TundraFreeze

Concerning racing games the tracks are as important to the game as the cars are. They have an inherent value as you are supposed to race the tracks over and over, getting better and better. You also get more fun out of it by using different cars and set-ups. Changing the difficulty settings will also make things interesting. In this respect racing tracks have limitless value. Sure you can race through all of the stages in this Rally DLC in just fifty-sixty minutes with no retries. However you are highly unlikely to get a respectable position until you have learned the tracks and gotten better cars, or modified some of the ones you have. The developers made a wise decision by setting the difficulty-level so high in this DLC. It forces you to learn the tracks and get better cars. That is clearly what they intended. So if you don't have a "racing game mentality" you might not get your money's worth with this DLC. However if you love track racing in all it's forms (F1, SBK, Dirt, Forza etc) then you probably will.This rally DLC is very much a treat to the latter rather than the former.

Great gameplay but with rather boring characters. The ways you can interact with the environment and people around you is truly impressive. Equally impressive is the size of the open-world available to you. The number of things you can do in it seems endless. The graphics is often impressive, especially when you travel through the big environments (city, desert, forest, ocean etc). Having three characters to customize and level up is awesome. My only gripe with the game is that the characters are either cliché or consist entirely of stereotypes. Not just the main characters but everyone else in the game as well. Even Trevor, the most original of the three, becomes cartoonish because he is over-the-top at all times. All of this matters because when you consider how unique and novel the gameplay itself is, it feels like a mismatch. If this was another Saint's Row game this cartoonish depiction of people would fit, but in a game that takes itself "seriously" it does not fit so well. Especially when you compare it to GTA4, Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire. The characters in those games were more interesting and less juvenile. And why is there no female character to play Female criminals do actually exist believe it or not. However, considering how women are depicted in the game there is no question as to whom the game is really aimed at. Fun game by all means, especially if you love open-world games with lots of things to do. I just wish the characters were as original and complex as the rest of the game.

Milestone improves on their WRC series with each new release. The handling is improved, the graphics look better, the game modes are improved and expanded, the sound is more convincing etc. The other review gives a good account for these things. Few racing series make perfect releases each time, even the old Colin McRae Rally games and the WRC games by Evolution Studios had their problems back in the days. Something rally "fans" forget far too easily. The same goes for modern racing series like Codemaster's Dirt and F1 series. Each new game is a gradual improvement of the last. Just as some people don't see an improvement or change in the F1 games by Codemasters or the Forza games by Turn10, some people refuse to see an improvement in the WRC series by Milestone. People are biased. The fact is WRC 3 does a good job balancing sim and arcade experiences, both are needed to sell enough copies, just look at Forza and GT, which have become forced to adapt to a changing consumer market where the majority now wants quick and simple racing. The majority of racing gamers today do not want to spend hours honing their skills. It was different in the PS2 era, but you can't turn back time. Hardcore rally gamers need to move with the times and not live in the past. If you want your business to survive you need to adapt, which is what Codemasters did when they successfully changed the format of the Colin McRae/Dirt games. You can't expect WRC to look as good as a Dirt game when the Dirt series has a significantly larger consumer base and therefore gives Codemasters significantly more money to put in their games. Graphics are the most expensive component of any **** I digress too much, WRC 3 is a fun rally racing game that sits somewhere between sim and arcade just like the Dirt games do. The difference is that WRC is based on traditional rally racing whereas Dirt focuses on Rallycross, they are not the same thing, they offer different types of rally racing experiences.

A mediocre addition to the Far Cry series. It lacks the simplicity, intensity and rawness of the previous two games. It also lacks the maturity of Far Cry 2. In further comparison to FC2 the damage physics are not as realistic, the weather effects are minimal, the AI are significantly dumber, the day/night cycle is not convincing, and the setting is unoriginal (basically Far Cry 1 with better polish). To me Far Cry 3 was designed to please those people who play whatever fps is trending at the moment rather than true fans of the Far Cry series. As such the game is destined to be remembered for two things only, occasional animal attacks and Vaas. The rest is forgettable. It is too superficial and too easy. I also don't like playing a spoiled and dumb frat-boy in my shooters.

Dead Island is one of those series where I don't want anything different in the sequels, as far as gameplay is concerned at least. The only significant differences in Riptide is that it takes place around water and that you have a new character to play as. The rest is the same or highly similar to the original. My only complaint is that I wish the game had taken place in a different kind of environment, I'm a bit tired of jungles by now. A desert or northern wintry area would have been more interesting. Apart from that great fun. If you loved the original you will like this one too.

This being all about the atmosphere, I find myself missing the puzzles and monsters from the first **** skill and money going into this game has focused on creating a range of spooky atmospheres. You have a creepy old house, a church, sewers, etc. With headphones on and in a darkened room this game is definitely creepy. The storyline is great and the game allows you to explore the areas you travel through. However you simply don't DO much in this sequel. There are puzzles in this game but to be honest none of them are particularly challenging nor interesting. There are monsters too but they are not as unique and original as in the first game. So if you like creepy atmopsheres and a good horror storyline you should enjoy this sequel, that is the focus of the game. If you want challenging and interesting puzzles in addition to that I am not so sure you will enjoy it. 'A Machine for Pigs' is not a bad horror game by any means but it doesn't live up to the original, it feels 'average'. In fact my favourite horror game so far in 2013 is 'Outlast', it was far more interesting and unique than 'A Machine for Pigs'.

The only proper rally racing series around for modern consoles. If you want traditional rally racing on modern console this series is your best option by far. The Dirt games focus on Xrally, rally cross and similar stuff. Yes Codemasters do prettier games, blah blah blah. But Milestone at least makes an effort to stay true to the legacy of rally racing games and try to make their games as sim-like as possible, unlike Codemasters who have gone the arcade direction with their Dirt series. With their WRC games Milestone tries to meet the needs of traditional rally racing enthusiasts. So if you miss the old rally games of WRC (Evolution Studios), Colin McRae and Richard Burns, and you want something somewhat similar for a modern console then you should give these WRC games a chance. WRC 2 improves on everything from the first game, graphics, handling, gameplay structure, etc. WRC 2 is fast, intense, challenging and fun. In fact the only thing I truly miss from the old WRC games on PS2 are the weather effects (rain, snow, etc). That would have made WRC 2 even more immersive. However this WRC series by Milestone remains the best option for traditional rally racing.

How to ruin a cool space adventure series. A game for the masses, this is Gears of War in space. The first Mass Effect game was an epic and fun space adventure. It had a big open world to explore, a large number of side missions, and a highly detailed weapons and armor customization system. In addition the combat itself was highly tactical and strategic All of that is virtually gone with ME2. They replaced a fun and adventurous storyline with a boring and soapy 'Seven Samurai' themed one. They heavily reduced the open world environment, dramatically shortened the number of side missions available to you, and practically removed all the gear and weapons customization. The combat has become simplified into a duck-and-cover format where no tactics are required, you just point and shoot. As an offshoot of the Mass Effect series it would have been a good game, but as a direct sequel it is not. It has ruined the whole series for me. It completely severs the flow of the series' overarching storyline. However if you just want a pretty game filled to the brink with drama and where you get to shoot stuff and seduce NPCs I guess you'll really like it. Me, I'm left asking myself where all the fun, excitement and adventure went. I expected Star Trek but got Battlestar Galactica instead. It is science fiction turned boring.

Splinter Cell turned RPG is the best way to describe Alpha Protocol. In most RPGs it is only your final choices that determine how the game ends, and your in-game choices do not significantly affect how the game develops as you play it. In contrast EVERY choice you make in Alpha Protocol will affect not only the ending but also how the game develops as you play it. Your aiming accuracy is bad at first because you need to level up your skills, your weapons are bad at first because you need to purchase better weapons or new parts. This is kind of what you do in RPGs. In shooters your skills are already as good as they get. In RPGs they are not. Yes the gameplay is linear but how the storyline, characters and scenarios develop are not. The core of RPG is 'choice', not just physical open-world type of choice and appearance customization, but also dialogue choices that affect how the game plays and ends. This game may not have an open-world nor appearance customization, but it makes up for it by having a highly complex and dynamic dialogue system where the choices made will affect your gameplay and the story development in a direct way. It has a highly intricate system of cause and effect, more advanced than what Mass Effect, Fallout and Elder Scrolls have delivered. Alpha Protocol is far from a "simple shooter".

If you like sci-fi shooters such as the Lost Planet games and Red Faction Armageddon, Dead Space 3 should interest you. If you are truly hoping for a creepy survivalist game something similar to the first Dead Space game you will probably be disappointed. However even as an action game Dead Space 3 is great fun. After all Dead Space 2 was already much more action-oriented than the first game, so if you loved DS2 you should enjoy DS3 as well. What stands out to me is that you now have weapons customization and a slightly more open game world. My only complaint is that the frozen planet environment in Dead Space 3 is not that unique and interesting, the Lost Planet games have already done it more convincingly. Some other kind of planetary environment would have made this part of the game a more unique experience. All-in-all though, Dead Space 3 is a fun sci-fi shooter with some jump scares here and there.

Payday 2 is exactly like the previous game, so if you were fanatic about the previous one you'll absolutely love it. If you are only into singleplayer or off-line gameplay don't buy Payday 2, it is not what it is aimed at. Still, this is CoD and BF all over again, a game with the same game design repeated over and over. I would have liked to see something new in the actual gameplay, anything really. If you haven't played Payday before, its a teamwork-based FPS. It is not an RPG like some people suggest. There is nothing RPG about it, nothing at all. Nor is this a combat sim, absolutely not. There is nothing realistic about this game. It is an arcade teamwork-based FPS. Great fun if you like working as a team with people on-line, as opposed to being a Rambo in CoD and BF.

The cool thing about this game is the different perspectives you get. You can easily and smoothly jump between a tactical map view to a first person vehicle view. There is also an FPS component to the game. Another cool thing is the different combat maps you travel through, the different environments, as well as the dynamic weather effects. The AI are dumb but you are meant to control them, that is the core of ANY tactical and strategic game. The campaign is rather lengthy and you have a huge number of maps to choose from in the individual combat mode. You need to be able to reason and think logically to play this game successfully, to have an analytical mind, because at the heart this game is like chess. Carrier Command: Gaea Mission is not aimed at everyone, at the mass of gamers out there who play whatever is trending on youtube. People who only care about graphics. This game is old-school tactics and strategy, it does not hold your hand. Often very difficult but challenging and fun.

Fun sci-fi game. Not as tactical as a Tom Clancy game but still tactical enough to make it challenging and fun, it is on the same tactical level as the first Mass Effect game. The graphics are good and I liked the voice casting. Sure the gameplay is repetitive but not more than Enemy Unknown. Likewise you can't blame this game for having a generic storyline when the entire XCom series is built around a generic storyline. However a better word than 'generic' is 'classic'. That's how I see the storyline and concept of this game, a classic sci-fi. So if you truly enjoy sci-fi and you liked the tactical gameplay in the first Mass Effect game you might enjoy XCom Declassified.

If you love the Alien-universe and FPS this is a fun game. At the current price the game is well worth it. It is no Half-life 2 by any means but if you enjoy all sorts of FPS (Doom 3, Quake 4, Turok, Prey, Timeshift, etc) and not just whatever is trending on TotalBiscuit and such, you might just enjoy it. The fact is I had more fun playing ACM than Borderlands. My only complaint is that the game is quite short. Apart from that, a solid fun FPS where you fight hordes of Aliens in legendary Hadley's Hope using some cool weapons and gadgets.

The character is awesome to play and the gameplay solid fun. It combines rather general TPS with some fantastically weird gameplay components. The story concept is cool but not new, it has already been explored in Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard. What is unique is the character, Deadpool, and the attention given to his personality. He is psychotic, weird, funny, crazy, dramatic, and other many other things. The other characters in the game are equally funny, you keep looking for the next weirdness to happen as you play along. The humour and weirdness is what gets me in this game. Everything is over the top. With solid TPS gameplay and awesome characters this game is worth a purchase.

Please ignore the professional reviewers. They are PC gaming snobs who get paid for creating controversy. Claiming that this game is dull or repetitive while praising games such as Dead Space 3 and Saint's Row 4, which are even more repetitive, is hypocritical. Lost Planet 3 is much deeper than the two previous Lost Planet games, and is an improvement because of it. The characters have more depth and the gameplay experience is more immersive, for example in the way you can interact with the npc-s and upgrade your weapons. The graphics and environmental designs are better looking than in the previous games, and create an even greater sense of being stuck on an icy snow planet. It is more claustrophobic than the previous games, as it takes place in an earlier time line when the planet was just getting colonized. The combat is more immersive as you now have a first-person view in your mech, something the previous games did not have. The user interface adds to the immersion by being as minimalistic as possible. The voice acting and music is great. The storyline is probably more interesting if you liked the previous two games, as a stand-alone game the storyline is OK, a bit like a cross between the film 'The Thing' and 'Aliens'. The best new element in the series is the personalization given to the main character, he is a character with a personality. So there are three new elements in this game that you haven't seen in previous Lost Planet games, a well-developed character personality, weapons customization, and first-person view Mech combat. In addition the gameplay is more open than previously, it is not as linear as the other two games. In summary, this is a great sci-fi action game.

This game got boring very quickly. It starts with an interesting introduction but after that, throughout the whole game, the storyline is completely lost. Borderlands has one of the thinnest storylines I have encountered in an FPS. Even Codemaster's Bodycount has more depth. Your characters likewise have no personality. The gameplay is very repetitive as all the enemies and maps are basically the same. There are only two types of missions in the game, you kill bosses and collect items. That is all you do for 20 hours. So this game is truly all about shooting things, not storylines, not characters. This is an old-school arcade like FPS, which are great as 10 hour games, but for an FPS this long and this repetitive you need a well-developed storyline and characters, which Borderlands does not have. If you like doing the exact same thing over and over in a 20+ hour FPS then by all means buy this game, but if you are looking for something truly unique and interesting look elsewhere. Borderlands is a mediocre FPS at best.

The two significant flaws of this game are the awkward control system and bad AI. The rest are cosmetic stuff. The good parts of this game still outweighed the bad: the soundtrack is great, the storyline is interesting and engaging, the voice-acting great, the game-pace is fast and movie-like, and the combat was fun even though it is far from perfect. On occasion I was even impressed by the visuals. It is mainly the tricorder and classic Star Trek weaponry that contributed to making the combat fun. The bad AI accidentaly turns this game into a tactical game, you simply need to order your companion around, otherwise he will die easily. As far as bugs and glitches go this game is no worse than most other games, including Skyrim, Assassin's Creed 3 and Dark Souls, which all had far more glitches and bugs than Star Trek yet no one is objective enough to mention that. The remaining cosmetic flaws of Star Trek are quite insignificant, unless all you really care about in games are the visuals. By the way I seriously doubt that 231 people would actually buy this game if it was so bad, so if you are reading this I would take it with a grain of salt. People love jumping on a bandwagon. Take it from someone who has actually completed the game twice: the proper objective rating for this game should be around 5-7 out of 10. If gameplay mechanics don't bother you much and you love the Star Trek universe the rating would probably be even higher. For me the only flaw with the combat is that there's no close-quarter combat function. The rest I was perfectly fine with. All in all I thought the game was fun, would I have paid full-price for it not really, £15-20 is a more reasonable price-range than £30.

It is the unique artistic design, storyline and topic that makes El Shaddai a unique gaming experience. Nothing like it exists on console, you have to look at modern indie PC games for equally unique visuals. So if you want a game that stands out on your shelf this is it. The gameplay is a combination of 2D and 3D platforming with combat. Mostly combat though. The combat is not overly technical you only have to memorize ten or so button combinations, which is not a lot for this type of game. However having less button combinations to memorize made the game more enjoyable to me, I prefer being able to master a few moves over trying to recollect a tonne of them. I simply have more fun this way. Besides, mastering them can be difficult and the enemies are not that easy to beat. In addition, enemies require you to use specific weapons in order to beat them in the most efficient way. So there is a heavy trial and error aspect to El Shaddai. You also don't have much armor and health. By now you should realize that this is definitely not a button-mashing game. You need to play smart and master the combat. I had a great time with El Shaddai, I have done two playthroughs of it since I first bought it. For me the game has a high replay value because of the unique visuals and uncomplicated combat style. Like I said earlier, nothing like it exists on the 360 console.

It is the humour, weapons, characters and occasional quirky gameplay that makes this a somewhat unique game. However for the most part the gameplay itself feels too much like Prototype and Crackdown. Instead of making a silly GTA4 version, which is what Saint's Row 3 was, they made a silly Prototype/Crackdown version. One thing that annoyed me is that you get all the superpowers pretty much from the beginning, which is not a good thing. Even though you can jump into cars and drive around there is no practical reason to do so because your jumping and running superpowers will get you there faster. So the driving function is completely wasted in this game. Also, as far as over-the-top gameplay goes I honestly think Deadpool did it better. The concept and storyline of the game is OK but I would definetely have preferred something closer to Saint's Row 2 and 3. Something closer to Earth. All in all you will probably like this game if you enjoy games such as Deadpool, Protoype and Crackdown. Deadpool in particular.

Spoiled by horrible AI. This game does everything right except the AI. They are overaggressive and incredibly dumb. Its bad programming plain and simple. Clean racing becomes a joke when the AI behave as if in a Flatout or Burnout game. The bad AI turn what would be a superb sim game into an arcade game. Everything else in the game is excellent the handling, the first-person view graphics, the career mode, the Championship modes, riding aids etc. It is sad that this game is practically ruined by the dumb AI. If you want realistic AI that won't spoil your experience you should get one of the older games instead, MotoGP 08 or 07. This game is hardly worth your money.

Compared to the first game, Dead Space 2 was somewhat disappointing. It plays more like an action game, relying more on jump scares than atmospheric creepy-ness. They just send horde after horde at you. I much preferr the slow-paced but thrilling game that Dead Space was. Overall though, Dead Space 2 is still an above-average action game.

The controls in this game are horrendous. Which irritates me a great deal because I like the concept and style of this game. I also think the storyline is very cool. However I find Prototype almost impossible to play with the control system it has: it is blocky and inconsistent. You also need to manage a dozen or so button combinations, which becomes a nightmare when the controls are as slow and inconsistent as they are. The game tells you to use the right weapon for the right enemy, yet it keeps sending you every type of enemy all at once. The enemy targeting function doesn't work most of the time. So controlling your character during combat becomes a bad joke as you resort to panicky button mashing. Only between combat do you have an acceptable level of control over your character. Great idea for a game, bad execution.

Mud is an arcade motocross game based on an actual Championship, as such it features all the official locations and riders from 2012. Not the actual tracks mind you, just their country locations. The tracks still manage to look realistic though in the way they are designed. It is important to realize that this is not a MX vs ATV game, they have very little in common. In MUD you only ride bikes. MUD is also more linear since the main point is that you follow and complete a Championship. In the Championship mode you do plain motocross racing, goal to finish, there's no freetstyle or trick events in this mode. However apart from the Championship mode MUD also offers a customized career mode where you can play a fictional rider and level him up by purchasing skills. In this mode you do a range of races: against time, head to head, freestyle or tricks, etc. You can buy new gear, change teams and bikes. The gameplay in MUD is unforgiving; there's no rewind and the AI is tough, and once you fall off it can be very difficult to re-claim your position. To win you have to learn the tracks and be aware of the other riders. My only complaint of MUD is that I wish the Career Mode would have offered different tracks to those in the Championship mode, because once I completed both of the Championships it felt a bit dry racing on the very same tracks again. They should have introduced some new tracks, something crazier and more unrealistic. It would have elevated the game. I enjoyed MUD, it was a challenging and fun racing game.

If you are going to make a game this long have the decency to add a storyline to it, because this is not acceptable. Dark Souls features a fun and challenging combat system, with a plethora of weird and fantastic monsters to fight. The different zones or environments you travel through are equally as unique and fantastic as the enemy monster designs. So this game does some things really well. What it fails at is the storyline, which is far too thin to engage you, in particular for a game this long. I had trouble finishing the game because I simply stopped caring about it, it became boring because there is no real storyline in it. The storyline seems to have been attached as an after-thought. A thin storyline is acceptable in a short game, say 10 hours or so which is how long Demon's Souls was, but not in an 80 hour game. If I am to enjoy an 80 hour game I need some kind of storyline, something to hook me in and keep me interested. Dark Souls does not do that. It does not help that your character has no personality, he or she is just a killing machine, nothing more nothing less. Bottomline: if you want an action RPG with an engaging storyline and a protagonist with a personality I would think twice before buying this game, but if you just want to fight your way through some unique-looking monsters in equally unique environments you might enjoy Dark Souls.

I thought this game would be much more exciting than that it actually is, especially since all professional reviewers claimed it as a must-have. The gameplay is slow and dare-I-say tedious. The storyline is thin and absent from much of the game, in fact you can't really tell the difference between a main quest and a side-quest. So the main storyline is not that engaging, it does not stand out from the other quests you do. Likewise the characters in the game are flat and robotic. It is true that this game is visually impressive and that you have a huge open-world to move around, but everything else was just too boring for me. I wish reviewers, professional ones in particular, could recognize that people like different things in their games and I wish their reviews would reflect this fact, instead of pushing their bias unto others, claiming their judgement as Absolute. Bottomline: if you like pretty graphics, interactions with your environment such as learning a trade and getting married, and a huge open-world to move around in you'll probably enjoy Skyrim a lot. If you want a deep storyline, characters with some degree of personality, and variation in your gameplay look elsewhere.

Quite similar to the previous games except that you now have weapons and other gadgets to use, and the fact that the game is not as open-world as the previous games: you can drive anywhere you want during a mission, for example when you are being chased by the police you can drive anywhere you want in the entire open-world environment, but in-between missions there is no open-world interface where you just drive around picking up missions. So progression is slightly more linear than before. Unlike the previous games CT5 does not take place in a major city but in the countryside amongst mountainous roads and along the coast. The gadgets you can use include a grappling hook, emp charges, spike mats, oil spill, etc. Do not expect Crash Time to be anything like other arcade racers such as Forza Horizon and the NFS games, the Crash Time series is quite unique. The closest games to Crash Time are the Test Drive Unlimited games. So imagine Test Drive but with a storyline. Yes this game has a storyline, based a German cop show. With a title like Crash Time you should be able to deduce that this game is not to be taken too seriously, it is just a bit of fun, a tongue-in-cheek racing game. It is not as dramatic as say NFS The Run. I had a lot of fun with Crash Time 5, having to use gadgets adds a new technical element to a game that is already rather challenging. As always try the demo first, so that you know what kind of game this is.

The cruelty in Japanese game design is fully explored in this game: if you die at the end of a level you often have to start again from the beginning of it, boss fights are very difficult on even the easiest setting and will require many hours of trial and error, you also cannot save the game whenever you want to. To add to this your character is extremely weak, he topples over very easily after being hit, and will keep toppling over after each subsequent hit...over and over again. In practicality there are only three difficulty settings for this game: hard, very hard, extremely hard. For me the game became too frustrating and consequently too boring after while. There is a limit to everyone's patience and in this game "positive frustration", the kind that ignites your desire to succeed, may very well turn into a black hole...draining your desire to complete the **** question is whether you regard this kind game design as the blueprint of how games should be, or as an archaic monstrosity best left in the past. Personally I think the game's difficulty hinders the enjoyment of what is otherwise a good storyline and setting. It takes away from the game what I think is much more important than mere technical skill.

Improved graphics and design, awesome engine sounds, more realistic car handling and driving physics, much improved AI, a variety of racing events, a nice range of cars. Those are the great things about this game. The negatives: winning depends too much on drifting, no view, less racing variety than in the first Grid game. Overall a great game if you love racing games.