claytastic

Call of Duty continues to prove itself to be the most boring franchise out there with WWII. I didn't have high expectations, and actually wasn't planning on buying it. But some of my friends told me I would enjoy it, so I got it when it was on sale. They were pretty wrong. Don't get me wrong, it has some of the best graphics and sound design out there, and nails the look and feel of World War 2. It also plays pretty well, and can be enjoyed for an unextended amount of time, but in terms of the rest of it, there's nothing here. Let's start off with the campaign. It's bad. I mean, what did you expect? The characters are boring and lifeless, and no amount of Hollywood actors is going to make me change my mind about that. Call of Duty just doesn't have good campaigns anymore. They pretty much stopped trying after the first Black Ops because I guess they realised that no one played the campaigns anymore. This one really proves that point, though, because in the multiplayer, they censored the Swastikas, and there are black and female soldiers running about, even on the side of the ****. Not that I'm opposed to diversity, but in a game selling itself on historical accuracy, that really puts a dent in the illusion. However, in the campaign, there are Swastikas everywhere, and no females in sight (minus one who plays a fairly minor role). Why do you think this is? Because no one plays the campaign. They could make it the most violent game ever, and no one would care. Besides that problem, the campaign never really has any twists or turns. It's just standard and pretty boring most of the time. I'm not gonna sit here and pretend to care about ANOTHER soldier who has family at home who we can all predict is gonna die. The multiplayer isn't much of a step up, either. At first, I was kinda upset that they were continuing to make futuristic games with Infinite Warfare, but World War 2 has made me realise something. Going futuristic was the best thing that happened to Call of Duty. Both Advanced Warfare and Black Ops 3 are two of my favourites because the futuristic setting allowed for more variety. The double jumps and wall running in Advanced Warfare was the biggest change the series had made since the switch to a modern setting in CoD 4. Plus, this gave them the opportunity to have more weapon and ability variety. It needed refining, but it was a nice change of pace. Black Ops 3 was the perfect follow up because it did all of the refining that needed to be done in Advanced Warfare, and became what I would say is my favourite Call of Duty (even though the campaign didn't measure up to that of previous franchise entries). The only reason I hated Infinite Warfare was because it was just Black Ops 3 with worse maps and one of the series' worst campaigns. To say World War 2 has improved on this or evolved the series in any way is a joke because all they did was return to a style that everyone thought they wanted, but then realised they didn't. I always kind of knew that just going back to modern or historical settings wouldn't automatically fix Call of Duty, but I was hoping that it would provide some slight ounce of innovation. And it kinda did. The new War mode, which is the newest thing CoD has done since the jump kits in Advanced Warfare, is actually pretty neat. You're dropped into a linear map in which you and your team either have to complete an objective or drive the other team back from doing that. And while it's infinitely more fun to play the attacking team than it is to play defending, I still enjoyed my time with it. Other than that, though, there's nothing new or fresh about World War 2's multiplayer. If you've played a modern or historical CoD's multiplayer, you've played this one. Lastly, there's the zombies, which has absolutely nothing new or interesting about it. It's just boring, honestly. So much so that I have absolutely nothing to say about it besides the fact that Ving Rhames is in it, so that's cool. Overall, CoD WW2 is the furthest thing from a fresh gaming experience as you can possibly get. It's fun in short bursts and has some creative ideas, but none of them are ever executed to their full potential. 5/10.

NieR: Automata is stunning. It's a shining example of what games can and should be. It's always on the move, changing up and finding new ways to challenge or surprise you. It took me awhile to pick it up, but when I finally got my hands on it and played it, I couldn't have spent my money better. I was originally turned off by the idea of another open world action game, but I'd say this is the best one out there right now. The world is beautiful, and actually really well design. The different sections of the map are all different biomes, but rather than just changing the style of the setting, they have drastic shifts in design (for example, the desert is empty and barren with lots of enemies, the forest has narrowing and winding paths in a sea of trees, and the ocean swallowed some of the nearby buildings, giving you some platforming sections). Additionally, the story is surprisingly well done. I was worried that robots leading the main story would be a bad idea, but the way they help tell the narrative surpasses anything I expected. They have more emotional responses to things than most other games that sell themselves on their story. I won't spoil anything because I highly recommend that every goes out and experiences it for themselves. It's also a game where having multiple endings isn't a lame way of cramming in variety for variety's sake. They actually matter to the full game, so much so that if you got one and stopped playing, you'll only have scratched the surface. I hate to be one of those people who tell you that you're not playing a game right by only getting one ending or doing it a certain way, but that's absolutely the case with NieR, more so than any other game. The gameplay was another point of concern I had before the game's release. Given it's an RPG and from what I'd seen in early gameplay showings, I was worried it would have some confusing and unintuitive menus like Mass Effect Andromeda, and more recently, Xenoblade Chronicles 2. However, this was hardly a complaint, as you level up automatically, and choosing special skills and abilities and leveling up weapons are all super easy. But besides that, the gameplay is excellent. Combat handles well, the occasional platforming sections are really well done and don't happen too often, and every other different style of gameplay plays just as well as the others. This is showcased perfectly in the first 40 minutes, where it goes from being a top-down, twin-stick shooter, to a third person action game, to a 2D platformer, to a top-down platformer, then back to a third person action game, and each one transitions into the next as smooth as butter. Overall, NieR is easily my favourite game of the year, which in a year with Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild is no small feat. This is also already up there with some of the best games I've ever played, and might just be the best. I'm really glad it didn't get criminally underrated like the first NieR did. 10/10

Most remastered games nowadays end up being half-assed attempts at making the original game look better without changing the game in any way in order to capture your nostalgia and take your money. Skyrim: Special Edition, Modern Warfare Remastered, BioShock: The Collection and the Dead Rising Trilogy are all perfect examples of this. Once again, Nintendo has had to come in and show every one how something is done with this Switch port of the already amazing Mario Kart 8. I will concede, however, that in terms of graphics, the game only looks slightly better than the previous version, but it's not a problem since the game already looked great on the Wii U. That's not what makes this game spectacular, though. It's the fact that it's everything the original version was, and more. All of the DLC tracks and characters are included (something that has failed to make it's way to more recent remasters), and they even made new levels, which means that there's 48 tracks total, and it's not just one of those situations where more is worse because they're less varied. Each level is unique In its visual and level design, which really adds to the game's replayability. In addition to more maps and characters, they also added a new mode: battle mode. Actually, its a mode with a few different mini-modes. They take certain tracks and turn them into arenas so the players can battle it out. This is done in many different ways, collecting coins, popping balloons, throwing bombs, and my personal favorite, a cops and robbers gamemode where the cops chase the criminals around with piranha plants and criminals have to bust their friends out of jail when they get caught. it's not new since we've seen in previous games, but it's nice to see it return after a long hiatus, since it wasn't present in Mario Kart Wii, 7, or the original version of 8. To conclude, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is exactly how you do a remastered game. It fixes every problem that I had with the original version, and it changes enough to make it feel like a whole new game, without trampling the legacy of the original. This is the first time in a while where I'm able to say that this is the ultimate way to experience the game. I was going to give it a 9, but then I realized that I actually didn't have any problems with this game, minus the fact that there's 7 different versions of Rainbow Road (making it the Skyrim of Mario Kart), so it gets a well-deserved 10.

Yooka-Laylee isn't the worst game ever made, but in comparison to it's spiritual predecessor, Banjo-Kazooie, it's an abomination in need of euthanization. It has a couple of good levels at the start, but after that, its just poor design and missed opportunities all around. Some levels are super easy, while others are beyond frustrating, which is mainly because the game is harder to control than a pack of gorillas trying to break out of a zoo, and the piece of **** camera doesn't make it much better. The hub world is way too big, making it near impossible to find the next level. The music, while great, fails to fit the levels or scenarios they go with. The character and level designs (from a visual standpoint) do stand out compared to other games. That's definitely one of the better parts of the game. Yooka and Laylee are great mascots, Trowzer is genius, and there's a bunch more great ones. There are a few problems with this, though. One of them is that none of these characters are actually interactive they're just standing in one spot the whole time with no purpose, and their dialogue is really cringey. Most of the time, they don't even fit the levels. They just end up getting recycled from previous parts of the game. It's just lazy. Overall, Yooka-Laylee is a massive disappointment, especially since it was developed by some of the creators of the original Banjo-Kazooie. It feels more like a fan-made early access game than a full title. My recommendation for anyone craving more collect-a-thon 3D platformers is to just buy Banjo-Kazooie on the Xbox One. Don't waste your money on this garbage excuse of a spiritual successor.

Friday the 13th is one of the most fun multiplayer experiences I've ever had. This game went way beyond my expectations in that area. Since it's 1-7 vs 1, it forces you to communicate with your team in a much more different way than any other multiplayer game. I haven't had a single game where someone on my team has started trash talking and calling people **** because they know that it won't get them closer to victory. But that's not even the best part of the game. Playing as Jason is one of the best gaming experiences I've had all year, and every time I play as him, I have a blast. On a gameplay and entertainment level, this game is a knockout. However, that came with some drawbacks. A LOT of drawbacks. The main problem is that the game just isn't finished. It's very broken. There are bugs galore and most of them have to do with the game's servers, which isn't good for a multiplayer only game. The developers even had the balls to claim that the players ruined the servers because they didn't think the game would be such a hit, which is the worst excuse I've heard in my life. It's not just bugs and server issues, either. The game is missing content. It's a $40 game that comes with three maps and is only one mode. Additionally, there's no campaign, which is the reason they delayed it in the first place. You'd think something like this is an early access game, but no. It's a full release, which makes it the most lazy game release since Big Rigs. Overall, Friday the 13th has fantastic elements of gameplay, but no elements of polish. It really **** to see that what could've been one of the year's greats could've is instead one of it's disappointments. Hopefully once more content is released the game will have improved, and I can update the score. But for now, light 6/10.

Boooooooooooring. I came into Wildlands with the expectations that it was going to be a very tedious and repetitive. Turns out, I was right. There's not much to enjoy about this game. It's a great idea, and it had me pretty excited about it when it was first announced at E3 2015. Then, The Division came out, which is one of the worst games I've ever played. When I saw that the same team behind that atrocity was working on Wildlands, I lost all hope. And while I will say it's better than The Division in some ways, let's be honest, that's not a hard bar to pass over. So let's start off with what's good. The graphics do look a lot better than they have in other Ubisoft games, and really bring the world to life. Customisation is also very well realised. The character creator isn't anything special, but you can customise your clothes any time and unlock more as you play more of the game (and sign up for Uplay). Weapon customisation is also great, and is one of the better ways that Ubisoft has handled it. Now let's look at the bad. The story is garbage, which i was already expecting, even if the game turned out to be good. The only interesting parts are the backstories of the cartel leaders, but thats a very small portion of it. The ending is extremely lazy, and is basically just a way of saying you wasted $60. The open world has nothing to do in it besides missions. No extra activities, no challenges to complete, no nothing. All you can do are story missions, and side missions, both of which involve you going to a base, taking out some dudes, getting what you need, and leaving. It's repetitive, boring, and made me wanna quit the game after I did three. When you are shooting guys, its not fun or satisfying. It seems that Ubisoft will never understand that shooting the same guy over and over again isn't fun. Now let's talk about the absolute worst part of Wildlands: the driving. I think anyone, and I mean anyone, would agree that the driving controls in this game are some of the worst ever made. They're so slippery, so you'll find yourself driving off cliffs and running into things constantly with barely any control of your vehicle. And considering that most of the mission objectives are so far apart from each other, you HAVE to drive everywhere, Or just fly a helicopter there, but that's not a better option. Overall, this is nothing more than another **** Tom Clancy game that Ubisoft is frequently adding to their list. I hope they realise that this formula is getting old, and that they need to try something new, but that's not going to happen. Until then, we're stuck with games like this. 4/10.

How does this game have an 80 percent? It ****. I have no clue why people except this as a passable game. It's loaded with problems that so many people have failed to address or have just flat-out ignored. The game was completely unplayable at launch, as I spent 2 hours trying to join get in a server. Even when I finally got in, I had to wait in an in-game line to access a terminal that only one player can use at time. That's right. A f*cking line. In a video game. And it only got worse from there. Luckily, the problems at launch were fixed quickly, so I'll give them credit there. However, that didn't fix the other problems. First, the story, which is boring and uninteresting, but honestly, I saw that coming. Second, the monotony. The Division is the most repetitive game I've ever played. Mission after mission, all you're doing is going from point A to point B and killing dudes in hoodies, who are the most bullet-sponge enemies I've ever encountered in a game. The bosses aren't much better, and are pretty much just more powerful dudes in hoodies. To give you an idea of how bland the enemies and bosses are, the final boss is a helicopter. Then there's the Dark Zone, the single worst part of the game. The Dark Zone was planned to be a PVP area where players could battle it out for special loot. However, when you kill someone in the Dark Zone, you're marked rogue, and every player on the map can see you, so you become a giant target for people to come and kill. Because of the AI coming to kill you, it actually benefits you more to work together, which means you're doing the exact same thing in the Dark Zone as you were doing in the main game. Lastly, there's the endgame, which happens when you get to level 30. What you get is daily missions and some extra loot. I tried one of these missions and realised it was exactly the same as every other mission I had done before, so I dropped out of it quickly. Overall, The Division is probably the worst game Ubisoft has ever released, and one of the worst games I've ever played. It's not completely broken, but it's still really bad. I can't recommend it to anyone, unless you like repetitive gameplay.

Breath of the Wild is the most important game Nintendo has made in a long time. It's the Switch's big launch title, and the Wii U's swan song, so they knew this game had to be good. I had some major concerns going into it, but I was still hoping to get a great game. Luckily, I got an amazing game. This game rule is a work of art. A beautiful art style, a vast, expansive open world with so many things to see and do, almost all of which is available to you right at the start of the game, a new combat system that's confident in it's own simplicity, and new mechanics like the paraglider, the ability to climb anything, and cooking. However, there are problems. The bosses aren't that good, and the temples they're in weren't very fun to go through. Also, the weapon degradation system, while is a nice idea that forces variety and creativity, isn't executed well, especially with the Master Sword breaking and having to wait to be able to use it again (seriously, who thought of that?). Lastly, the story is passable, at best. It's way too simple and relies too heavily on lore, something only Dark Souls can pull off. Overall, Breath of the Wild isn't the 10 everyone says it is. Does this make it overrated? Hell no. This game is incredible, and is probably still my new favourite in the series. I'd describe it as a flawed masterpiece. 9/10.

Coming into this, I knew it wasn't going to be anything like the original Prey from 2006, which I was totally on board with because I hated that game. I was very excited to see what Arkane could bring to this practically unheard-of series. Even though they failed to do this with Dishonored 2, they breathed new life into it, but still made a game with some very rough edges. The story was the main reason I bought Prey. When I saw the first trailer at E3 last year, I was immediately hooked. Luckily, the overall concept is still interesting, and it does throw some pretty surprising twists throughout its entirety, but the time in between those is very slow-paced. For example,, I was watching a video of something, and before I got to see the end, it got shut off, so I had to go all the way to the other side of the ship to fix it, then head all the way back to the place I started to finish the video and find out what I already knew. Keep in mind that Talos 1 is the size of half the moon, so you can understand why this upsets me. I'll also say that for an FPS, the combat is terrible, and probably the worst part of the game. There's no way to aim, so you'll find yourself shooting all over the place until you hit your target, Now this sounds alright, but add in the fact that resources spread very thin, and you'll realise you're just wasting ammo. It's better to just use the GLOO gun on enemies until they're frozen, then whack them with your wrench, but this gets boring quickly, and when dealing with a large crowd of enemies, it can be hard to pull off. There are work-arounds for the lack of aiming, but none of them are fantastic substitutes. Combat focus slows down time to help you line up a shot, but this isn't always that effective, since you are slowed down as well. If you press R3 and zoom in, it makes the crosshair for the gun smaller, but it's not accessible enough, and given how fast enemies are, it's not the most ideal choice in the moment. So what's good about Prey? Well, for starters, it's secretly one of the best horror games you could buy right now. Walking around Talos 1, I was constantly filled with a sense of unease, knowing that somewhere around the corner, there could be a typhon. It does an incredible job at world building and making you feel on-edge throughout it's entirety. But that's not the full extent of Prey's terrors. The enemies are what truly make it a genuine horror experience. The typhons are already creepy in design, but add the fact that some of them blend in with the environment, and you've got a recipe for some actually unexpected and scary jumpscares. The ones I'm referring to are called mimics, which are just the shadow equivalent of head crabs from Half-Life, and they can transform into objects in the environment. Sometimes, they're easy to spot. If there are two coffee cups sitting next to each other on a table, more likely than not, one of them is a mimic. But sometimes, they disguise themselves as collectables, so if you go to pick up a health pack, it might just turn out to be a mimic that wants to drain the life from you're body. The best part is that you can get these powers too. You can turn into a small object and get underneath a door or a window, or turn into a turret to be better equipped to fight the mimics. The only problem is that if you have these powers, the regular turrets will recognise you as an enemy and shoot at you, which I love. Another thing Prey does well is the soundtrack, and sound design as a whole. The music is composed by the Hans Zimmer of video games, Mick Gordon, who convinced me he was a god after I played through DOOM. The music is amazing, and really fits the game's setting. I don't complement games on their soundtrack often, so that means you should give it a listen, even if you don't buy the game. Prey also has a lot of good RPG elements that were also present in Arkane's previous titles, specifically Dishonored. There are skill trees with 6 different categories, each giving you different abilities and powers. You use neuromods, which are these things you inject into your eye to gain new abilities, and they have a pretty crucial role in the story, so that's also neat. But this isn't the only great RPG element of Prey. It has successfully made junk useful. Just trust me when I say pick up literally everything you find because even if it's some broken piece of equipment or a banana peel, you can recycle it, and turn into some cubes that can be used to fabricate different items like weapons, ammo, and eventually neuromods. This is a genius mechanic that has only be previously done in Bethesda's own, Fallout 4. Overall, Prey is a game that I could see many people playing for hours on end. But even though there are multiple endings and a few side quests I missed, I don't feel compelled to go back and play through it again. That said, I still had a lot of fun with it, and I'd recommend it if it were on sale or at a lower price. 7/10.

I've never played a Mass Effect game before, and seeing as how Andromeda was said to be very distant sequel that has almost nothing to do with the original series, I thought it might be a good place to start. Apparently, I was wrong. Andromeda is a terrible game that falls flat in almost all areas. One of these would be the story. One of the biggest praises I see about the original trilogy is that it the games have incredible stories, while Andromeda's feels like it was thrown together last minute. None of the characters managed to interest me for extended periods of time, and most of them were really generic, bland, lifeless beings with nothing special about them. This is especially conveyed through the game's facial animations, that I won't talk about because you don't need me to tell you about it. It also didn't help that the characters were voiced by some of the most talentless people in the industry, not including Natalie Dormer and Kumail Nanjiani. However, a lot of games have been able to push aside a flawed story with incredible gameplay. So has Andromeda done that? Well, no, not really. The combat is extremely dull and not very fleshed out, and fighting the same enemies over and over again didn't make it better. Also, for some reason, BioWare decided that it would be a glorious idea to make the game open world. This didn't help the game, either, and actually hurt it in some aspects. For starters, the poor world design, in terms of structure and layout or the map, was repeated constantly on every planet I came across. I barely saw a change in an overall world, and the fact that the maps were very limited in where you could go when the game was advertised to be all about the freedom of the player really crippled my experience with the game. Traversing this travesty **** map is also a pain in the ass, as the Nomad can barely go up a slightly steep hill without you having to switch into 6 wheel mode, and the customisation is way too limited and unimagined. But enough about the main game, let's discuss the multiplayer. It's not good. On a technical level, I'd compare it to Assassin's Creed Unity levels of functionality. Matchmaking is almost instantaneous, but there are constant song bugs and frame drops that seemed to happen every match, at least in my experience. In addition to that, there's only two game modes, neither of which are worth your time. Also, because it's published by EA, the multiplayer is loaded with microtransactions. The only good thing I could say about this game is that the customisation in the single player, in terms of armour and weapons, is pretty spot on, but nothing else besides that. In conclusion, Mass Effect Andromeda is the most boring, monotonous and overall awful AAA game I've played since The Division. Please don't buy this game, and please, BioWare, stop trying to be SJWs and make an enjoyable game.

Nioh is an outstanding achievement in action RPGs. Many people say that it's exactly like Souls, but I don't see it. The inspiration is there, but what has been created is one of the most original games I've played this console generation. The art style doesn't look as good as other games nowadays, or even the Souls games, but it works well with the game. The level design isn't as good as it is in the Souls games, but it's till better than most other recent games. The soundtrack isn't anything to call amazing, but it still fits. The weapon variety is weak, with only 5 different types of weapons, but at least each of them are unique and have completely different functions from the others. So what makes this game a 9/10? Well, first off, its combat. Nioh has one of the best combat systems I've ever seen in a video game. Its combat is based on stance, and given that For Honor, which has similar combat, was released a mere week after it, it didn't really get the recognition it truly deserved. You have high, low, and mid stances, and all weapons you use force you to change your stance in order to get the most effective use out of it. Some enemies, including bosses, require you to change your stance, no matter what weapon you're using. Nioh doesn't exactly shine in its enemy variety, as a lot of the levels feature the same basic smokey skeletons or samurai as most of the foes you face. They all have great design that goes hand-in-hand with the setting, but it gets tiring seeing the same people some times. The bosses, however, define the game's challenge and creativity. Each boss is different from the last, and I never felt like I fought the same guy (or girl) twice. They all have different attack patterns, some easier to memorise than others, which make them all feel unique. Now some may ask: how the customisation? Well, compared to the Soulsborne games, character customisation is literally nonexistent. You can't alter your character's appearance at all, but considering that this game focuses more on straightforward story rather than lore, I could see why. But if you prefer clothing customisation, you're in for a treat. There are so many different types of armour, and each of them have different looks and styles than the others. If you don't like the look of one, but want to keep the stats, you can take it to the Blacksmith, and have her refashion it to look like a different piece of armour that you've discovered. You can do this with weapons, too, and it's something I've always dreamed of seeing in a video game. Overall, Nioh has it's flaws, but they are very quickly overshadowed by it's achievements. The fluid combat and movement systems combined make some incredible, fast-paced gameplay, the enemy designs, while repetitive at times, still stands out thanks to the unique bosses, and it's customisation for weapons and armour separates itself from most other games on the market. But there's still one question: is it hard? I'm glad to say, yes. It's brutal, but that's why we love it. 9/10.

I just got a PSVR for Christmas, and this was one of 2 games I got. The other was EVE: Valkyrie, and I'm so glad that wasn't the only game I got. Rush of Blood feels like an essential game for any PSVR owner, or people who are planning on buying one. The reason being that no matter how you play, you'll still feel immersed. The Move Controllers make the experience better, despite them being a little shaky, but that isn't the game's fault. If you're playing with a Dualshock, you'll still have a blast. Even though you won't feel like you're holding 2 actual guns, you'll still feel as if you're riding a roller coaster, which was probably the developers' intention. It's very cheap, too. It's $20 right now, and you'll get a nice 3 hour experience out of it. So what's the issue that prevents this from being a 10? The multiplier. Anyone who plays video games regularly knows what a multiplier is. It improves you're score to help you level up or do other things. But this is an on-the-rails shooter we're talking about. The multiplier doesn't belong there at all, as the way the game is paced prevents you from keeping a consistent score. The overall score doesn't matter too much as the only thing it helps you do is get on the leaderboard. But as a whole Rush of Blood isn't a perfect game, but is a perfect VR game. If you're looking for the best PSVR game to play, get this one. 8/10.

I noticed something weird about the critic reviews for the game. All of the 10s and 9s that this game is receiving are coming from non-gaming websites. TIME Magazine? Not a gaming website. The Washington Post? Not a gaming website. Any irrational person would claim that these are bots who are created by the developers to make the game look good. But here's the actual reason. This game was designed for people who have either never played a game before, or don't do it very often. Why is that? Because the game is flawed. Any regular gamer would come in expecting that Trico (Catbird) should listen to everything you say, and the fact that he doesn't makes it frustrating. People who aren't knowledgeable about that kind of thing are going to enjoy the experience a lot more because they don't expect to have full control over something that will just feel like a mindless robot. Even if you don't like this game, you have to appreciate it, as not many games can do this nowadays. So what's my opinion of the game? Well I think it's a masterpiece. The stunning visuals, the incredible soundtrack, the very mysterious, yet intriguing story, the well-paced gameplay, and the incredible bond between you and Trico all made this an experience that was worth the wait. The only problem is the really bad camera, but I've seen worse. Overall, The Last Guardian is an acquired taste that I couldn't recommend to anyone who enjoys more fast-paced games. But for people who don't play video games, enjoyed previous titles from the game's director, Fumito Ueda, or people who just want to play something different, please go out and buy this game. You won't regret it. 9/10.

I'm a huge fan of the original Dishonored. I love the reward of a stealthy and non-lethal playstyle that I haven't seen in many other games. Coming into Dishonored 2, I was very excited to see what was in store for this new installment from Arkane Studios. And I came out extremely disappointed. There's no doubt that it's a fun game though, albeit a very flawed experience. Since the announcement, the developers promised a lot of change in the game. For starters we have the new setting: Karnaca. Even though there are sections that take place in Dunwall, most of the game is in Karnaca. This isn't a problem, though. The change in setting feels nice and adds a softer brighter tone to the game. But to be honest, this is the only thing that's changed in Dishonored 2. The only other thing that's changed is the new playable character, Emily Caldwin. You still have the option to play as Corvo, but I decided to see what Emily had to offer first. Clearly this game was meant to be played with her because going back and playing as Corvo, nothing has changed about him. His powers are exactly the same as they were in the original game, which won't really matter if you select No Powers mode. After my first playthrough, I felt like I had already seen everything there was to see. Not even the dialogue changes on the second run. They just replaced all the times Emily said Corvo with Corvo saying Emily. Come to think of it, not even playing as Emily is that different. All of her powers are mirror images of what Corvo's were in Dishonored 1 and are in Dishonored 2. While we're on the topic of powers, I'd like to bring up the fact that the upgrade system hasn't had any improvements. Don't get me wrong, I liked the upgrade system in the original, but there's so much room for improvement that they passed up on. In fact, they've kind of made it worse. The idea is that you look for items called Runes that you can use to unlock different powers and upgrades. Looking for Runes in Dishonored 1 was easy, and a nice distraction. In this game, it's a waste of time. They've made every Rune harder to find, and I've found myself spending almost 30 minutes on different Runes before I finally said **** it." The level design doesn't help with this problem either. And now we get to talk about that. The level design. It's atrocious. It can't even compare to the original's. For those of you who haven't played Dishonored, the game isn't open world, but each level is huge and filled to the brim with places to explore and collectibles to find. Dishonored 2 has one of those things, and that's the collectibles. Instead of being outside most of the time, almost every level in Dishonored 2 takes place indoors. Sure you have to be outside first to get to the building you're going to, but that's still a small portion of the level. Being inside makes the game way more difficult than it should be, even unfair sometimes. For people who want to do a Ghost run, you're going to be miserable here because most of the time there's nowhere to hide, and if you get caught, the only other option is running, which drains all of the fun out of the game. And even when you're inside most of the time, finding Runes is somehow still a pain in the ass. Jeez, it really feels like they wanted you to hate the level design. For a game that promised change from the original, all it feels like is a big-budget DLC. 7/10.

Battlefield 1 is fantastic. Never before have I thought an EA-Dice game could impress me this much. When I first heard about it, I loved the idea of a WW1 shooter. When I played the beta, I was honestly disappointed. When I finally picked up the game, I was immediately hooked. It had one of the best intros I've ever seen in a video game. Before I even saw the main menu, I was thrown right into the middle **** battle with what seemed to be the Americans and the Germans. Each time I died, I switched to the perspective of a new character, really giving a feel for how many people died in World War 1. This prologue is the first of 6 War Stories, Battlefield 1's campaign. Each one tells a different story of a soldier in the war. I will admit that I enjoyed some more than others, but the overall experience is good. It is short, however, only running at about 6-7 hours long. But the multiplayer is where Battlefield 1 truly stands out. All of the regular Battlefield modes have been brought back, but one new addition is Operations, in which you take over territory on a large map, then push forward to a different map once you've taken the first one. It's easily the best part of Battlefield 1, and I've already invested a number of hours into it. Some of my favorite moments have come from playing Operations, and I have no doubt that they'll keep coming. Now I bet a lot of you are asking the same question: does this game have microtransactions? Well no, actually. Points to EA because you can't purchase Battlepacks with actual money. I didn't expect to see restraint from them in this area. One problem that I do have with this game is all of the "coming soon" options you see in the menu. It's clear that this will be included as DLC down the line. It's a minor problem, but that and the short length of the campaign keep Battlefield from being a 10. That doesn't stop this game from being incredible, though, as Battlefield 1 is easily the best entry in the franchise yet. I didn't expect this to be a game of the year contender, but that's exactly what it is. 9/10.

INSIDE is brilliant. It's not the best game I've played this year (Dark Souls 3), but I will remember it for a long time. Being the sequel to LIMBO, I had really high expectations for INSIDE. Well I have no doubt in my mind that this game lived up to all of them. The story is really well done even when there's not a hint of dialogue present in the game. This sounds weird on paper, but the magic is in the theories that I'm still thinking about to this day. The game also has a beautiful art style. LIMBO had a black and white filter to the entire game, but the color palette in INSIDE reminds me more of Sin City, how only certain parts of the world are colored. So how is the gameplay? Well, it's surprisingly awesome. I heard someone complain that the game feels like it plays itself. In certain parts of the game, this is true. However, most of the game is filled with well-crafted puzzles and challenges that had me scratching my head more than once. The physics help elevate the challenge and intrigue of some of these, which not many platformers take advantage of nowadays. Despite what I've talked about so far, nothing compares to the ending. It's phenomenal. Probably one of the best I've ever seen in a video game. The events that take place in the finale of INSIDE are too good to spoil, and you need to play the game for yourself to see how amazing it is. The only complaint I have about INSIDE is that even with the added bonus of going back and obtaining the secret ending, INSIDE is very short, only lasting about 3 hours long. Besides that, INSIDE is an incredible game that is just shy of being a masterpiece. I still recommend it to anyone, though. 9/10.

So much promise. Such little delivery. The day before No Man's Sky came out, I realized that the game would never be able to live up to the hype that it created. How did this revelation come about? Well, that was the day Sean Murray, the game's lead developer, tweeted that the game wouldn't feature multiplayer. This is a problem because in previous interviews, Sean promised that you would be able to play with your friends. Trust me, this isn't the only thing Sean lied about, but there's way more videos and articles out there that go way more in-depth about this topic, so go find those if you want to learn more. Anyways, I was perfectly fine if the game didn't live up to all of the hype, as long as it was still a great game. Well, let me say it's not. It's not a good game, not even an okay one. It's just mediocre. For those who don't know what this game is, it's one of the most ambitious games ever made. The game is meant to give you a glimpse of the size of the universe. So then how big is it? Try 18 quintillion planets to explore big. It delivers on this promise because the open world is huge, so it's safe to say that this is officially the largest game ever created. But as we've seen with past open world games, a larger world could mean that there's less to do. This is definitely a complaint for this game. It's a survival game, but unlike another survival game like Minecraft, you're very limited in what you're able to do. After a strong introduction where you repair your crashed ship, you then have to build a warp drive so you can travel to different galaxies. This is still cool. But after your first time travelling to a different galaxy, the game drops in entertainment value sooooooooooooooo much. From this point on, all you are doing is collecting resources to fuel your warp drive so you can reach the center of the universe. Not only does this get tedious as quickly as the second time you do it, it also progressively gets more frustrating to complete this task. Maybe it's just from personal experience, but almost none of the planets I found had the resources I needed. This meant I had to jump from planet to planet before I finally found what I required. On top of that, you have to deal with the smallest inventory in the world, even with the addition of being able to move items to your ship. When you run out of space, you'll have to find an outpost that may or may not have a store, or go all the way back to the ONE SINGULAR SPACE STATION IN AN ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM! It's flat-out annoying, and borderline intolerable. Going back to planets, I'm gonna close off with the game's biggest issue: planetary design. Sean Murray promised that almost every planet was going to be unique, with some desert planets having dunes and little vegetation, or a tropical planet being mostly water and having underwater outposts and bases. None of this is in the game. After my first planet, every single one after that felt barren and empty. I know it sounds like a lot of work trying to make all 18 quintillion planets different, but if they knew they weren't going to be able to deliver that, they shouldn't have promised it. In the end, it comes down to the fact that Hello Games promised way more than they could give with No Man's Sky, and rather gave us a mediocre game that is nowhere near to earning it's $60 asking price. 5/10.

Holy crap I hate this game. Not only is it a massive disappointment, it's not even really a Tom Clancy game, let alone a Rainbow Six game. If a hyped game is just disappointing, I'd say that. But this goes beyond disappointing. It even goes beyond bad. This might just be up there with some of the worst games I've ever played, and the fact I'm giving it a 3 says something about how many bad games I've played. So let's talk about what makes this game so bad. First, it has a serious lack of content, removing campaign and local multiplayer. Anyone who has ever played a Rainbow Six game will know that these are staples of the series, so they're pretty much essentials. A lot of multiplayer games these days suffer from these additions being removed when they could greatly benefit it. Rainbow Six seems to be the most upsetting one for the removal. Instead of singleplayer campaign, you get operations. Operations are essentially tutorial missions to help you get a feel for gamemodes and certain situations. Let's make this clear: they're awful. They aren't fun, they don't teach you anything. Apparently, their purpose is supposed to be for early XP gain. However, after completing half of them, I barely made it to level 1. It's pretty useless doing them, so I wouldn't bother. Next up we have multiplayer, the heart of the game. Is it fun? Well, no. When you break it down, it's really not. For starters, matchmaking is terrible. It was broken from launch, and that hasn't changed to this day. Even if the matchmaking worked, the multiplayer couldn't save this game. Don't get me wrong, the concept is cool and the game plays well, but it suffers from a multitude of issues. One main one being that the game tries so hard to stress that strategy is key. Well, it's hard to strategizing is pretty damn difficult if your team won't listen to you. I can't blame the developers for this, but I can blame them for why they don't listen. Nobody wants to strategize. Honestly, I'm not feeling the urge to do so either. A lot of the tools given to you seem like they should be used to plane out some trap or attack, but I'd never use them in any certain situation, so they feel like they have no use. It's not just the feeling of no strategy, though. This game is also loaded with bugs. Still. Still! It's been 8 months, why haven't they fixed the bugs!!!!!!! Anyway, I'll wrap up this review so I don't get too angry. To sum it all up, don't invest in Rainbow Six. It's complete garbage. 3/10.

As a fan of TF2, I had really high hopes for Overwatch. Don't get me wrong, it's a great game. However, there are noticeable problems present, and I think a bunch of critics out there are failing to see them. Let's start off with the game's pricing. Overwatch is ridiculously overpriced, sitting at $60 for console users. What about PC, you may ask? $40. That's right, Blizzard is actually forcing console users to pay extra for the game. I know most of their games are PC exclusives, but this is extremely unfair. Even at $40 I would say it's overpriced, mainly due to a lack of content. I mentioned this as a complaint to one of my friends who is a huge fan of the game. He said the $60 pricing was fine because all of the content would be added in later updates. Well, why? That doesn't make any sense. Either delay the game so you can add the content upon release, or lower the price and make it DLC. I'd rather have the content be paid DLC than be forced to buy it when I'm probably not gonna have use for it any ways. As mentioned earlier, there is definitely a lack of content in the game, especially with a $60 price tag. Most noticeably is a story mode, which I actually hope will be added in a future update because I definitely think that could bring the score up for me. I guess it's because they want you to learn the story from watching the animations, but who's got time to do that? Plus, I wouldn't bother, they're not that interesting. There's also a pretty large lack of gamemodes, which is a big issue for a multiplayer only game. But I've been a little too hard on Overwatch, let's give it a little credit. One thing in this game that goes without flaw is the heroes. The main selling point of the game is it's 21 playable characters. This was clearly a design focus, because they knocked it out of the park. Each hero feels and plays to match they're class perfectly, and I'm always tempted to try different characters. Each of these heroes have their own weapons and abilities, adding a lot of variety to these characters. It's also worth noting that they all have their own personalities. Personally, this is something that loads of multiplayer games are lacking now a days. I'd much rather see a quirky, British teleporter as the mascot of the game than a stone-faced, one-sided cyborg soldier. This and a large amount of maps elevate this game to my score for it. In total, Overwatch is a great game set back by some issues with pricing and a lack of content. However, the focus on all of the heroes, each individual playstyle, and a variety of maps serve this game right. It doesn't in any way deserve all of the perfect scores from critics, but it's not bad. 7/10.

*engage epic rock music* This game is awesome. I have never been a big fan of the original Doom games, but this knocks it out of the park. I don't have much to say about it, so I'll just sum up all of what makes this game awesome. Story: DOOM DOESN'T NEED ONE!!!!! Graphics: Pretty much just orange and grey, but WHO CARES?! And Gameplay: You can literally rip demons in half with your bare hands. I have nothing else to say. 9/10.

It's official. I've fallen in love with this game. Recently, I've been constantly hearing critics and friends of mine mostly focusing on the negative points of this game. So far, I'm 20 hours in and I still haven't seen any (at least not anything huge). All of the classes are fun to play as and allow you to adjust to that playing style fairly quickly, the gameplay is way more fluid than that of Dark Souls 2, and probably one of it's most defining features is that it's absolutely beautiful. The environments are gorgeous, the world is atmospheric and detailed, and it's easily one of the prettiest games I've ever played. One big change I've noticed, not just from Dark Souls 2, but all of the games in the series, is that I'm loving the characters. I won't spoil anything because you need to see it for yourself, so I'll just say that I was actually interested in what they had to say to me. Now for the big question: is Dark Souls 3 hard?. I'm here to say that yes. It is. In fact, it's the hardest game in the series, meaning that if you play the game for the challenge, you're in for a treat. Once again, I don't want to spoil anything, but as you would expect, the hardest part of the game is the bosses, which are probably the game's best moments. Overall, Dark Souls 3 doesn't live up to the name of Dark Souls 1, but it's still a MASSIVE improvement on the very disappointing Dark Souls 2. If this really is the last game in the series, it's a worthy send-off to the series. 9/10 (I wish i could give 9.5).

Call of Duty should learn from this game. The franchise is becoming boring and they're gonna have to start trying new things. Not new settings, I mean new mechanics, new gameplay functions. Superhot is the game Call of Duty, and pretty much every modern annual FPS franchises should learn from. It's possibly one of the most innovative first person shooters ever created. If you've never played it, or even heard of it, Superhot is a game where time moves only when you move. That means if you stop and stand still in the middle **** fight, so will everything else. People, bullets, even things you throw or shoot. Many people have said that the story is really cheesy, but personally I think it's really interesting, and kind of reminds me of WarGames, if anyone else has seen that movie. It's really well told in the short hour and a half that it lasts. It may seem short, but for the style this game was designed in, I would say it's a good length. It also has a lot of replay value with the endless mode being introduced after the story ends, and you'll want to play the story again to go back and get achievements you may have missed. In total, Superhot is not only one of the most innovative FPS games ever, it's also, so far, the best game I've played in 2016, one of the best KickStarter games ever, and maybe even one of my favorite FPS games ever. 9/10.

Gone Home simply isn't a game. In fact, it doesn't even deserve the title of being a walking simulator, which is one of the most degrading ways to label a game there is, and this game can't even reach that point. Because at least most walking simulators actually give you open space to roam around. Gone Home just puts you in a house. Not a neighborhood, not a mansion, just a house. While I will admit it's a nice house, it's not a nice game setting. The gameplay is easily the worst part of this game. What do you do? You look for notes and listen to recordings. That doesn't sound fun, does it? If it does, I find this concerning. That means I find a lot of people's opinions concerning because almost every friend or critic I know who has played this game thinks it's brilliant. The simple truth is that it's not, and these people are too blinding by the graphics (which do look good, I'll give it that) and the storytelling, which would be okay if the storytelling was actually interesting. The way the story is told isn't anything special, and neither is the story itself. I won't spoil the story in case you want to play this garbage for yourself, but just know that it isn't worth your time. I learned that the hard way. 3/10.

I had to come back and change this because I realized how many other games there are out there that are soooooooooooooooo much better than Watch Dogs. At the most, it's a 7, which I'm nice enough to give it. But at the least, it's a 5. The story is boring, the characters aren't interesting, the customization is lacking in so many ways, and the driving controls are literally the worst I've seen in a game. So why is it a 7? Well, here are the things Watch Dogs does right. The world is huge, it looks beautiful (on next gen), controls and gameplay are really smooth, and the hacking feels really satisfying, apart from the mini-games used in most story missions. Some would still say that would make this game an overall 5, but there are some negatives of the game I'm willing to let go, mainly the bugs that pop up every now and then. Still a disappointment though. 7/10.

So far I've played three new games in 2016: The Witness, Amplitude, and Firewatch. Out of all three, Firewatch is my favorite, and so far, this year shows much promise. Firewatch is basically like an adult novel that captures the true essence of storytelling in games. Throughout the game, you see very touching moments between your radio buddy, Delilah, and your character, Henry. These moments can happen anywhere and at anytime, and they are at the core of this game's way of storytelling. The gameplay is very interesting as well, and it never feels like a walking simulator. In fact, I was always perfectly willing to venture out into the beautiful forest and see where Delilah would assign me to go next. However, the game isn't perfect. In fact, most games I have given a 10 aren't perfect. This games flaw that keeps it from a 10 is it's length. It's only about 4 hours long, so it's a good game for people who want a short experience, but not if you were looking forward to, at most, a 10 hour game. Overall, Firewatch is a game that I would recommend to pretty much anyone, unless you want to play something longer. Either way, there's no denying this game is excellent. 9/10.

So far I've put about 10 hours into The Witness. That's right. I've put 10 hours into a game primarily about solving mazes. And you know what? I have no shame in saying that. Because that's not why this game is amazing. The beautiful art-style, the near endless exploration, the satisfaction you get from solving one of it's many complicated enigmas. Those qualities are what make this game amazing. While I won't deny I got tired of the same mechanic over and over again, it felt right. I feel that if The Witness was some action adventure game or first person shooter, that would ruin it. Coming from Johnathan Blow, the guy who made Braid, I know he wouldn't do something like that. The Witness, in a way, feels like Braid (and a Johnathan Blow game). You're dropped into a random setting where you have no idea whats going on or how your character got here, but something about it feels right. That all sounds weird, but if you saw it from my perspective, you'd know what I'm talking about. The Witness is one of the freshest experiences I've seen in years. It's a simple concept which then turns into the difficulty of say Dark Souls. This is an experience unlike any other which I still would've bought, even if it was more that it's $40 asking price. 9/10.

Borderlands is easily one of the best co-op shooters of all time. Tales from the Borderlands is one of the best Telltale games of all time. I loved it to bits. The story is absolutely amazing, the gameplay feels really solid, the characters are so likable and easy to connect with, and the graphics really show why Borderlands is different. The style of it feels like a comic book or a graphic novel, and that's what makes it special. It's not just the graphics, however. The game's story is easily one of Telltale's best, and I hope it is continued. Most likely it will be on account of it's sequel-bait ending. In total, Telltale has created an amazing return to the Borderlands series that completely makes up for 2014's The Pre-Sequel. 9/10.

2015 was a year filled with retro top-down games, most of which were fantastic. In fact, one of them was the first game I played last year: The Escapists. A really good Earthbound-style jailbreak game that I spent so much time in. I spent so much of time figuring out the layout of the prisons, looking at my options for escape, and for some reason kidnapping other inmates. Despite the weird things I did in this game, I had no shame about any of them. I got to see all of the things this game had to offer, and it was a lot.

This is what Destiny should've been. Design variety, and intriguing story, fun multiplayer. I could probably say that The Taken King is the true Destiny. While it's a little too short in my opinion, it didn't feel like it need to be longer than the length it already was. It's still longer than the previous DLC for the game, though. However, for a DLC in this length, it's a bit too high priced. $40? That's beyond EA's standards! However, I was still able to look past it and enjoy The Taken King's massively improved gameplay. Way better firefights, less walking around the barren wasteland they call an open-world, and the best raid in Destiny (in my opinion). Overall, The Taken King fixes every major complaint that made the original game so mediocre. I highly recommend this expansion to anyone who likes Destiny (for some reason) and people who wanted to see more out of the game.

I've never seen a more exciting expansion for a game. This is easily the best DLC of 2015. Bloodborne was already my Game of the Year, and this DLC confirms it. Like the original game, The Old Hunters is insanely difficult, and that's what truly makes Bloodborne Bloodborne. Every boss in this DLC is a daunting and brutal in many different ways. Each one is more epic than the last, my personal favorite being the third boss. There are five total, including a secret one, which provides a lot of content for the $20 asking price. In total, The Old Hunters is an excellent return to an already phenomenal game, and I hope to see more DLC soon.

Black Ops 3 is a great sequel to the extremely successful trilogy in the Call of Duty franchise. It's not fantastic though, as there are some areas where is flops. Most notably, Zombies mode. Treyarch usually makes the best Zombies in Call of Duty. Ravensoft tried to do it with aliens in Ghost, and Sledgehammer tried with Advanced Warfare and it was terrible, but usually Treyarch makes Zombies modes that people like. However, this year they have failed. The characters have nothing special about them, the map is filled with squids and tentacles, and the Easter Egg ending is the worst. It's not just Zombies that's disappointing about this game. The campaign mode wasn't exactly entertaining either, but then again that's not why people like the Black Ops games. It's the multiplayer. And that's where this game deserves and 8. The multiplayer will keep you entertained for so long, with a variety of different modes that are all a lot of fun and allow you to see how terrible you are compared to some of the other players out there. Kinda like Rocket League. Overall, Black Ops 3 is not as good as Black Ops 2, but it's a good sequel with a lot of exciting content. It's only worth a buy if you like these kind of games. Otherwise, don't bother.

For a DICE game, it actually works! Matchmaking is almost instantaneous, the graphics look amazing, the sound design is perfect. On a technical level, this game is a masterpiece. But that's where EA comes in. There's no story mode, instead you have solo and co-op missions, which have no value after you've played once. Beyond that you have 9 online game modes, 7 of which are completely useless, and 4 maps at launch, which is just abysmal. At this point that $50 season pass (yes it's really $50) should be free. Free EA. But this game is also missing the incredible moments you get from playing Battlefield. By the time you've played for 5 hours, you've already experienced everything that can happen, so there becomes less and less replay value as you go. Now I know what you're thinking: what about the heroes? I'd have to agree. Playing as the heroes, like Darth Vader, it looks awesome. This is probably the most unique thing about this game, but every time I finally get to play as a hero, the match is over within 45 seconds, like every DICE game ever. Verdict: For a game in serious lack of variety, this is a huge oversight. Star Wars Battlefront is one of the most frustrating kinds of games. It's a concept with such huge potential that falls so flat upon release. It's shallow, it's dull, and you gotta pay $50 bucks to get more maps. I give this game a 4/10 in it's current state.

This may just be one of the best games I've ever played. It's creepy environments always give me the chills, the massive world size leaves me wanting to find all the secrets, the enemy and boss design makes everybody look frightening in every way, it is so enjoyable to hack up an enemy when you're being attacked, and the story is richer than every Souls games. What's there not to love about Bloodborne? Honestly, I could never get into the Souls because it never quite fit my play-style. It taught you that hiding behind a shield is always the best option. Bloodborne, on the other hand, puts you right into the action, and shows that shields are meaningless, by giving you the only shied in the game for free, and it's wooden. The minute I saw this, a big smile grew on my face. Easily my favorite parts of this game were the bosses. All 17 of them are a difficulty to fight, even the ones that didn't seem threatening at first, and difficulty is the name of this game. I expected so much from this game, and I received all of it and more. I honestly wish it would never end, because with all of the stuff there is to see and do, it seems like that would be a possibility. I can't wait for the DLC, and hopefully a sequel. Good hunting.

Easily one of the biggest open world games I've ever played, and it's one of the smallest files on my PS4. This is most certainly Kojima's greatest achievement, and it saddens me every time I think about how he won't be joining the team for future games. But it is a damn fine goodbye to all of the fans of the franchise. I love how much there is to do, the challenge of the missions, the variety of the weapons and outfits, the complexity of the world, and the fact that this is the only game on my PS4 that I can tell is running at 60 FPS that isn't a remaster. My only complaints are that story is lackluster at times, and online is very mediocre unless you're playing with friends. Otherwise, thank you, Kojima. This was worth the wait.

This is one of the best games of the year in my opinion because it actually improves on Far Cry 3. That's probably extremely debatable, but I think it's true. Far Cry 3's story was really cliche, but 4's story is something I've never seen in a game, and that's because your character's goal isn't revenge or money. It's to scatter your mother's ashes. It also adds new weapons and vehicles like the crossbow, and (which is in a way a vehicle) **** last but not least, the world is HUGE! And being able to use a gyrocopter to fly around it makes it even better. This game's slogan doesn't lie. Every second is a story.

First of all, Thief is not a bad game. It's just not the best stealth game ever. After playing it, I played the very first Thief game from back in the game, and thought it was excellent. The new Thief reboot is definitely a great game, but doesn't quite live up to the name of the original. One of the pros that Thief has is definitely it's story. Since I haven't played the other Thief games, I couldn't tell if this was a sequel, but i was intrigued by Thiefs characters, especially Erin. Also, the game looks beautiful. It's very rare in the game that you will have the pleasure of being able to see daylight, but when you do, you'll be sad when the game switches back to night time.Sure nighttime still looks good, but it's nothing like darkness in games like Watch Dogs. Now to the cons. One thing that Thief added that wasn't really needed was the time it took you to get to the start of a new mission. It should've gone straight to the next mission, and it feels downright unnecessary when playing, unless you want to rob an apartment on the way there. Also, the AI seems really unpolished. While playing the second mission, I shot a guard with a sharp arrow, and he said "I think I heard something." Plus, they are frequently glitchy. As another example, I was hiding behing a cart, and a guard walked behind it, and he couldn't see me. I restarted, and he saw me from a mile away when I returned. So Thief isn't a bad game, but if you didn't like the first few Thief games, you won't like this one any better.

Being the latest installment in the inFamous franchise, Second Son doesn't disappoint. To the people who say that the powers in this game are all the same, you're wrong. It's not that the powers are all the same. It's just that that's how the game works. I think that multiple powers were a great addition to the franchise, and all you biased ones out there just aren't looking at it right. Through my eyes, you'd see an incredible action game that delivers nothing but fun. Sure the story is a bit unsurprising, but the open world and incredible action sequences make up for it. If you have a PS4, or you're planning to get one, buy inFamous: Second Son.

Transistor is a well-created, fast-paced action game that, in my opinion, tops Bastion. The story will move you in every way (especially for being about the relationship between a singer and a sword), the graphics are well designed, and the soundtrack is absolutely BEAUTIFUL! My only complaint is that the camera can be just flat-out all over the place sometimes. Other than that, it's a great game. You've earned the hype, Supergiant!