.

Think ninja pirates are awesome? The fourth main assassin in the Assassin’s Creed franchise is Edward Kenway, Connor’s grandfather and a pirate of the Caribbean Sea. It could be argued that Black Flag is more of a pirate game than an AC one but I didn’t find myself caring. With a large open Caribbean world filled with things to do and sights to see, this game stands as one of the greatest of all action/adventure games. The story is disappointing but the visuals and gameplay are most definitely not. It’s when you’re not completing main objectives when this game shines brightest. Get into epic naval battles and plunder the ships to upgrade the Jackdaw, jumping on and off your ship any time you want. Take out camps of enemy soldiers with a variety of weapons and tools. Hunt animals such as jaguars, monkeys, and crocodiles or harpoon sharks and whales. Search for sunken treasure. There’s plenty of fun to be had!

After the cel-shaded Wind Waker came Twilight Princess, an all-around darker Zelda game. Illia, a girl form Link’s village, is kidnapped early on so Link sets out on Epona to find her. The plot quickly becomes so much more than that, though, when Link learns of the usurper king of the Twilight Realm’s plans and is determined to thwart them with some help from the outstanding side-character Midna. This game takes elements that worked from Ocarina of Time but improves upon them, offering nine unique dungeons, excellent music, and polished gameplay. It’s fairly familiar (you’ll get a bow and arrow, traverse puzzle-filled dungeons, etc.) but adds enough to feel unique and fresh ( you’ll get a the ball and chain, for example). Also, many of the characters you meet are pretty memorable. It's not perfect, to be sure, but its quality elements described add up to one amazing adventure game.

Former criminal Michael teams up with Franklin and his old partner-in-crime, Trevor, to pull off a series of heists in an attempt to relive the glory days. The story takes you through some insane, satire-filled missions as you switch between characters at any time, which adds to not only the missions but the entire open-world game. As you explore the massive and detailed San Andreas, you can purchase different stocks, guns, clothes, properties, etc. with different characters. Aside form the story, you can race, get into crazy gunfights, play tennis, complete side missions, fly planes and, of course, steal cars, as well as many other things. Single player alone is immense but then there’s GTA Online, the game’s sandbox multiplayer mode. Despite its greatness in most regards, the stupid humor is sometimes just stupid without being actually humorous. Also, some missions are annoying and, well, there are plenty of other minor flaws that prevent it from recieveing a ten. a nine is still a fantastic score, though. GTA V offers a huge open world with plenty of exploration and random mayhem to distract you from the over-the-top-action-filled main story. It has almost all you could want from a game!

Red Dead Redemption offers a fairly vast open world with an authentic western feel to the environment, music, gameplay, and dialogue. The gunplay is great but it's rediculous how many men you shoot on and off horseback. It just gets annoying after long enough. Also, there isn't a whole lot to do aside from side missions. you can hunt, play ****...there's probably some other stuff but that's all I can even think of offhand. For the repetitveness of the shootouts and the lack of fun things to do out in the game's vast fields (along with the annoyingly long horseback rides to the majority of objectives), I can't agee that this game is a masterpeice, although I can see why some think it is. Still, it's a great game with a good story, fun shooting, and, like I said, a very authentic western feel to it. On top of single player is the sandbox multiplayer, which adds a decent deal of value to the game. Play it but don't expect to be blown away.

I never played the original game but the ultimate edition has a pretty good amount of content and a very solid fighting system. Comic book geeks will really enjoy the story and playing as the game's various characters (I enjoyed this, too, even though I'm not much into comic books). It's worth at least a rental for anyone who enjoys one-on-one fighting games. Also, the use of environment to attack your opponent is awesome. It's not my favorite (I prefer Soulcalibur V with its custom characters and moving in 3 dimensions) but it's still definitely a good game.

I rented this game a long time ago (why, I do not know) and, well, it's far from enjoable. Should I even bother detailing why? Let's just say, even though it's already obvious, don't bother playing this game evenif you're a little kid because it's a complete waste of time where the best part is a snowball fight towards the beginning.

Skyward Sword takes place long before any other Zelda game. Link lives on a floating island called Skyloft along with (non-princess) Zelda, who gets swept away by a tornado. Now Link must venture to the surface to rescue her (the story is deeper than it sounds). There are three large fields: forest, desert, and lava. You traverse a single dungeon in each of these (which don’t feel as secluded as in past games) and then return for a second one. The sense of adventure is great as you explore the game’s colorful world. This game has ample new features added to it: upgrading equipment using materials you find, swinging the Wii Remote in varied directions to slash your enemy in that direction (think you look stupid or not, it adds another layer to the combat), discovering miniature floating islands as you fly on a Lowftwing, etc. I understand the mixed opinions on this game, but I believe that most of its changes were for the better and I’d have to say it’s the best Zelda yet. I played it for around 68 hours and really enjoyed the majority of it.

The culmination of the incredible sci-fi epic, Mass Effect 3 takes place a year or so after the second game. The Reapers have arrived and it’s your job to unite the military forces of the galaxy to fight them (and to help save Earth). The fate of entire species depend upon the decisions you make. Combat has been refined again to include heavy melees, combat rolls, etc. and the power upgrading system is better than ever. This is also the first Mass Effect to include any multiplayer mode. Sure, the ending was a letdown but that doesn’t ruin the whole game by any means. You can appreciate this game for its customization options and combat without playing 1 and 2, but in the scheme of the trilogy, as the epic finale to this large-scale interactive story that shows you how important characters throughout the series end up, which can vary drastically depending on your actions, it becomes something truly great. I'll admit the ending was pretty lackluster, the multiplayer pales in comparison to the single player, and there are less decisions in the dialogue this time around. These flaws do not warrant all of the low-scoring reviews. I honeslty enjoyed this game more than the second game (but just barely). I'd say it's a 9.3 (whereas 2 would be a 9.2, in my opinion). Upon playing it in 2013, it was my favorite game and still might be.

After an organization known as Cerberus spent two years bringing Shepard back to life, he ends up working under the Illusive Man as he tracks down The Collectors, a mysterious species that was kidnapping human colonies. Mass Effect 2 makes a number of improvements over the original. Its combat is more polished with a wider variety of enemies to face (not mostly geth). Its squad is large and excellent; you get to know each unique character through their loyalty missions where you assist them with a personal matter. The story is excellently told through frequent decision-making (in which fewer decisions’ results are exactly the same than in the original). Characters live and die by what you decide to do and say. However, weapon customization has been completely removed, which is a shame. Also, exploration has been cut back on a little too much. Still, Mass Effect 2 is a phenomenal game and a great mix between an action-RPG and a third-person shooter. It’s an incredibly made, personal, memorable experience virtually from start to finish.

The original Mass Effect was an ambitious game; it set out to be this massive space drama and a blend between a role playing and an action game. It certainly accomplished this with a customizable character, lots of different powers to use and upgrade, tons of weapon mods, ample side missions (you can beat the game in twelve hours or you can spend thirty-five), and story-altering decisions (that carry on to the next two games). Basically, this rogue Spectre (a high-ranking official) named Saren is trying to take over the galaxy with an army of robots called Geth and it’s up to Commander Shepherd, you, to stop him. However, you learn that Saren isn’t the greatest threat to the galaxy. The combat is quite inventive, a blend between action and strategy, and the story and characters really shine through. Texture pop-ins and whatnot are rampant, combat can be a little unintuitive, and the Mako parts aren't perfect by any means but Mass Effect is a great start to a fantastic series (I'd say it's an 8.7 or 8.8).

Think GTA set in Hong Kong with karate fights. It's got a pretty sizeable open world with a decent number of side activities. The story is neither bad or good, in my opinion. Some of the objectives and side activites (such as kareoke) are just paian unenjoyable. Also, there are some frustrating bits in the main story. I like the gun fights and the melee combat, though. You can stich enemy's heads in fans or impale them by pushing them onto sword fish. Ultimately there are some great action moments but don't expect the game to be on par with, say, GTA V.

This game is a modern classic. The campaign is intense form start to finish, with flamethrowers, men charging at you with bayonets (and you doing the same to them), and even throwing mortar shells as people! Its multiplayer isn't the best in the series but it's fun nonetheless. Its biggest flaws were an abundance of attack dogs and bouncing betties but it was great anyways. Now, its biggest flaw is all of those hackers who have completely ruined the multiplayer. This is also the game to introduce zombies to the series. The zombies are fun but the only map you're given (DLC ones don't count because they're not part of the original, $60 game) is very small. Overall, it's a rather enjoyable, appropriately dark Wod War II shooter.

Dead Island is a semi-open world first-person post-apocolyptic action-RPG that centers around getting off the island you're stuck on and dispatching the undead in the process. As you chop ad shoot through countless zombies with many creative weapons that you can find or craft (such as a blade that shocks yor foes with each cut), you gain XP and level up. With your level ups, you can buy different abilities. This game can be played with up to four players and contains a pretty decent number of side missions, among the possibility of exploration, although this never feels like a major part of the game. Chopping through zombies and other humans alike with ample blood and gore on display and crafting awesome weapons is a lot of fun but it doesn't quite earn an 8/20 because the story and characters are forgettable. Also, the gameplay could have been improved in a number of ways that I won't bother getting into. It's nothing truly remarkable but it's a fun gore fest with nice RPG elements.

It may not have the create-a-class system, scorestreaks, or a co-op mode but it's still a fun World War II shooter. The campaign was one of the best for its time and is still fun to play and the multiplayer feels like a less refined version of Battlefeld's multiplayer with its larger maps and vehicles. It's not a game that keeps a bunch of records and lets you customize your appearance and your gun camos, etc. It's just a straighforward World War II shooter that lets you choose from a group of preset classes between death. It's fun, though, and that's what's important. How fun? 7/10 fun, so pretty fun but I don't like it as much as, say Black Ops.