Mudget

The Mass Effect series set a new bar for character interaction and development when the first in the series released over a decade ago. Once upon a time, Bioware was firing on all cylinders, with the Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises serving as the top-of-the-line RPGs of the day. I now vaguely remember the details of the games, but certain moments have stuck with me forever, and I have no idea what I did with those original discs - not that it would matter in this age of discless data. So I was pretty excited to hear the entire series was getting a facelift and modern makeover. I've only just started the original again, and look forward to the hundreds of hours of relationship-building, character development, and plot twists. So far everything is running butter smooth on my low-mid range laptop (Geforce GTX 1650), with everything presumably cranked to the highest levels. I say 'presumably' because the options for graphical adjustment are very few. I just hope newcomers stick with the series long enough to experience just how good the series ultimately gets. The one thing that keeps this from being a '10' for me, is that you can't play it without Origin's intrusive nonsense gateway software, something people have been complaining about for decades, but which publishers have dug in their heels and insisted they all have (which means we gamers have to navigate and put up with a half dozen or more of these stupid gateways). Stick with the Steam gateway. Just one for all games PLEASE, publishers.

So far so good, I think Greedfall is a '7' game that fits snugly between 'meh' titles like the Risen series, and solid titles like Dragon Age 2 and (the original) Witcher. I bump it up to an '8' because it is refreshing to get a game that doesn't rely on microtransactions, some kind of online/social component, or pay-to-win mentality that has taken over gaming. This is a single player game for people like myself who love to get immersed in a fantasy world by themselves. I'm still in the beginning stages of the game and I've been really impressed with the visuals - great lighting, great attention to detail, a lot of 'oooh that looks good' moments usually reserved for AAA titles. There are enough systems going on to qualify this as a robust RPG, though none of them (crafting, inventory-management, leveling, questing, combat, dialogue-choices) quite rise to the levels of the more popular franchises. They're all a bit clunky in their own way, but they all work as intended, and they're all there. The storytelling itself is actually quite good, with a solid story woven through the middle of a number of side-quests, and exploration is fun. This is an 'area exploration' game rather than an open world game - more in line with the earlier dragon age games or fable than the open worlds of later dragon age or witcher games (or any of the elder scrolls games) we've gotten used to. But this allows for more purposeful and creative design choices, and the exploration still works well. Combat is finicky for me so far - I'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be Souls-game challenging, yet because I keep forgetting what buttons do what, and the ease with which it is to die, it feels that challenging to me at the moment. Like all games, this will improve the more used to the controls I get. Just don't expect it to be a super smooth experience from the get-go, and don't be surprised if you get owned even in the combat training session. I was kind of hoping to go in guns blazing, but guns are just a side-thing, the real emphasis is on melee, even if you're devoted to being a gunslinger. I haven't tried magic yet. Overall, I'm pleased. I think it's overall value (given that people are saying the game lasts between 30 and 60 hours) is about ten dollars cheaper than where it's at, but we 'Western' RPG fans need our fix and Greedfall delivers that fix. It's not as challenging as a Souls game, it's not as robust as an Elder Scrolls or Witcher game, it's not as strategic as a Divinity or Pillars game - but it contains all of these elements, and does so in a fully-realized, beautifully-rendered world with a lot to offer. I can see Greedfall being Spiders equivalent to the original Witcher. Good enough to get our attention and get mostly good ratings, but a better introduction to a series that can only get better with time. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Spiders will have a Witcher 3 success somewhere down the road. Now, back to that boss that keeps owning me.... EDIT (9/26): Now 21 hours in, I have good news and bad news. The good news is I feel like I'm only about halfway through, if that. The game has scope. The bad news is, this middle part is a real slodge. I am spending the vast majority of my time merely running back and forth between NPC's, in different areas of the map. Battle is actually fairly scarce. And to make matters worse, and why I'm dropping my initial score of '8' down to '7', is the fact that this 'looks' like an open world game, gorgeous vistas, amazing art all around, really - but the linear nature of the maps is frustrating. I can be heading straight toward the goal on my map, only to be confounded (for the millionth time) by a 'wall' of trees or mountains. We're in the open world era of RPGs now. This absolutely kills immersion and causes me to just quit the game more often than not, knowing that even getting to my destination simply means being told to go to another one. I should also point out that combat (the few times here and there that it occurs), is still fun, batman-style, but it's now overwhelmingly easy instead of overwhelmingly challenging as it was in the beginning. I'm still very happy about the lack of online necessity and micropurchases, so I still think this is an above-average game. But now I've got it at a '6' with the lack of online and microtransactions bumping it to a 7. I still want to see this through, but it has become repetitive and frustrating through these (what I'm assuming are) middle parts.

Any score for this game less than an 8 is laughable. It is an absolutely stunning achievement in video game design, and currently represents the pinnacle of what an open world adventure can be. Controls took me about three solid days of playing to become totally comfortable with, and once that happened, any time I play, I am not here. I am there. Total immersion. Graphics and design are unparalleled. This sets the bar. I didn't even know my PS4 could do what this game manages and it has all but ruined every other open world game I own (sorry Skyrim, sorry Witcher 3). Gameplay is as varied as any Rockstar game. In this one respect, it is GTAV on horses, it is Red Dead Redemption on ultra-steroids. Play poker, go fishing, chill by a campfire telling stories, rob a stagecoach, go hunting, watch a variety show, wander the countryside, whatever. If you see it you can go there but good luck getting there without being interrupted by a half-dozen side quests. The main quest is compelling and full of solid characters played by solid actors. Even though it sets the new bar, it's not perfect. I got frustrated (particularly in the early game) by how little personal agency I actually had. When it comes to the main quests and side quests, you are essentially on rails, doing what the game wants you to do (rather than what you want to do). It's impossible to play a totally "good" guy, and it's likewise impossible to play a totally "bad" guy. RDR2 makes you straddle that gap and ultimately always pushes you in the direction it wants for each event. But I came to accept that limitation, it's a small price to pay for the wonder of the world it lets you play in. Controls are also not immediately intuitive, there's a fairly steep learning curve, and eventually you learn that changing weapons or outfits on the fly isn't quite as easy as it should be - sometimes you leave stuff on your horse that you need, sometimes while flipping through the radials you hit the wrong thing - it's a little on the cumbersome side, and every button on the controller is used with both short and long-presses which adds to the initial confusion. Once you get it, though, and it starts to become second-nature, it's hard to imagine any other way they could have done it. A final thing to gripe about is just how often you are interrupted when you're trying to either do something else or just chill out. There's almost always someone coming up to you asking you to do something and if you engage them, you're suddenly back on your horse heading halfway across the map again. A lot of people find travel tedious, I don't, so I can forgive this, but it has caused me more than a few frustrating moments in the game where I was pulled away from what I really wanted to be doing. Combined with the 'on-rails' feeling of quests, there's very little actual player agency beyond making your guy look the way you want, and choosing between somewhat arbitrary "be a cool guy or be a ****" options throughout the game. I dock it a point for these things. But that's a hard point to dock, because this may be the greatest video game ever made, to-date. It's a huge, living, organic, nearly photorealistic world and a total dream-come-true for fans of the western genre. Your move, Bethesda. If they can make their next open fantasy world feel truly -this- alive, I will be in heaven. For now I'll do my business with a rifle.

Glad I didn't follow user reviews on this one. Best RPG I've played to-date, and I am a RPG-aholic. Really feels like a combination of the Elder Scrolls games (big, immersive, sandbox world to explore), the Dragon Age games (fantastic character development/narratives), and Diablo games (twitch combat and progressively-opening lands to explore). I'm less psyched about the twitchy combat, it's the one element of the Dragon Age universe I feel took a step backwards into "we're a console-driven world now!" territory, and detracts from the overall experience (hence my subtraction of one star). But that's not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as so many user reviewers are doing. Yes, Dragon Age has slid away from traditional AD&D components into more console gaming components (as is every other non-indie RPG these days), which basically means more button-mashing, less strategy, but if you can look past this, you will find a world that is enormous, probably the most exploration-worthy world of any RPG to date (including the Elder Scrolls games where you could explore vast stretches without finding anything of note). The graphics, animations, textures, and character and loot models are definitely next-gen, and although there are a few missteps (yes, if you turn the graphics down, the characters get a glossy sheen to them) - but this is a game clearly designed for modern graphics cards and a fairly robust PC. The game is huge, you can pump 200 hours into it easily, which FINALLY puts the DA franchise in the same ballpark as the Elder Scrolls games. The writing is good and the biggest challenge, particularly for players new to the universe, is the overwhelming amount of lore. But for any true RPG'er, this is a positive. You get to feel truly powerful in this game, too, as your character goes from a lowly nobody to a commander of the biggest force in the world, with an enormous fortress to add to and decorate. You also now command two groups of characters - the teammates, as with every other Dragon Age game, whose stories open up and get deeper as you progress - and your advisers, a group of folks who bring stealth, politics, and brute force to the bigger picture and help open up new sections of the map to explore. I'm 70 hours in and I haven't even opened up every map yet. This might just be the greatest RPG made to-date, don't let user reviews talk you out of purchasing the game. It certainly hits all my RPG buttons. Haven't even looked at any of my other games since I got it. Totally immersed and addicted. And, as in all DA games, what you did in the previous games effects what happens in the bigger picture of this game as well. In fact, you might just run into some of your own characters from previous games! Big thumbs up.

The Sims has been my favorite franchise since its release in 2000 and this is the first time in the series' long run that I have truly felt disappointed. Disappointed, I should add, in much the same way I was disappointed with SimCity and what's happened to that franchise. At this point I truly abhor EA, as it feels like the decisions made regarding these classic games have been made by the same committee who decided to improve upon the wheel by making it square. There are good aspects to this game, it's not a 0 or 1 rating game, as so many people are trigger-fingering here. The user interface has undergone a much-needed facelift and after a short and awkward learning-curve, you find it's far more intuitive and well-placed, opening up the majority of the screen to watch the game rather than be cluttered with information. The way specific skills level up seems more natural, and the addition of new skills like 'comedy' when talking or traits like 'introspective' when not being social for a while is cool. The graphics, lighting, effects, music, all still good, but compared to the difference between Sims and Sims 2 or Sims 2 and Sims 3, this is easily the smallest leap and I've noticed some people are annoyed at the slightly more cartoonish approach. I am not bothered by it. I'd love to say there's a lot more to love about this game, but there's not. Sims 2 introduced a whole host of improvements, notably an 'open world' type system. Sims 3 introduced a ridiculously innovative style system of textures and colors, among many other improvements. Sims 4 strips all of these things away and claims its big introduction (something so good it had to replace those other things) - moods and multitasking. If added to the already awesome additions of the previous games, fine. Great, even. I like multitasking - watching tv while eating and talking is nifty. But for as unexciting as that is, the moods system is even less exciting. Yes, now moods affect things, particularly how you engage in conversation (always has, though, really), but now you get corresponding facial expressions, body language, and animations. Again, add these innovations on top of the previous innovations, and fine. But removing previous advances, especially the style-swapping features of Sims 3, has caused this game to feel like a big step backwards. I mean big. Feverishly looking for the eyedropper tool as I style a room, only to be reminded yet again that the function was totally removed, is the hugest bummer. Yeah they took out swimming pools and toddlers and ... whatever ... I want the ability to style everything the way I like it. With that one single feature gone, the game has lost an entire level of engagement for me. Add to that the missing open world design of previous games, and then, yes, a freaking universe of items - and this thing feels like just a totally incomplete shadow of former Sims games. A real letdown. I am playing it and supporting the series for one reason and one reason alone - out of the hands of EA, I think this game could be revived (I feel the same way about SimCity). I honestly have no idea if EA is even directly responsible for these ridiculous design decisions or not, but I know that everything EA has touched in the last five years or so has turned to complete you-know-what. The game isn't worth buying for sixty dollars right now. Period. It's a practically empty shell **** where your only real aspirations are to become friends with people in your direct vicinity and maybe eat and do dishes, watch tv, go to sleep, rinse repeat. There's practically nothing here anymore, feels like very little to do. The interest in seeing how moods affect things wore off after about 15 minutes of playing and I longed for the ability to at least lose myself in styling things to my content. I'll go back to the Sims 3 where I've got Sims in college, on vacation, and everything looks badass because I made it that way. I can do without the moods. I'll be in a better one myself with all the stuff missing from Sims 4.

Blasphemy. Deep Silver took a good open world RPG franchise going great places and stunted it with this childish arcade game. Doesn't matter if the game is good or not (it's mediocre), get that name off this game.

This is a good FPS. Actually a really good FPS, more along the lines of Team Fortress rather than Call of Duty. The action is nonstop, the graphics are lush and full of color and the many battlegrounds full of life. But I think what sets PvZGW apart are the characters themselves - each can be customized to the point of creating a truly crazy, unique character - and each of the 'classes' of both zombies and plants have interesting roles that are useful, as well as fun to explore and improve. The entire game just oozes over with character and personality, and if you were in any way a fan of the original PvP, you'll feel oddly at home here. For the record I've been playing since release and I've never been one-shot-killed yet. And I play regularly. In fact I haven't really seen any instance of cheating. I deduct one star because the game can occasionally be wonky, with game-ending bugs popping up from time-to-time (such as falling into the landscape or getting stuck in a black screen you can only Cntrl-Alt-Del to get out of). But overall it's mostly quite stable, and very fun. Do I wish EA didn't own this franchise? Of course. I don't think they improve anything they own. But I'm not going to let that stop me from giving the game the score it deserves.

Every 5 years or so a game comes along that addicts me in a way I find both exciting and scary. Hearthstone is currently that game for me. I should say that I was already a big CCG (computer card game) fan, having eaten through hours of the various incarnations of Magic: The Gathering, Spectromancer, M&M Duel of Champions, and the like. I'd always gotten at least a little addicted to most of those, so I figured I should try this one out, despite not exactly being a WoW fan for many years. What I first noticed in beta was how clean and crisp the game was - a real looker - and coupled with the gameplay itself, I discovered a super highly-polished game, the likes we've come to expect from Blizzard. I do think this is the CCG that can make people not familiar with the genre fans. It's less complex and much more user-friendly and intuitive than any of its counterparts, with a good tutorial that eases the player into the experience. By the time you've been eased, you're likely to be hooked, and that's when it's time to take the fight to other real online players. This is where I think the game shines. In a way, players are somewhat disconnected from each other. There's no chatting unless you're already friends, and there are a limited number of emote choices ("Greetings", "Sorry", "Well Played", etc.). This means you're not instantly assailed by trolls out smear themselves across a good experience - you just have to play and play your best, and I appreciate this being the focus, rather than a social experience. There are plenty of other venues and games for that. Gameplay is fairly straightforward, and in this Hearthstone lacks the depth found in other CCGs. But what it has that other CCGs don't are sounds and animated visuals for each of the cards' unique abilities. There are several 'tiers' of cards, too, so unlocking (by winning arena battles and acquiring new decks, or buying them in the store) rare and legendary cards is fun not just because they add a new layer of strategy to your game, but bring along with them interesting sounds and visuals unique to those specific cards. The WoW universe is very present here, and most of those audio and visual cues are taken straight from it, of course. The characters are all pulled from the MMORPG and each deck matches one of nine playable character classes from that game (Cleric, Paladin, Rogue, Warrior, Warlock, Shaman, Priest, Mage, Druid). Each has its own set of special cards reserved only for that particular class, and each of the classes seems pretty well-balanced. In the end, this is a casual time-waster and you could do SO much worse for a free-to-play game. In fact, I'd argue it's the best FTP game I've played in ages, maybe ever. The pay-for-decks aspect isn't in your face at all, and you can earn decks just by playing arena battles (battles where you and your opponent are given a random selection of cards from the start). So a player could certainly climb the ranks and earn levels and decks endlessly without ever spending a dime. Those folks who do spend cash for cards don't particularly have an advantage, either. This is still a card game, after all, so even though someone else may have several amazing legendary cards in their decks, it certainly doesn't guarantee them a victory. And in time, you'll be getting those epic cards without spending money in any case because of the reward system, and being able to spend gold for new decks, or arcane dust to purchase individual cards. Once you've been playing a while and start getting the maximum two cards of each type, you can turn those excess and unnecessary cards into arcane dust. Once you have enough dust you can actually craft even the most legendary of cards. It's not a quick process, getting to that point, but it's a really rewarding one. All in all Hearthstone is a fantastic FTP CCG, as polished as any Blizzard game, and as addicting as any CCG. It might lack a bit of the depth or breadth of a longstanding game like Magic the Gathering, but it's a refreshing new spin and one that will likely be more appealing to a larger number of people. Final word: It's 100% free to play. Give it a spin.

The game is out of early access now and while it's still rough around the edges, it's a good one. It comes the closest to providing the sandbox zombie survival game I've been waiting for. It has more strategy and depth than Dead Island, it's a ton more user-friendly than Day Z, it's prettier than Project Zomboid, and it has more zombies than Grand Theft Auto! But it feels like a combination of all these games. A lot of things make this game unique the need to befriend survivors in order to unlock them as playable characters; the need to capture, build, and maintain safe houses and outposts, a persistent world that continues on even when you log off. The game is a bunch of fun as is, with a lot of exploration to do (on several levels world exploration, and exploration of game mechanics two staples **** survival sandbox). Melee fighting isn't perfect but it works. Firearm fighting isn't perfect but it works. Exploration and scavenging works it's a lot of fun and puts to shame games like Day Z where buildings act mostly as non-explorable set pieces. All structures in this game are fully explorable and hide a lot of goodies. Driving works pretty well and using your vehicle as a weapon against zombie hordes is kind of epic. The biggest complaint I see from players who rate this low is the mouse & keyboard scheme being too clumsy to use. I'm seeing that same complaint even today, which makes no sense to me. The M&K work just fine this game does not require a gamepad. I repeat this game no longer requires a gamepad. The other major complaint I see is about the graphics being ugly. They're not next-gen, but they're good at max settings, with great lighting and some good textures. Occasionally it's muddy, with colors seeming to run together, especially when out in forested open areas. Someone else suggested the graphics are on par with GTA IV. I wouldn't go quite that far. They do leave something to be desired. But that's the point. This feels kind of like a test game. Like, "let's see if this works". And it has. Quite well. This first version is a bit clunky but it's making cash money, so I foresee a real future for this franchise. A polished, AAA sequel could easily be a GOTY contender. In fact, if I was a betting man, I'd bet the next game in the franchise goes up for that title. 8/10

Adds a ton of content to an already content-full game. Additions: Medals that can be awarded to your favorite soldiers (you even get limited buff customization options with each medal). Several layers of added game depth (a covert operation sub-plot, for one). Additional alien types. Gene splicing. Mechs. Gobs of new maps. On the plus side, this is what all DLC should be. Robust. On the downside, it's a little pricy for DLC we're almost in 'full game cost' territory for this one. That's where this title takes a hit on score from my perspective. If it was standalone or about ten bucks cheaper, I'd rate this a 10. But the bottom line is that the add-on really fleshes out the original game and integrates superbly into it, adding hours of new content and fun to a game that already provides many hours of fun and tons of content. 7.5/10

Probably the most fun I've had in a MMORPG in a long time. Has definitely kept my attention longer than Guild Wars 2, Tera, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Rift. Best graphics bar-none in a MMORPG. I'm still constantly saying 'wow' at the lighting, texture, architecture, day/night & weather effects. It's fun to get new items not just because they improve my character, but because they are unique looking. Underneath it all, it's pretty much your standard grind with a story woven through it. People complaining about the constant cut scenes just have a short attention span they're fine and are the only thing keeping this from being -just- a grind. A remarkable level of polish, come to be expected from Square Enix. I didn't play the prior version, glad I missed it, starting this fresh has been a blast. One character can hold all the classes in the game, just switch out your weapon and -voila- you go from being a warrior to a wizard or a ranger to a monk or any of the many tradeskill classes (which are their own games unto themselves). I've still created two characters, one to do all my melee stuff, the other for caster stuff, primarily to handle inventory better. All the separate items (especially tradeskill items) can build up fast. Battle are fairly standard fare, think WoW, but it feels much more organic and certainly more 'lifelike' for a fantasy world. Animations are great. In the higher levels, the dungeons absolutely require strategy and cohesive teamwork, and this can make for a wonderful experience or a horrible one. My first character was a healer, and there's a lot of healer-hate until you learn the ropes. Once past that hurdle, it's rewarding to become good at this game. On the other hand, you can certainly solo much of the game (but to advance the storyline you'll have to team up at certain points, and that's where, occasionally, people hit a wall). The team finding mechanism works great, always pairing a tank, a healer, and two dps classes, and it doesn't take long at all to get into most dungeons. There are occasional wait times, though. Fates are the random open-world dynamic events that happen, and people farm these for experience regularly. They are, in fact, more popular than the dungeons, and this is too bad. They should reverse the risk/reward and make dungeons more valuable to explore and complete, and lessen the payoff of Fates. But between the Fates, the dungeons, the storyline, the side quests, and the quite good tradeskilling system, you are almost never at a loss for something to do. End game is a bit lacking right now but there are promises for more content, including PvP, treasure hunts, epic difficulty dungeons/bosses, and so forth, along with housing and a few more classes on the horizon, so I do see this game lasting. If you hate the grind of WoW, you might not enjoy this. It's still the 'oldschool' way of MMORPGs in that respect. But it's delivered beautifully enough to keep most people sticking around. The story, while not terribly deep, is still fun to watch play out over the course of the adventure. And it's very intuitive from the get-go, with great UI customization and easy-to-pick-up mechanics and controls. Finally, I got the game a while after its shaky release, when people couldn't log on for long stretches, and I haven't had a single issue with logging on or finding parties, or anything, really. It's a very stable, very fun game. I highly suggest it.

DRM with endless problems logging on to a single-player game. Check. A city so small you're done in an hour or two. Check. A future of nickle-and-diming paid customers to death. Check. Following the profit structured Social version rather than the fan-beloved SimCity 4 version. Check. Run by EA. Check. Critics giving 9's and 10's after playing on private servers for critics. Check. Everyone else giving 0-3 rating. Check. Efforts like this MUST fail or it is all we will get in the future. I remember the days when I would call in sick to work to play an awesome newly-released game. I'd spend hours playing and I wouldn't regret playing hooky at all. Now you try to do it only to discover that you spend the day in a que waiting to play a single-player game you already paid for. Thank god I tried it at a friend's house. Once it actually logged him on (an hour later), and four interruptions and two hours later, and we felt like we were basically done. Couldn't expand any further. This isn't the rebirth of SimCity and this isn't the way games should be made and marketed. Protest with your wallet. Keep it closed.

I think they've finally perfected a PC layout for Magic: The Gathering. Ideally, I'd love to see Magic: The Gathering Online switched to this clean format, but for now, the single-player campaign and multiplayer (using only pre-built decks) is a good start. It goes without saying that this incarnation is superior to its 2012 predecessor, but what's more exciting is looking ahead to future incarnations. These are fun decks, but the desire to build one's own deck is something that should be addressed first and foremost in future editions. The vast amount of number-crunching this program does is staggering, and at times it can miss (computer opponent AI occasionally does goofy things no live player ever would). But bottom-line is that there are a lot of moving parts here and Wizards of the Coast has created one of the most faithful computer representations of the card game. If you are a fan of MTG at all, this should be in your collection.

Please consider my rating an 8.5 (I'm a big fan of the idea of adding .5's to this system, and am still a bit confused how an overall user score of 8.1 can come about with everyone forced to give x.0 ratings. But that's neither here nor there.) XCom: Enemy Unknown is a truly addicting gaming experience. Luckily (?) for this experience at least, I had not thoroughly played the original XCom back in the early 90's, so the lore of the game was new to me. Most of the negative reviews I've read are from people contrasting this game to the original. The game isn't without it's faults. There are some unusual bugs that pop up from time-to-time. A few have been very nearly game-killers (the inability to go through a door when the level has only one door you need to get your soldiers through, etc.) - but with so many firefight options (including later abilities to psionically control enemies) you can even get through the buggy levels. The other major negative I'd like to point out is the tedium that sets in after so many battles. One of the first things I'd like to see developed are new, more creative maps, because you do start seeing the same maps repeat over and over. While the levels are semi-random (you never really know where enemies or objectives are going to be located), the game play for any level is just the same. Locate the objective (usually a UFO to infiltrate, pedestrians to save, etc.), strategically place your soldiers in the most tactical positions, hunker down and shoot. What really makes this game for me is the building phase of the game. You are tasked with building facilities which allow you to construct new and varied weapons, armor, aircraft, satellites, and so forth. Your soldiers are constantly gaining experience with each fight, and although their skill trees aren't large (would love to see expansion here, too), it is ridiculously satisfying to level your crew up. With the ability to name and outfit them to your choosing, you really do feel like the CEO of a fighting machine. As such, you also become very invested with your troops, and when one drops in combat, it can be an emotional experience, because there are no reincarnations here. If a soldier dies, he dies for good. With that everlurking fear, how you strategically place troops on the battlefield becomes that much more important. You really do want to keep them alive. Watching a soldier fall who you've spent 20+ missions building up and training is excruciating, and can leave a serious hole in your roster. But crunch all you want, you'll build more! The graphics are really quite superb, I'm most impressed with the HQ build screen, a cut-away view of your facilities that is bustling with activity. Even as I became a bit bored with the gameplay, I just couldn't quit, and still haven't, the game is definitely replayable thanks to a lot of random factors built-in. It's been a while since I'd purchased a game that became a MUST play after a day of work. And it's been a while since I've been so enchanted by the way a game works that I'm already hungering for additional content. If you can play this without thinking "Oh, this is dumbed-down version of the original", then you're in for a real treat. Buy this game, it's one of the good ones.

This is an -initial- review, as the game just came out and my guess is as I become more familiar with it, the score will go up. But from a die-hard Guild Wars fan who has been sitting on the edge of his chair waiting YEARS (and then years on top of years) for this sequel - some of the air has been let out of my balloon. I'll just say what every other poster has said, because it's true in my case, too - I'm a die-hard MMORPG and RPG fan in general - have played every single major MMORPG release (and many minor ones) over the years since 1997 when I was addicted, truly addicted, to the original EverQuest. I'm much more a single-player RPG'er and will build an entirely new computer just for new releases like The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim (which lived up to the hype and was worth the PC construction). But EverQuest hooked me, DAoC hooked me, WoW hooked me, Conan hooked me, and, most recently, Star Wars hooked me. But none of those experience even barely hold a candle to the good times I had in the surprise hit of (2005 was it? 2004?) - Guild Wars. GW was so completely different. Absolutely re-wrote the book for MMORPGs and was underappreciated in this regard by both critics and players alike. Not just because it didn't cost a monthly fee, but because the game was more a hybrid between a collectible game like Magic: The Gathering, and a standard grinder like WoW. It was the collectible skill system that was the most innovative feature, and the endless hours of PvP trying out different combinations of found skills that kept me coming back. So I'll begin by saying that the move by Guild Wars 2 away from the collectible skill set system of the original game to a hybrid of very typical WoW grinding, Warhammer Online/RIFT area event quest generation, and so forth - was the first thing that let air out of my balloon. This line sums it up for me - GW2 is not the innovative MMORPG that GW was. It's not that it's a -different- game, like GW was, it's that it is a combination of many very -typical- games. Happily, the combination does work on many levels, and it is generally fun, albeit quite confusing at first. And VERY confusing if you're a diehard Guild Wars fan who expected this to be a sequel of some sort. Aside from the lore, there's not a lot of similarity between the first GW and this one. As with so many games nowadays in which critics praise the graphics as the "BEST IN ANY MMORPG TO DATE" - the graphics are actually just nice. They're not ground-shakingly good or making use of anything new in the genre, necessarily, but there are some nice vistas and good looking character models and animations. Still, I find myself saying that with almost every release nowadays. Finding one's way around massive cities is one of the more aggravating experiences in a new MMORPG, and GW2 is no exception, compounding this problem with multi-level cities in which you must hop into portals to get to some upper levels (took me quite a while to figure that one out). Slightly goofy camera controls add to this frustration a bit. But overall, the world is fun to explore and the new ability to JUMP in a GW game is nice. (Although again, this doesn't really feel like a sequel to me at all, but an entirely new game, more a spiritual successor to Aion or RIFT than to the original Guild Wars). There is indeed a TON to do in this game and you will never, ever be bored. Collect stuff and craft, dye armors, hop into a big local event that just sprung up, PvP in a smaller setting or PvP in a World-vs-World setting, follow the main quest, or just explore (you are rewarded for just exploring, which is awesome) ... there's never a dull moment. I guess so far for me this is the big selling point. But at this writing, I just can't get past the fact that I am still heartbroken that this isn't a sequel to the Guild Wars system of collecting, mixing and matching "skill cards". Oh well, over time, this may make me a whole new fan in a whole new way. For now though, I give this game a solid 8, because it stands strongly on its own. Can it pull me out of Skyrim (as I originally thought would be a no-brainer)? That's a tough question. When I get home from work and log into my computer my finger first hovers over the Skyrim icon and then hesitantly heads over to GW2. So, yeah, so far it's working. But only barely. This isn't the innovative ALL NEW game I thought it might be - we've seen all these elements in other games before (unlike in the original GW) - but they've been put together in a new way, and I think it might just stand a chance of being the trendy game to play for a few months before everyone either sinks back into their WoW comatose or goes back to the game they're truly in love with. Then again, maybe this will become the go-to game. Too early to tell. I'll update in a few months.

What I like: The HoMM franchise, have loved every game since the first, and have been a die-hard customer as a result. HoMM 6 has a lot of innovations, although HoMM purists (like myself) really think one ought not mess with a perfectly-working formula too much, and (see below), I think they messed with the formula too much. Graphics and animation are good, not sure if they're a step up from 5, but they're definitely current-gen. Gameplay is addicting, skill trees are interesting to figure out, I definitely feel this is a -richer- experience than any of the prior titles, I feel more like I'm role-playing a character with this one. Connection to online frills are new, and interesting, BUT... What I don't like: ... an online connection being mandatory for a single-player game is insane. It would be insane if it worked perfectly. Instead, not only is it insane, it doesn't work. It's broken. It's broken so badly that it breaks the game entirely. The problem is that your saved games are not saved locally, they are saved online. This means that unless your connection to the Internet is impeccable, and Ubisoft's connection to you is impeccable, you're going to experience a world of frustration. You're going to (like thousands of players have experienced and made vocal already) play for hours and hours, exit the game, watch the little thing say "Saving games to Cloud server", waiting a while for that to hit 100%, and then returning later to discover that your game was NOT saved. My connection to the Internet is impeccable, unless a severe thunderstorm kills power outright, I'm online and good to go. Ubisoft's connection to ME has been terrible. Or there's some other problem. I don't know, I don't care, I only know that it has made the game, which I like for so many reasons, unplayable. Mandatory online play for a single player game is unforgivable. You are punishing people who pay for games in an effort to punish pirates. Pirates will get your game no matter what. Stop punishing US. I have blown cash on something that doesn't work because of this ridiculous system. The only other gripe I have (the above gripe is a game-killer, so I hardly need go on, but...) is overhauling a system that was perfect to begin with. Most of the awesome new implements would have worked without needing to get rid of factions we'd grown to love over 5 installments. Before, factions (and resources, to an extent) revolved around Might, Nature, Air, Earth, Fire, Necromancy, etc. Now the far-fewer classes (or factions, clans, whatever) feel more generic, and I miss the need to manage resources effectively, that's an aspect of what made this such a unique and complex RTS/RPG. So, some changes, good. Some changes, unnecessary. And the one big change - the online requirement - Horrid. Do this again and I'll be done with HoMM for good, and I can't believe that came out of my mouth, one of the series' biggest fans.

I beg my fellow user Metacritics to stop rating generally very good games below a 6. Diablo III is clearly, generally, a very good game. But this score would indicate that many of you think it's worse than, say, Postal. It's not. For this reason, I think the user ratings system here is completely useless. For me, Diablo III gets a solid 7. It's a technically well-crafted, slick game, and it's fun. The biggest problem it's got going for it is the 12 years between Diablo II and III. In that time, we've seen copycats "do" Diablo over and over and over and over, with varying levels of success. What made Diablo I so amazing was that it was really a new, frenetic style of playing an RPG game. Kind of a "ramped up" Roguelike game that was instantly addictive. Ridiculously addictive. Diablo II carried the torch a few years later and raised the bar significantly. All the fun of the first, plus tons of new innovations. Diablo III doesn't add or subtract much from Diablo II, and that's pretty disappointing given the 12 years in-between. If anything, Diablo III has indeed carried on the HORRIBLE pit of hell gamer-makers have fallen into of "dumbing down" their games and making it accessible to the least-common denominator. They don't understand, I guess, that hardcore gamers are the fan base, and that what the hardcores say translates well into the general public. In other words, a series like the Elder Scrolls caught on and became hugely popular almost strictly because hardcore gamers went on and on about how great it was. Instead of appealing to the hardcores and making games more intricate and more complex, with more features, and more moving parts, they seem to strip away and streamline and make console-friendly, and yada yada yada. Diablo III is a prey to this mentality as well, and the aggravation is reflected with such low (too low, absolutely too low) scores. In the end, what Diablo III is is a continuation of a legendary series of games. Unlike the first two, III doesn't really raise any bars or add any innovations that we will now see replicated in dozens of copycats, and that's too bad. Instead of opting for trend-setting, Diablo III plays it relatively safe and stands as a solid, fun, addictive, nice-looking, stable game, a decent addition to the series, but nothing terribly mindblowing. I tired of it after about 2 weeks, and I can absolutely not say that about the first two Diablos. The difference? Having stripped all of the customization out of the game (attributes, skills, etc.), I never really felt all that connected to my characters, which have a definite "pre-made" feel to them. The hallmark of any role playing game is the role playing part of it. This is action and it's clearly designed more for the unwashed masses than the hardcore gamers.

A great finish to a great story. This is indeed a series worth playing through from top-to-bottom. It's pathetic, truly pathetic, that this game has gotten such a low user score here at Metacritc. Seeing Mass Effect 3 in the "4" point range is enough to make anybody who has played and enjoyed the game as thoroughly as most people have avoid places like Metacritic for information altogether. Games get "4'"s because they were rushed, crappy, or broken, and ME3 is none of these. It is a solid conclusion to a remarkable and already classic series of games. A definite videogame highlight of 2011. If you've never played the series at all, start with part 1 and move your way on through. This is good sci-fi in a big-budget, impeccably-crafted RPG game.

I can't in good conscience rate Skyrim a perfect 10. I really believe 10's should be reserved for flawless, new-generation, absolutely unique games. The kind that set trends rather than follow them. While Skyrim is absolutely amazing, another gem from Bethesda for sure, it is not flawless, it is still using last-gen technology (most notably dx9), and although it's certainly a vast and unique Elder Scrolls world to explore, it really only incrementally ups the ante from Oblivion, not quite the Holy-Mother-of-God! reactions we're seeing from a lot of the mainstream press. You'll notice this within minutes of playing. On the flip-side, giving this game a 0 is ludicrous and makes absolutely no sense. Zeros should be reserved for bottom-of-the-barrel trash games thrown together in a few months, with a nice mix of horrendous graphics, game-breaking bugs, unplayable controls and unusable UI. If any of these things are so messed up for you that you honestly rated Skyrim a 0, then I might encourage you to update your computer, because on a top-of-the-line system, this game runs great, even with slightly goofy mouse-keyboard translations from the console port. The scope of the world alone would grant a game like this a 5 or 6 at the very least. Add in endless quests, overall great graphics, dialogue for every line in the game, a stellar soundtrack, a well-thought-out progression scheme, and improvements in almost every area over the correctly, universally-rated 9+ Oblivion, and anyone with any experience in gaming whatsoever would -have- to give Skyrim at least an 8. On the other hand, if you didn't care for the previous games in the series, you won't like this one, because it's more of the same, but better. Way more, and largely better. And for most of us, this is a very good thing. PROS This is an RPG addict's dream, as were the previous Elder Scrolls games. Most of us will get lost in this world for many months before the luster fades. And by then, creative modders will have designed new ways for us to enjoy the game and extend the lifespan probably up to the release of the next ES entry. I was still playing Oblivion off and on right up until Skyrim's release, and still felt I hadn't explored the entire game world, and that is one of the key highlights of any Elder Scrolls game. After about 30-40 hours of gameplay already (did I mention that this game is addicting?) I have probably only uncovered about 15-20% of the overall map. Unlike in Oblivion, where things became fairly repetitious fairly early on, Skyrim seems much more able to keep things fresh. This many hours in, and I'm still being surprised by things left and right. This world is big, there are quests at every turn, and it is without question the most "alive" feeling ES game to date, with characters going beyond just wandering around and really adding flavor to the overall world. There are a lot more moving parts here, too. From waterfalls and rivers that actually spray "foam", to birds and butterflies that cast real shadows causing you to look up at them (I'll get to dragons later, that is an awesome way to discover that you've got one above you), to spells that cause environmental effects like burning or freezing, to in-menu, fully-realized 3D items that are awesome just to look at - Skyrim feels very organic and "alive", especially when compared to its predecessors. Yes, there are better looking games out there, heck, there are better looking role-playing games (The Witcher 2 comes to mind). But there are NO games out there of this scope and size that look this good. It is an incredible accomplishment, and if you can crank your settings up to ultra, it's pretty delicious. Without a doubt there a lot of "ooh" and "ahh" moments. Combat, while not perfect, is adequate. The menus are vastly improved over Oblivion. Character models and shading are also vastly improved. Textures in most areas are improved, too, but occasionally they can be ugly. If you're running through the game having a good time, they're hardly worth a comment, though. Still, there are some problems. CONS As so many people have said already, PC menu controls are ticklish. It's easy to click the wrong thing, especially in the skills menus, but Beth says they are working on a fix, and it's really not an immersion-breaker. Between the new Favorites button (brilliant) and the ability to assign numerical hotkeys, I find control in almost every area about 80% fluid, and a huge improvement over Oblivion. I miss a few things. I miss acrobatics (which seemingly would have fit into a mountainous region very well). I miss spell crafting. I miss being able to place items absolutely anywhere I want, with precision. But mods will fix this stuff. Bottom line, this is the very best of the current gen as far as RPGs go. It's not next-gen, I'm anxious for a future dx11 Elder Scrolls. But make no mistake, this game is WIN.