Henry0012

Another typical destiny 2 expansion, drip feed of content and aggressive yet confusing monetization. The content you paid for are temporary and will be removed in the next releases. Your gears and progress will occasionally get reset and again and again your time and investments are not respected. If you didn't like destiny 2 before or left for a reason, this expansion wouldn't change that. Story is better than many other expansions, but average comparing to other titles. But to be honest, nobody really play Destiny for its stories.

This is pretty much Evolve 3.0 (same developer). Quick cash grab, aggressive monetization for an AAA-priced game, always online for offline play? no progression for single player, no mod supports. I would not support such a developer in a time where there are many other great coop shooters out there. The core gameplay loop is ok at best, but this game would not last without community-driven content. Sadly the developers take a heavy stance against modding so that they can sell more microtransactions.

Bugs, glitches, and performance issues aside, the Night City offers a lot of impressive visuals and styles but really lacks in substances. The world feels empty with meaningless customizations and shallow NPC dialogs. Sidequests are mostly fetch-quest go here and kill a bad guy. No meaningful decisions to pick from or any compelling backstory arcs. Combat is bad due to substandard AI. The main story is just "ok". You can still have some enjoyable hours if the game is running fine. They really got the cyberpunk atmosphere right. However, don't expect anything near the Witcher 3 in terms of quest and storyline.

If you like PvE L4D, then this game is really is for you. A very solid PvE coop zombie shooter with a lot of customizations and leveling. There are plenty of players as it is crossplay between consoles and PC. I don't recommend PvP as it is pretty imbalance but still offer a good laugh as you see campers getting eaten alive by the horde. What makes WWZ great is its developer. They continue to new maps, mode, crossplay across PS4, Xbox, and PC, new zombie type, mutations, and so on after the initial launch. Also, a lot of technical issues have been resolved.

Overall a much better package than the previous one. Pros: The survival horror. The atmosphere of this game is very interesting and can be right down horror in some cases. Low carry capacity for each weapon means every shot counts. The combat itself is a bit improved and it encourages stealth approach due to lack of resource in higher difficulty setting. Also there's not much QWE, so no cheap death like the first game. Characters are relatable and voice acting is improved. The story is better in the sense that it doesn't leave you with more questions than answers like its previous game. Cons: The story stretches thin sometimes to fit a rather big plotline. So some of the characters feel a bit "rush" and anti-climatic at the end. Plot holes are still there and there's not much follow-up with whatever happened in the first game. For gameplay, combat can feel repetitive as many monsters are kind of just a reskinned version of the previous game. I would argue that Evil Within 1 probably has more interesting monsters than this one. There's also no puzzle in this game. If there is one, it's too easy.

Underwhelming remastered as they didn't remake the game. It's just a big patch that brings ladder to the game, support for the modern operating system, and new high-resolution texture pack that some may find it rather distracting than the original's simplistic graphic. I don't have any problems with them keeping the original mechanics, bugs (or features depending whom you talk to). However, it is not an excuse to keep the 1998 poor online netcode. It's extremely laggy on 8 players map and you always have to use extra high latency setting. Some bugs that should really be addressed on a 2D 2017 game are still there like the constant crashing to desktop on extremely large fights or units that simply stop attacking like Valkyrie because there are too many sprites on the map. Also, custom Multiplayer maps do take a long time to download despite being like 10 mbps in size. Ultimately, it does seem like this remastered version is an attempt to revive its eSport scene as the focus on graphics and observer feature will surely improve viewing experience. However, it's a bit of letdown for average or casual players who expect a little bit more polish from this. This is just a review for its remastered version. The original broodwar game was a legend at its era.

Definitely not a 10/10, but not a 0/10 either. The game did not meet the hype train standard, but it is definitely not the No Man Sky shenanigans. As a casual gamer, you will definitely enjoy Mass Effect Andromeda despite all its flaw. Don't expect this game to be Mass Effect 4. Andromeda is more like the Hobbit in the Lord of the Ring Saga. An expansion story to the trilogy that offers new exploration in the Mass Effect universe. The writing is not as strong as the main trilogy. Enemies AI are just as dumb as every other game. There are some rough edges here and there, but it is not really game breaking in my opinion. The graphic is amazing, maybe not the animation work. But many landscapes are simply breathtaking on ultra settings. There are lots of exploration, story, and coop multiplayer. I think for $60 or less in 2017, it's worth it.

Here is a quick pro and cons why I think this game is not a 9/10 like other critics mentioned. Pros: - There are a lot of heros with its own playstyle that create countless team-based strategies in this game. - The gameplay is short enough so if you are faced with a team of cheaters, then it will be over quickly unlikes CS GO I am stuck with a cheater for a full hour. - It encourages teamplay over lonewolf type of style. It feels so rewarding when you execute a strategy as a team. And there are a lot of heros that allow all sort of cheesey strats. Cons: - Micro transaction system makes level progression extremely slow, as they encouraging you to buy the crates instead of grinding out the EXP for skins and customization. - There are simply not enough content to justify the price tag, comparing to other big titles out there. You pretty much get 3 gamemode and that's about it. I wish they would implement the Arcade matchmaking like in StarCraft 2. - It's too much rock, paper, and scissor. You cannot really main a particular hero, so it is hard to grow emotional attachment to one of them, especially where you can customize their appearance. You're required to switch out heros that counter the other team's hero in order to win objectives. - Heroes like genji has very high skill ceiling and it feels outright broken when it is used by a very very good player. It can feel broken at times, and there are no characters that would shut him down hard. . - You would still need a very good FPS skill to perform well. Aiming is very important part of Overwatch to win the games, but not as important as CS GO. Characters that require little aiming can easily be countered by a player with superior aiming. - The teamwork in this game is very involved so you will need a premade team of 6 people to play the game. Solo queing often leads to frustration, as you sometimes get a troll or a rager in your team and it can get very toxic. - Due to the team based nature of the game, most games I play is either one team steamrolling another, and vice versa. It makes this game very boring. Matchmaking is based on how well each individual perform in a game but the match itself relies on how well the team cooperate rather than individual performace. - Individual performance is not as meaningful like other games. Sometimes you felt like you did so well, but there are simply no meaningful recognition. It's important to be recognized for your hard work, especially when soloqueiing. This has result in most games I play everybody only wants to do a successive elimination so that they can get on the highlight "Play of the Game" after round ends. Going for the objective becomes secondary.

The story was very cliche, but the campaign missions were pretty fun if you just ignore the story. However, my main complain is about MP balance and gameplay since Starcraft is a competitive RTS. Legacy of the Void pretty much killed Starcraft 2 for me. As a Terran player, this game is no longer fun to play. It's rather frustrating and stressful to be honest as a master league. The whole expansion pretty much nerf Terran from economic changes and unit designs. I won't get much into balance specifics, but it honestly feel like an uphill battle from the start. And once it gets to the late game like when the 8 armored ultralisk came out, it's pretty much over. Terran used to have mid-early game advantage to secure a competitive late game, but that's hardly the case now. I think many of the pros share the same feeling and many legendary Terran players have retired since Legacy of the Void came out. Other pro players like Polt seems to share the same frustration. Balance aside, the worst part is that the development team took forever to make changes. The obviously broken Protoss adept, it took them over 2 months after release a slight nerf to it. They had the whole beta to themselves, and I just don't see how they release such a broken game. Hots was patched very quick like the overpowered hell bat drops. At this rate, I feel like many Terran players will just move on and put SC2 to rest. I would honestly save your money if you're Terran players. Even if my argument is invalid, it's just not fun to play Terran anymore. It's going to require not only a simple balance change to the units, but also a fundamental changes how Terran work to make it more interesting in which I highly doubt it will happen. I can't even play mech anymore, and massing MMM for the last 5 years can get very old quick. If you're casual players, the coop missions are free and I think they are better than the paid campaign.

The issue with Fallout 4 is that it is impossible to please everyone, especially for a game with such hype. You have to also give the studio credit for not lying at E3. I think they kept their promises so far on what's being advertised, unlike many other studios. The graphic and gameplay looks exactly the same as the E3 trailer. Despite all its flaw, Fallout 4 is still easily the best game of this year in my opinion. It is MASSIVE. Each individual areas are not cookie cutter of another area, and they always something unique about it. There are a lot of areas to explore, and the wasteland has never been deadlier than ever. The biggest complaint is probably the performance issue on the base game. It's hard to do graphic mod, when the base game is having some hard time running at 60fps on GTX 780. Though I don't think the graphic was as bas as other reviewers make it to be. Fallout 3 graphic was considered sub-par even for 2008 standard. Though I admit the RPG aspect has been dumbed down quite a bit. Most dialogue feels like yes or no and there are not really real consequence of either one of them. I also miss the Karma, faction system, and survival aspect like hunger. I think it's also a mistake to voice the main character. It's harder to feel immersive into the character you created, and voice acting essentially limited all the crazy dialogue you used to be able to say. Also now it's hard for the mod community to create companion mod as they can't voice act the main character interaction with the extra companion. Also I don't know why they make it so hard to read notes laying on the ground. I have to go to my inventory and specifically locate and read the note I just picked up. Despite all these flaws, Fallout 4 still come up on top of other games this year. I will probably easily lose 100-200 hours into this game and even more when interesting mods came out. I think it does live up to its promises and a lot of hype depending on how far up you set it.

3 Strikes, 1 Raid, some "story" mission, and upcoming trial of Osiris (which supposed to be free). I think there are around 4-6 multiplayer maps. It's really hard for me to justify $40 for the new content as a year one player. Worst, they are locking a strike mission and some items from Xbox one player for a whopping one year, since we're didn't buy the PS4. Well I admit the game has been refined quite a bit before launch address some of the tedious grinds, but I feel like these issues should have been addressed before it even come out. So it's really hard to justify $40, given I already paid $100 for this game. If you didn't buy the taken king, then it's time to quit Destiny because as the contents you already owned are locked away from you as typical. No more level 20+ strike, no more legendary gears, no iron banner, very limited PvP, and etc etc. So in a sense, this game is somewhat of a subscription model, because if you didn't buy the DLC, you're pretty much locked out of the game. As a destiny player, it's going to cost you roughly around $9.10 a month to play this game. Now the reason I gave 4 score, despite the refinement that they did, is because the game justify the small amount of content by exploiting human addictive trait (like Candy Crush). You will be spending time doing the same missions over and over like a hamster in a wheel until you get that cool items you wanted. That has been addressed to an extent but not entirely. So you're going to see people with OCD sank thousands of hours in to get that one item playing one of the very few strike missions over and over until the odd goes to their favor. And trust me, I highly doubt they enjoy those hours, no matter how tight the shooting mechanic was... If you really need to have Destiny, I'd say you should wait until it becomes $20 or less. Go outside for awhile. Grinding same mission over and over is not very healthy physically and mentally.

Ragnarok was one of the best MMO I played and also my child hood memories. Although the game is not perfect it was a lot of fun leveling with friends. I remember the days where knights were camping to bowling bash the moonlight MVP, or knight solo baphomet MVP with counter attack. Hell even priest can solo a baphomet. The gameplay was obviously broken but the sense of community that people joined up to camp for MVP for loots, community of traders, 1k teleport priests, or people helping each other level up in the exponentially exp grind fest made this game amazing. However, since the introduction of kafra shop and renewal system, it's become clear that this game is really a pay2win milking off old legacy. The stats does not matter as much as it used to be and now it's relying too heavily on having the best gears that will cost an arm and leg. Classic did rely on good gears but stats were much more meaningful in calculation. Nevertheless, a skilled player can still do armor/weapon switching or potion stuff effectively, but the iRO server can be very laggy sometimes rendering that somewhat useless. Also the endgame MVP bosses cast too much 1 hit kill spell and it's not as fun anymore because it's all about using Sura to tank and Geneticist will dps it down with ACID bomb, which you either grind to make one to use real cash to buy from kafra shop. There's not much other strategies than just 2-3 dudes spamming 1 or 2 buttons in the game. And the playerbase has gone down quite a bit, now we only have 3,000 users and a lot of them are bot grinding for strawberries SP recovery item. The only way to buy mana (SP) potion is to use real cash through kafra shop, which I personally think it's ridiculous. If you're new player or ex-veteran thinking about coming back, I would not recommend this game as it has changed quite by a lot. The community is somewhat still there but small. The free eden gear for new players are decent, but it's going to cost over 2 billion zeny to gear up something decent. Most items are sold to NPC for only 10-500z, and a lot of that are going back towards potions because you don't even have decent gear to help reducing potion usage. So you will probably end up spending real money to buy Kafra point and sell it for zeny or grind for days and maybe get lucky with an expensive card or so. This is meant for iRO only. Maybe you'll get different RO experience playing on different servers.

This game shouldn't be called battlefield, because it will upset the target audience expecting a battlefield experience. The game is not meant to be realistic but aim more towards less serious with sarcastic humor cop and robber game. The core mechanics and the gameplay is a lot different than other battle field games. They just share a same engine and look almost the same as battlefield 4. I think EA business practice may alienate many of battlefield fanbase who paid for $60 BF4 premium, but Battlefield Hardline by itself is not a bad or gutted out game. The Good: Battlefield: Hardline came out one year after battlefield 4, but unlike call of duty, hardline feels like a fresh experience. Hardline is probably one of the better newly release console FPS at the moment for number of reasons. 1 - Dedicated Server and 66 players. Every competitive FPS players know that dedicate servers are a must for a smooth shooting experience. I honestly couldn't stand P2P when people warping around in COD or Destiny crucible. 2 - No more grenade spammer / choke point stalemate. Everytime I play battlefield, it is often comes down to a choke point of stalemate and people just spam rockets, grenade, tank fire, LMG across one another. This is no longer the case in hardline as the objective moves around to a random location in hiest, forcing player out of comfort zone. There are also no more LMG. Grenades are also big committment as it is very slow to throw and you only get one per life. There's also no tank in this game. 3 - Tactical and new gameplay in most mode (except TDM, which reminds me of CQB DLC in BF3). 32 vs 32 or 5v5, you will need a teamwork to win in this game. There's no one of those lonewolf pilot who takes down an entire army. The gunplay has pretty low TTK, but the game aren't very accurate past mid range. Winning gunfight is not always about pulling the trigger first, as the gun are not accurate at all if you're moving. You usually win gunfight if you put yourself in a more advantage situation or tack team up and attack from multiple angle concurrently. The auto-healing and refilling are a nice change as you don't have to focus on dropping ammo/health box as much as watching the corners and your team back while unlocking a vault. 3 - Good unlock system: This game unlock guns extremely fast. Instead of grinding for 100,000 XP for this one gun, the unlock system revolves around having enough cash to buy the particular gun you want from any classes. After 15 matches of hotwire, I've already unlocked all the weapons I wanted for operator class, and now I do not have to feel like being outgunned by level 50 with all gear unlocked! 4 - 60 FPS, fast loadtime, fast unlock: The game load very fast, so you'll be spending most of your time playing the game (unless you die so oftem you mostly in loadout screen XD ). The 60 FPS is also very nice. 5 - Bug less: This is not much of a pro, but consider the past BF experience has always been bug-fested. This one launches surprisingly smooth. After 40 hours of gameplay, I've yet to experience an issue. Bad & Cons: 1 - It's just not worth $60 + Premium. This game shares too much similarity in core mechanics and graphics as battlefield 4. Even with campaign and mutliplayer together, I just don't feel like it worth $60 (comparing to GTA V, Skyrim, and other AAA title). It probably has as much content as COD, which I personally think an overpriced game. 2- Team Deathmatch is horrible. The maps are just too small for 32vs32 players in TDM. There are far too many instances I just got spawn into a middle **** of enemies and got instant killed. 3 - Graphics could use an update. Although it is running at 60 FPS, the graphics are not next-gen at all. It looks too similar to BF4 with less destructible environment (due to lack of explosive options probably) 4 - Lack of gun variety. There are usually 3-5 guns per each class per each team. Although each gun has their own unique stats, I just feel like there are too few options for us to choose from. So for those who never owned BF4, but enjoyed the call of duty series but want some more tactical gameplay with dedicated server support, then Hardline is a good buy. But for those who look for another authentic battlefield experience with lots explosive actions and destructible environment, you won't find it here.

Don't buy if: - You're not planning to get the $35 DLC. - You're xbox owners. You get half a content and DLCs versus playstation users for the same price. - You want a satisfying storyline - You hate grinding and hate to play the same missions over and over for the 200th times where enemies spawn at exact location and do exact same thing. - You prefer a more balanced and team-oriented PVP game or enjoyed Halo PVP series. As this game is dominated by cheap shotgun melee instant kill combo and overpowered exotics that are not easily accessible to newer players. Buy if: - You just want a social experience where you already have 5 or more friends who consistently play this games and willing you help you rank up. However, you won't get much social gameplay soloing this game, as it put so much barrier between you and another player despite requiring internet connection. Rent if: - You just want to see what the fuss is all about. You can literally finish all non-dlc contents within 6 hours or less of gameplay. Perhaps the raid is all you're missing, but I'm not sure if its worth spending 50 hours grinding to level 31 just to play a 2 hours raid, which people just rush rough anyways.