FFStudios

The third entry in the Dead Space series is more of a mixed bag than its predecessors. Right as the game begins, it's made pretty clear that Dead Space 3 is no longer even attempting to be a horror game as you're thrown into the action and start off by doing a bit of cover-based shooting against enemy soldiers. Needless to say, this opening section didn't instil much confidence for the rest of the game. After this thankfully brief shooting gallery, DS3 remembers it's roots and soon enough you're blowing limbs off necromorphs left and right. The story isn't much to write home about: after a run-in with the fanatical Unitology cult, Isaac must travel with a small group of cardboard-cut-out stereotypes to the planet of Tau Volantis and stop the necromorph infestation one and for all. The plot unfolds in a fairly predicable manner, with several plot twists that range from cliché to nonsensical. Some effort is made to introduce character conflict between Isaac and some of his fellow crew members, but there's very little reason given for us to actually care about the characters aside from some generic dialogue. As in previous games, DS3 lacks a convincing antagonist; opting instead to just make the usual psychopath/religious fanatic who's evil for no better reason than “the plot demands it”. The voice acting is above-average for a video game, but is nothing special. The overall gameplay is fairly similar to previous Dead Space games: mainly involving over-the-shoulder shooting as well as some light RPG progression. The RPG elements take the form of various upgrades you can give your suit although they're all bog-standard: better armour, better health, more air etc. The one major new addition to the combat is weapon crafting, which allows the player to scavenge various parts from the levels and use then to create and buy weaponry, rather than the credits system from previous games. The system works well and allows plenty room for experimentation, although some combinations can totally break the game: I found using a hovering saw with an under-slung explosive charge launcher could pulverise just about anything the game could throw at me. Overall though, the crafting has an appropriate survival feel to it and is much more involving than DS1 and 2's standard shop system. However, all this is negated by a universal-ammo system: previous games would often force you to adapt to weapons you weren't necessarily comfortable with by limiting ammo for your other weapons, making for a more intense experience. Dead Space 3 on the other hand uses generic "ammo clips" that were so ubiquitous that I never even came close to running out of ammo, ultimately de-fanging what little tension the game initially has. From a technical perspective, Dead Space 3 is absolutely top-notch. The sounds design remains some of the finest in modern triple-A gaming and the grimy visuals effectively paint a bleak, almost post-apocalyptic dystopian future, low texture quality notwithstanding. Ultimately, as a third-person shooter, Dead Space 3 succeeds admirably but as a horror game it barely conjures up even a few tense moments. As a thought-provoking story, it's down there with a generic cinema blockbuster.

While benefitting from a gorgeous aesthetic design, a top-notch opening and some great voice acting, Bioshock Infinite is a deeply flawed entry in the 'Shock' series, and possibly the weakest thus far. Carrying over the basic gameplay from Bioshock, Infinite suffers from a shallow combat system that is both overlong and out-of-sync with the story & characters. Whereas both System Shock 2 and Bioshock were set in dystopian, ruined cities, Infinite is set on the still-functioning city of Columbia; this makes the scavenging mechanic seem oddly contrary to how the city is painted during the opening, as do the "vigors" that take the place of Psy powers and plasmids but add nothing meaningful to the world or the people inhabiting it. The story itself is fairly well-presented and has an exceptional opening and a satisfying conclusion (a first for a shock game) but loses momentum and becomes a slog in the middle. Overall, Bioshock Infinite is a decent game with a good story that could've been vastly improved if it were a new IP rather than trying to be another shock game. [7.4]

For its time and even now, Thief the Dark Project is a masterpiece in stealth games. Despite the obviously aged game engine, the game is very immersive and atmospheric with some exceptional writing. The stealth is obviously Thief's main strength: finishing a level undetected without killing anyone is immensely satisfying. Thief does have it's gripes: the game burdens itself with too much zombie and burrick-killing which did little more than make the game punishing at times. The Dark Engine also comes with a couple of annoying quirks; namely slippery movement and fiddly inventory management. These issues however, do little to make Thief any less of a classic.

[9.0] Metro Last Light improves on its predecessor is nearly every way: the shooting is satisfying, the atmosphere is haunting, the story and characters compelling and the dreary graphics all draw you into one of most stunningly realised worlds in gaming. A weaker final act, prohibitively linear level design and unsatisfying ending(s) prevent me from giving it a perfect rating, but MLL is an unforgettable experience that no-one should pass up.

Primal Carnage has a lot of potential but is quite insubstantial in its current form. The game that is there (1 gamemode and 5 maps) is well-balanced and fun to play as either humans or dinosaurs with each class feeling unique in its own way. I will update my rating if Lukewarm can live up to their promises.

As a Thief fan, I will honestly say that I was slightly disappointed by Dishonored. First of all, let me say that Dishonored's visual aesthetics and world design is astounding; the city of Dunwall feels like a real place and a lot of effort has gone into its history. The gameplay itself is a mixed bag: the powers are generally quite useful and never feel unnecessary (except for the possibly game breaking Dark Vision), the sword combat is challenging although unsophisticated and movement is smooth and intuitive, but I don't feel they make the most of the rooftops through use of blink and the levels in general feel somewhat restrictive compared to Thief. Despite some good uses of environmental & emergent storytelling, the actual plot is fairly poor in Dishonored. The plot is predictable and the silent protagonist actually cripples the storytelling and characterisation; with characters all having great visual design, but mostly bland personalities. Technically, the game is quite a good port; with a good amount of customisation and an FOV slider, plus the option to disable smoothing. Overall though, Dishonored is a bold attempt to mix stealth and action with some great mechinics and setting, but it's let down by a lack of depth in the story or characters, some AI issues and the limitations of both the levels and the powers available. Still well worth a purchase, and an excellent introduction to stealth games.

Thief 2 is a strong candidate for being one of my favourite games of all time, and I don't say that lightly. The follow up to the flawed gem that was Thief The Dark Project may seem familiar to those who played the first one; the interface is more or less the same, as are the slightly ugly graphics and overall gameplay. Taking away the irritating mandatory combat in TTDP, Thief 2's strengths such as the sprawling non-linear levels, engaging stealth, brilliant writing and characterisation shine all the brighter. The characters all feel unique; even the guards have an endearing daftness to them as they flamboyantly make conversation while you watch from the shadows (keep a look out for Benny, especially). In fact, I'm hard pressed to say anything bad about it except nitpicks; the gameplay doesn't add much from TDP, the graphics are a bit ugly (even for 2000) and it's not quite as tense or original as the first game. But any criticism I have for the game is quickly overshadowed by the sheer brilliant of it. This is a darn good game, and I urge you to buy it.

If MS Flight is an indicator for what is to come for the games industry, then the future is bleak indeed. Flight takes a different approach to the previous games in the series; namely removing "simulator" from the name and giving us a small area to fly in, plus having customers pay money for additional aircraft or scenery; it's just that you're effectively paying £70 for about 1/100 of FSX or 2004. In Microsoft's rush to try and make the series more "accessible", all they've done is make a game too boring for the casual gamers and too insubstantial for older fans of the series. The only good thing I have to say about this game is that the graphics are quite nice, as is the sound. If I sound a bit dry, it's because everything about this game just makes me feel depressed for the AAA games industry and I really don't have anything to say about it, just don't download it.

For a first expansion, Dawnguard certainly isn't "bad", but it feels somewhat small compared with previous expansions. Let me quickly get the good points out the way; the quests are compelling, the new crossbow is satisfyingly powerful and the boss fights are better than they were before. The biggest issue with DG is the price; it simply isn't worth £14 for what essentially amounts to a 6-10 hour questline and a couple of new dungeons & weapons. The new locations are hit-and-miss: the soul cairn is bare & boring to look at while the Forgotten Vale is much more interesting to explore. However, there's not really much to see there besides the view and a couple of new enemies. Another improvement made to the game is the boss encounters; they're not as bad now. The boss fights now involve more than just wailing on the enemy until they stop moving, but they still don't feel very diverse or satisfying. Although the DLC claims to have a two-way choice in it, there really isn't much impact one way or another: the quests are more-or-less the same although the vampire questline has a much more lively story than the Dawnguard's hum-drum boring serious storyline. There is one occasion where a certain character's dialogue changes depending on how far you progressed through the main quest; which is at least a step in the right direction. So I guess the final question is "is Dawnguard worth it"; in my opinion, yes. Yes, but only if you're a Skyrim fanatic who has exhausted everything the main game has to offer. Otherwise, don't bother. 7.3/10

I'll give this game an eight, because I personally value story above gameplay. Metro 2033 is a post-apocalyptic FPS with survival horror elements. First off, the attention-to-detail is astounding: the amount of work that went into every tiny detail of the environment really helps draw you into the world even if it makes the linear levels somewhat confusing to navigate. The story is quite well-done, although the inconsistency of the almost-silent protagonist can be jarring; the main character, Artyom, briefs each mission beforehand in the form of a diary but goes completely silent once gameplay resumes. The game also has the makings of quite a good atmosphere but never really takes full advantage of it, being quite creepy at best but never very scary. The gameplay is Metro's weakest point: I'm sure I don't need to go over the AI problem and gunplay, just scroll down to one of the hum drum 0's down there. So quick summary; good story, interesting atmosphere, average gameplay, linear levels and great attention-to-detail.

Despite the gripes I have with Bad Company 2, it is still a very solid multiplayer game with some fun maps and engaging gun play. The single player isn't much to write home about: the characters are fun, but the story itself is weak & shallow and is peppered with frustrations. The multiplayer is limited to 32 players, which is a little disappointing, but the maps are still quite large and the vehicle battles feel gritty and intense. The weapons feel much more punchy than BF2, even it the amount of recoil can sometimes be off-putting to my enjoyment, especially as longer ranges. The guns are fairly well balanced, although the tendency for everyone else to rush off with a sniper rifle remains; leaving you with the sole responsibility of actually doing the work. Another gripe I have is that the vehicles handle extremely badly and are frustrating to control; often flipping over if you so much as lean it too far. Overall though, I like Bad Company 2: it has it's frustrations and gameplay issues, but for the most part is destructive, well-made and sometimes entertaining multiplayer experience.

Having bought the Steam indie bundle, I may as well go though each of the games individually. Firstly, EDGE is an ultra-retro thing (hard to classify) that's based on rolling a box around various levels. The visuals are strikingly stylish, with a very retro vibe to it all, for better or worse. The levels take their time to get going, but once they do, EDGE provides a meaty challenge for anyone with nostalgia or just want some simple mind-bending. I mentioned "for better or worse": being a retro style game, there isn't really a plot at all, not even a clear sense of progression besides harder levels. Another issue is the controls; you move the box using your standard WASD key setup, but the isometric perspective was somewhat confusing and I found myself repeatedly falling off the edge after misjudged which key moved the box forward. Overall though, EDGE is a fun little way to kill time until the next proper game comes out. The most interesting stuff in the industry however, will always be in the independent circle and games like this are an encouraging sign of the growth of indie developers.

Since Mann vs. Machine is out, I think it's time for a re-review of TF2. In case you don't already know; Team Fortress 2 is a competitive online shooter with wonderful cartoon visuals, engaging class-based teamplay and is still more fun than most other online shooters. The MvM update adds a fairly substantial co-op mode in which you team up with four others to stop robots from deploying a bomb to your base, so it's basically an elaborate form of tower defence. Like the main game, MvM never ceases to be entertaining even whilst your team is getting repeatedly ground into the dirt. The game is also free, so unless you're paranoid about disk space, then Team Fortress 2 is a no-brainer, even if you're not into online shooting games.

Before I start bashing this game, let me get the good points out the way first. Dead Space 2's engine is incredibly well-deigned and the environments have a good amount of attention-to-detail: lights flicker through gaps in the wall and the dark environments do a good job of building atmosphere (when the game lets it). The story is generally good and kept me engaged. The combat is satisfying, if a little pretentious and the HUD is very effective at drawing you in and keeping you immersed. Now, the bashing. Despite its pretensions; DS2 is not a proper horror game. I've always said that the best horror games will make players doubt what they can see, and fear what they cannot see. Dead Space 2 has meets neither of those requirements; there is a sub-plot involving hallucinations, but it has little effect on the gameplay and is only really there for cheap scares. The monsters you fight in the game lack any form of subtlety and will display themselves in full illumination; the opening scene especially being a perfect example of this game's lack of subtlety. Another **** issue is the save points: you save your progress at different "save stations" dotted throughout the levels; not only are they out-of-place but they also ruin the immersion that the game tries so hard to achieve. This game is extremely long (10 hours) in proportion to how many ideas it has and would have benefited with having 5 of those chopped off of to make it less flabby. On top of that, the game isn't even that scary and will often throw buckets of gore and blood in your face in an attempt to scare you. So the biggest problem with DS2 is that it just can't decide what it's trying to be; switching between splattery gory action and morbid sentimentalism and creating jarring tonal shifts. Dead Space 2 is not a bad game: I don't deny that it is still quite fun to play, but it completely misses the point of what horror is about and while non-horror fans will probably be on the edge of their seat, those used to proper atmosphere are in for a bit of a flop. On a side note, I'm glad Visceral fixed that awful mouse movement from DS1. If you want a proper horror game, download "Slender"; if that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Despite what it may seem, NW actually feels like a proper expansion rather than a mere re-skin of Warband. Acting more like a self-contained game, Napoleonic feels much more smoother than Warband and creates some epic battles as small groups of soldiers attempt to push their way through gun and cannon-fire to reach besieged castles and forts. However, while the battles are epic and feel much more organic than Warband, some of the frustrations of that game are still carried over. You can still die with one hit from a blade which disrupts the flow somewhat and balance issues exist. Don't let either of these put you off though, Napoleonic Wars is a fantastic expansion that expands on the base game rather than raking in the cash for a few small features. Well worth it.

Compared with Bloodmoon, Tribunal is somewhat underwhelming to explorers such as myself. This expansion adds little more than a few large but barren sections of a city without altering the gameplay much at all. I'd still recommend Tribunal for the political intrigue which led through an interesting series of agendas and mysteries that I always liked about (most) ES games. So all in all, Tribunal adds an interesting story but little else besides some new, relatively empty areas of a city.

Bloodmoon is DLC done right; the land is vast but varied making it interesting to explore. The entire place has a vibe to it and a different culture to make it interesting. Yes, in case you're wondering Bloodmoon's island is pretty much a smaller version of Skyrim; so if you don't like snow, glaciers, mountains or other spectacular scenery then this probably isn't for you. If you aren't boring and actually like sweeping vistas and a unique culture then Bloodmoon is a perfect piece of DLC that's more or less a smaller version of the main game. If you don't have it, then seek a copy out immediately.

[First Impressions] I notice that many people giving this game negative reviews all seem to be "bad graphics" this and "poor port" that, but let me just give my opinion of the game without referring to such trivial issues. First of all, New Vegas in NOT made my Bethesda, but was developed by Obsidian. From a FI perspective the game isn't much to write home about; the gameplay is virtually unchanged save for new weapons and iron sight aiming and the quests are as fun as ever. The most significant difference is the reputation system which dictates how different factions and settlements will react to you. For example, doing favours for someone will increase your reputation with that settlement or doing vice versa will degrade your reputation. The system does produce interesting scenarios from a role-playing perspective but it means little to me as I'm more interested in the world and the quests. The game has a more distinct vibe to it than Fallout 3 despite the main story being uninteresting in comparison, the colourful Vegas looks quite spectacular from a distance. So from a first-impressions viewpoint, I like New Vegas. It still has plenty of interesting quests and I'll no doubt enjoy what the reputation system can offer but for some reason I can't get that interested in the setting.

What makes Morrowind so brilliant? It's very hard to define what makes this game stand out for many people; often it's something which needs to be experienced rather than explained. The actual mechanics of this game are actually quite bad; the combat is so abysmal that you'll be tempted to cheat just to avoid slogging though it and the controls feel clunky and difficult. So if you want good combat and tight mechanics then Morrowind isn't for you. But let's actually move onto positive thoughts. You start the game as an unknown prisoner being transported to the mysterious island of Vvardenfell: upon your arrival you are slowly introduced to the different mechanics and pick each aspect of your character (name, race, class) before you're given the simple task of delivering a letter to a certain individual a few miles down the road. That's it. That's the entire opening sequence that introduces you to this strange world. The main quest, like may parts of the game, is like a jigsaw puzzle; at first obscure, all the different pieces come together to reveal the bigger picture. Even the simplest of quests have a hand-crafted feel to them, making each and every one special in their own way. The design of the world is fantastical; one moment you might be wandering through a washed-up village and then find yourself in a forest of giant mushrooms with surreal 'cattle' roaming the fields. It's hard to describe here why all this is significant; the subtleties are what made Morrowind so special. Neither the technology nor the graphics are what define this game; it's that sense of being a small part of a big world, being in a land like no other, doing more than just grinding a set of numbers and stats. Everything feels unique and that feeling of awe as you wonder what lies beyond this village is what draws you in. This is something the later games (particularly Oblivion) didn't quite get; setting defines the story. It's not about how advanced the graphics are whether there are spears or stats in the game; it's about the world. How does it look? How does it feel? What part are we to play in it? This Bethesda, is why we play these games: we want to enter this alien, conflicting land and more importantly, become a part of it.

Compared with the Bethesda DLC which came before - Bloodmoon, or even Tribunal - KOTN seems disappointingly insubstantial. The quests have some great moments, but they're mostly just a series of fetches with a handful of interesting dungeons. I don't mind the DLC's size, but Knights of the Nine doesn't really offer that great of a questline compared with most available in the main game. The armour set is interesting, but the whole expansion suffers from the same generic vibe that plagued Oblivion: I just find it out of place when terms like "Katana" and "Crusader" are used in what is meant to be a completely different world. KOTN is by no means bad, but I'd have to rate it lower than any other TES DLC I've played. Best to buy it with the GOTY edition.

Sum up MW3 in one word? Lazy, probably. Back in the days of the first Modern Warfare, the campaign was well-paced and only had the occasional set piece to awe you; whilst in MW3, you can't go 5 minutes without a building, plane or train falling and crashing six inches away from your face. The game becomes exhausting to play and then just turns out to be boring. It's not that I think they should revolutionize the graphics every time a new game comes out, but this game does very little new, even story-wise. The story is even more disjointed than MW2 if you can believe that; with a half-hearted structure and poorly developed characters. Do I even need to be babbling right now? Just don't buy this game, unless you're willing to part with £30 for what essentially amounts to just a boring campaign and dull maps. And no, I don't like Battlefield 3 either so let's just drop this argument.

As far as DLC goes, Shivering Isles is a prime example of DLC done right. It is curious how Bethesda's horse armour was a great example of how NOT to do it, and SI is the opposite. Like with Bloodmoon, the pack offers an entire new island which, in my opinion, surpasses the original game in terms of environment design because everything in Oblivion looked exactly the ruddy same. The dialogue in TES games is never that good, but it seems to fit Oblivion's wacky setting; there is some genuinely funny dialogue and the contrast between the areas in the island are interesting. The quests are just as wacky as the setting and the characters seem more colourful than any other Elder Scroll since Morrowind. Bethesda may not see it, but they always seem to be at their best when they're being wacky: such as Morrowind, the 'Gary' vault in Fallout 3 or the drinking contest in Skyrim. So now that you've read this so called review, email Bethesda now and tell them to make TES VI more like Shivering Isles.

As expansions go, Kingdoms is actually quite good. Despite the updates, it does possess the same issue with the original Med 2 game in that the AI is either incredibly thick or incredibly stupid. The expansion is split between four campaigns; Britannia, the Crusades, the Americas and Teutonic campaigns, which I've listed in order of my impressions. All of them are at least enjoyable and offer a more distinctive vibe than the main game had. Overall though, Kingdoms is a worthy expansion despite not really adding much to the core gameplay.

First, let's deny the existence of the single player, which I feel is one of the most blisteringly awful campaigns I've ever played through thanks to its boring story & characters and lack or direction. Origin is a bit of nuisance but I've decided to rate the game and not the software. Anyway, my first impressions of BF3's multiplayer were good; the weapons feel much tighter than Bad Company 2 and the graphics are technically superb on ultra settings. I will also give credit to DICE for making a game which actually feels at home on the PC with optimised graphics and intuitive controls. Now to the negatives; despite the technical side of the graphics, they still carry that current-generation problem of being incredibly dull and colourless; I understand perhaps horror games might need it but games like Battlefield just don't benefit from it because everyone looks indistinguishable from one another against murky backgrounds. There's another thing, why are most of the environments either desert industrial or urban? Bad Company 2's lurid jungles were way more visually appealing than BF3's dull maps. Frostbite 2 might shine, but graphics will never be able to carry a game, I don't care how advanced your volumetric lighting is, the game should still be able to stand up without good graphics. All these problems would normally be quite small, but there is one massive problem I have with this game that just ended it for me; health amount. It may be acceptable in games like DayZ and ARMA that you die easily since they're both realistic simulations; but BF3 is not that sort of game. You can take about three hits before dying, making smaller fights not really a matter of who has the best aiming and skill as it is whoever spotted the other first. I'm sure BF3 will suit players who somehow like low HP and dull, samey maps, but for me Battlefield 3 was probably the most disappointing game of 2011.

Most titles from the indie bundle turned out to be alright to me, but Lone Survivor definitely stands out for me as being the best of the bunch. Just like many other bundle games, the game is very retro style with a gameplay system somewhat akin to Silent Hill; creeping through dark hallways and using a map to navigate apartments. Unlike Silent Hill though, you must keep returning to your room to sleep and eat which, while challenging, can start to grate after a while. Overall though, I enjoyed Lone Survivor: it's atmospheric, intriguing and quite well-paced. Buy it with the Steam bundle.

The second game in the first Steam indie bundle in yet another unique idea conjured from the indie development: a tower OFFENCE game in which you basically fight an alien force using vehicles. The gameplay is satisfyingly challenging despite some 'dumb luck' moments. There's not really that much I can say about AWE: it's unique despite some design flaws that was well worth the price in the sale. That's really all I can say.

On paper, Far Cry 2 looks like everything I would ask for in such as game: making FC into a proper open-world game and taking advantage of the engine. I'm not against the first game's linear progression, except that Jack Carver for me was completely unlike-able. Anyway, my first impressions of Far Cry 2 were quite good; the graphics are very well-done, the action is intense and the dialogue is well-written. That's just about all the main positives there are. Although the action is entralling and often tactical, the journey between them is arduous and turns into a commute between every mission which quickly turns into grinding. The missions themselves aren't very varied and are just a series of variations of blow up stuff, kill stuff, buy stuff and blow up other stuff. Story is almost entirely non-existent; not even a bare-bones story to give a sense of progression; just a series of disjointed missions interspersed with well-written dialogue. Enemies will also respawn literally minutes after you clear them out from a base, making it feel like a pest-control business rather than an actual conflict. So in short, Far Cry 2 has a lot of potential and succeeds in some areas, but it's just too repetitive and lacking in story to really prove its worth in the long run; wait for a Steam sale before buying it.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

One thing I've noticed about games these days is that many people judge a game by their playtime rather than the quality of the actual game. LIMBO is grim, bleak arty platformer which is extremely well-designed and has an eerie atmosphere. LIMBO is pretty short, perhaps about 3-4 hours depending on your skill. To be clear you're not making the same mistake as that other reviewer; you will die, a lot! You might complain over the game being too short, but if it were any longer, you'd just complain about it being over-long and repetitive. This game however, never seems to repeat itself: it has some interesting themes to it, but it does lack any sort of a plot. You can argue if that's a good thing, but I can't think how you would implement them into a game like this. Lastly, again pointing to that reviewer who said this game has no replay value; well of course it doesn't! Puzzle games never have replay value if it's a proper puzzle game, once you've learned the solution, what else is there? Anyway, I'd say LIMBO is actually quite short for the price, so I'd only recommend it to people who don't mind parting with a hefty £7 or are in the mood for an arty game.

Having never reviewed an iOS game before, I thought I'd take a look at Treyarch's classic zombie shooter. On a positive note, the game is quite addictive and well-designed despite the limitations of the iPad 2's hardware. On the other hand, this game is extremely insubstantial; it only comes with two maps which quickly start to get repetitive to play. So WaW Zombies is quite good for an iOS game, but it really needs more content to be considered worth the price.

I remember once saying that Amnesia The Dark Descent is probably the scariest horror game ever made; although I do admit that I hadn't actually played any other horror game before. Unfortunately for Dead Space fans, this game hasn't changed my mind. The game takes place in space and follows yet another emotion-less mute Issac Clarke. On a positive note, the game is very well put together and I'm sure gore-hounds will probably love the frequent dismemberment and violence. The combat is quite satisfying and the upgrade system feels fluid. However, being a console port, Dead Space is not well-optimised for the mouse & keyboard, with a weirdly floaty mouse and disjointed sensitivity. The biggest problem I have with Dead Space though, besides the controls, is that it's not even that scary: gory yes, plenty of it, but only the first 10 minutes were genuinely terrifying for me. Once you get your mittens on the weapons though, the game just becomes a series of action sequences with occasional padding and tedious repetition. The game just lacks any form of subtlety; the monsters will eagerly display themselves at every opportunity, bringing an orchestral jump every time they appear. Even after a glitch making the difficulty to jump from Easy (don't judge me) to Medium, the weapons are quite overpowered and the levels start to stretch themselves. So in conclusion, Dead Space is a Survival Horror game that slipped up over the whole horror aspect, so it's essentially just a survival action game. Just to be clear though, Dead Space is not a bad game at all; it looks great, sounds great and is still quite entertaining. A popcorn game I'd say, if you're looking for proper survival horror then Google "Slender"; if that doesn't scare you, nothing will.

Having now seen what Morrowind was like, I think I'm ready to finalise my score for Oblivion. Let's get the worst parts of Oblivion out of the way first. Compared to both Morrowind and Skyrim; Oblivion feels much more generic and lacking in any distinct theme. I'd say this is because those games both had distinctive cultural themes; being incredibly surreal and Viking-like respectively. The quests themselves still have an interesting variety to them, from simple fetch-this quests to more complex place-to-place quests which I think Bethesda should starts focusing on more rather than pad out games with grind missions. The graphics are adequate, but the environments lack any real distinction from one another and characters have a strange uncanny valley look to them during conversation. Voice acting is also uneven, but Bethesda should no longer lose points for that. The combat would indeed be accurate of real-life swordplay if the combatants both fought by slapping each other with pieces of cardboard. Anyway, enough negatively, let's talk positive. As I said, the quests have a nice variety to them and the main story is alright, if uneven. The environments are nicely designed and the scoring is typically excellent. Of course, above all else remains that sense of true, organic open-ended game-play that Bethesda is renowned for. As a whole though, Oblivion is still an excellent game that is let down by a lack of identity among other Beth games. By the way Bethesda, you don't need to pad out the game with radiant quests, you should focus more on making more of though long-winding quests like they had in Morrowind. Skyrim was a step in the right direction, but man up Bethesda! You have nothing to lose if you make another game as unique as Morrowind!

While MW2 is splendidly designed; with a compelling, but slightly silly, campaign and an addictive multiplayer. The gameplay is pretty much unchanged from the first Modern Warfare, a tight & responsive first person shooter which at least demonstrates that Infinity Ward once had a knack for tight level design and imaginative levels. However, the single player is quite ludicrous: the epic set pieces and sweeping soundtrack can't distract you from the disjointed plot and thin characterisation. The multiplayer is fun, when it works. A lack of dedicated servers is quite literally IW holding a finger up at PC gamers; on top of that, the servers are unreliable and, for me anyway, take about 10 minutes to ready themselves. Even when I'm in on the action, the game is often cut out because of host migration or...something. Anyway, I'd recommend MW2 for it's single player and the addictive co-op mode, but the competitive multiplayer seems a bit of a flop by modern PC gaming standards.

Before I start this review, I should point out that Alan Wake is actually quite a good console port. For once, a made-for-console game actually feels playable with a PC and seems well-optimised, so bravo Remedy. Anyway, Alan Wake is survival horror game set almost exclusively in a spooky forest. I bought this on a whim during the Steam sale and I can safely say that I liked this game a lot more than I thought I would: the atmosphere is suitably spooky & unnerving, the story is interesting & will keep you engaged up until the end and the game looks fabulous. Now, negatives. The game has a good atmosphere, but does its best to sabotage it; practically broadcasting enemy locations to you and padding out the levels to stretch its length. Also, while the story is mostly good, the execution is uneven; with some weak characters and weird lip-syncing. I know graphics aren't important, but in a cutscene heavy game like this, it does become quite immersion breaking. So to sum up Alan Wake, it's a competently put-together enjoyable nine hours that, despite it's flaws, did enough to keep me interested. Wait for a sale though.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I'm not a pessimist, but when after buying Left 4 Dead 2 on Steam, I was a little unsure of how it would be. The first aspect that worried me was the change in overall theme from a grounded city setting to a more diverse, but campy deep south America. Once I bought it however, I can safely say that L4D2 is still as fun as ever. So what has changed you ask? Quite a lot has been changed: the visuals and sound are improved; you can now use melee weapons; there are more guns; there's a better sense of progression and of course, more gore. This is probably the goriest game I have ever played; if it were a normal shooter about shooting soldiers instead of zombies then I might have felt a bit guilty. There is a problem I have with L4D2 though: teaming up with friends on-line and ploughing your way through hordes of slavering zombies may be entertaining, but it's also repetitive and quickly becomes quite tedious to play. The campy setting also seems to have taken away some of the emotional impact from the game. Overall, even though this is probably Valve's weakest game I've played, it still stands tall and proud over most of the junk which the game industry churns out and as a co-op experience, I thoroughly recommend it.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Movie tie-ins have never been a positive in my books. Although I do admit that before 2010, they were all I played; looking back, most of them were just mediocre rubbish. The only one of these games which I ever went back to playing and actually liked was King Kong, or PJKK:TOGOTM. The game was designed by Michael Ancel, who recently cemented my admiration with Rayman Origins. KK has the usual issues with movie tie-ins: the game is stretched despite being 5-6 hours long, several aspects are unrefined and and Kong segments are arguably weaker than the rest of the game. Throughout the game you control Jack, a screenwriter who is probably one of the only FPS protagonists who actually speaks. The story is bare bones: pretty much the film but with little exposition and less complexity. In many ways, King Kong is a survival horror: you are equipped with only the barest necessity of firearms and/or spears which you chuck at a variety of dinosaurs and giant insects. Pacing is an issue, just like the film, and within 5 minutes of landing on the island, you'll find yourself fighting your first boss monster. The interface is bare-bones too, keeping your attention on the action. What I've said may sound slightly negative: but trust me when I say that King Kong is perhaps the best movie tie-in you'll ever play thanks to its brooding atmosphere and engaging design; just don't expect much in story or complexity.

Despite the Metacritic ratings; many of opinions I heard of Portal were mixed. Some said it was short, others complain of the linear level design and unspectacular graphics. Yes, Portal is only 2 hours long. Yes, the progression is linear. Yes, the Source engine graphics are not exactly Crysis. But ultimately, these factors actually contribute to why Portal is such a great game: it's tightly designed, well-executed and unique. Anyone who likes puzzle games or even video games in general should seek this out to see what all the fuss is about.

Having played Amnesia and being terrified witless, I decided to buy Frictional's first foray into Survival horror, and first game ever. First, the positives. It's very atmospheric; the environments are creepy & unnerving and the first encounter with an enemy is unforgettable. Certain plot elements are well done and the character of Red is memorable. The physics system is just as clever as ever, perhaps even more so than Amnesia thanks to the more grounded setting and difficulty in using doors. Negatives: combat. The problem with the combat isn't that it's sticky or useless, it's because it's there! Something that's scary loses its sting when you can kill it, and fighting in this game you will inevitably find the exploit to easily deal with any enemy you encounter. The plot also relies too much on written notes and your character pointing out the obvious. I wish FG would decide if they want Phillip to be a silent protagonist or not: he goes through a long monologue at the beginning and then seems to lose his voice once the game begins, even when a particular character tries to contact him he still says nothing. Overall though, I liked Overture, and if you're looking for a good spook then I definitely recommend it.

I only bought Crysis off Steam because it was £9.99 and I needed something to work my new hardware. When I bought it however, I found that the Steam Crysis was incompatible with Win7 64 bit and Crytek had apparently hoped that no-one would notice this rather pathetic issue. Anyway, to the game itself: after fixing that issue about 3 days after buying it, I went into Crysis with some worry that it would just be a sightseeing tour with no other purpose than as a hardware benchmark. After getting into however, I found it to have interesting non-linear gameplay and tactical play thanks to your nanosuit. The way the nanosuit works is that you can direct suit power to several different abilities: speed, strength (improves throwing and jumping), armour and an invisibility cloak. These different traits as well as weapon attachments make combat varied and interesting. Bad bits? The story for starters; I know Crysis isn't exactly meant to be a masterful piece of arty writing, but I just find the story and characters to be weak and badly written. Cutscenes. Never have your character do things in cutscenes that you can do in gameplay. Visuals. This isn't really a negative in terms of engine power; because Crysis is a very good looking game, it's just that the art design is a bit bland and unimaginative. So to conclude; if you're looking for something like Far Cry, but with less frustrations and AI that isn't equipped with x-ray vision, then feel free to give Crytek your money, just don't expect much support from them.

After watching my cousin play M&BW on his PC, I eventually decided to seek out a copy. On paper, this game sounds brilliant: 64 players siege battles, variety of weapons and tactical combat. In execution though, M&B is merely a good game which is only let down by some glaring faults. The most predominant fault is the rather obnoxious imbalance of weapons; two-handed weapons swing at almost exactly the same speed as one-handed weapons, making the multiplayer somewhat frustrating. Another problem is team marking: yes, I know that team mates have circles above their heads but wouldn't it make more sense to have the two teams colour coded so you don't keep killing yourself by accidentally attacking teammates. The graphics are dated, but that's not important, what is important is that Warband is still quite a good game which could become a proper classic if the balancing and gameplay were smoothed out a bit.

[First impressions] Steam and I have a complicated relationship: sometimes I see it as a smooth and intuitive way to manage games, whilst other times I curse it for my slow Internet and strange glitches. Anyway, back in 2009, I was causing Steam after I lost my first account and the ability to play Empire Total War. Recently, I managed to find my account and activate ETW; so here's a first impression review. Empire is certainly quite spectacular with a heavier emphasis on gunpowder weapons and yet the stragegy has been lost somewhat now that your units use guns rather than physical weapons, making them less significant and somehow more dull than Medieval 2. The interface has been redesigned, and by that I mean it's completely incomprehensible thanks to the confusing styling and randomly rearranged functions. One of the most significant additions to the game is naval combat; so now you can actually fight the battle rather than clicking "auto-resolve" with every battle, followed by "clear defeat". The naval combat is spectacular, more so than land battles, but is virtually impossible to control. If you select a ship and right click on an enemy, they flat out don't attack; they just dither in circles while the enemy picks away at your hull. The world map isn't much better thanks to a confusing HUD and apparent lack of the flag colouring from Medieval 2 which made it much easier to tell which cities were weak and which we're overflowing. So, after first impressions; Empire Total War is spectacular and mind bending, but suffers from an unintuative interface and confusing AI.

Having not played a zombie shooter before (except for COD zombies on the iPad), it was with some nervousness that I bought Left 4 dead on Steam not really knowing what to expect. Thankfully, I can say that Left 4 Dead is one of the best multiplayer games I've played in years. Communication with other players becomes more vital and you inevitably build up a connection with the characters and other players. If you're into co-op or if you just like Valve games, then this is a must buy: although if you're sensitive to gore or prefer a densely packed narrative then you might want to give this one a miss. As for me, the AI director and co-op has kept me playing for more than thirty hours despite its insubstantiality.

Episode one felt like a bit of a rushed out effort from Valve, only really wallowing the the success of HL2. Episode 2 one the other hand feels much stronger than the previous episode. It starts off a bit rocky bit quickly evolves into another Valve masterpiece which improves on episode one. The story is better, the gameplay mix is better and I feel Vlave pushed the envelope a little more. So sit down and enjoy before thinking when the heck they're gonna release Episode Three after five flipping years!

After the masterpiece that was Half life 2, Valve seemed under a lot of pressure to make Episode 1 live up to its predecessors. Overall, I found episode 1 to be an excellent, if a bit of a flawed entry, in the series. The story remains although NPC's have a tendency to spout plot points that are already quite obvious even to the daftest of players. Nevertheless, despite a lack of innovation, Episode 1 is still a worthy follow up to the timeless classic.

Half life 2 is without a doubt one of the best games ever made. I wish I could say otherwise but it is the truth, everything about this game: the story, the tight level design, the graphics and sound is done with a rare care and attention which most developers are stubbornly against. Despite being eight years old, HL2 is and always will be a benchmark in the video games industry.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Since I often start babbling during my so-called 'reviews', I'm going to be short with them from now on. HAR is perhaps the best Simpsons game made to date, even now. Combining GTA style gameplay and a fun array of missions (though a lack of many side-missions), Hit n' Run represents the peak of The Simpsons for gaming. I can however, say that some missions can become a bit overwhelmingly difficult that they require pixel-perfect driving.