dam1730

I've been playing Ace Combat games since I was 8 years old (I'm 25 now). I was really looking forward to Ace Combat 7. There are some really good things about the game. It looks beautiful, and has some of the feel of the PS2 titles that I fell in love with. However, AC7 makes some of the same mistakes as AC6, and it's really disappointing in that way. Ace Combat 7 makes the mistake that more is better and shoves tons of enemies on every map. Just get used to the missile alert sound constantly ringing in the background, because Namco Bandai loaded the map with tons of missile-bearing enemies and concentrated them in small areas. This simply wasn't the case in Ace Combat 04, 5, and Zero, where you actually had some time to breathe. A missile alert in those games actually brought a sense of tension. Now, it's constant. Maybe the developers back then realized that constant missile threat doesn't enhance gameplay, or hardware/engine constraints limited the amount of targets on a map. Either way, it's a quality of the old games that has been lost in the new. This game doesn't evoke the thrill that AC:Zero's B7R levels do, or the tension that AC5's Arkbird missions have. Instead, you're annoyed. You're annoyed that your missile alarm is constantly going off. You're annoyed that your incompetent squadmembers don't do anything. You're annoyed that you can't take a second to appreciate the beautiful scenery the artists constructed or listen to the wonderful soundtrack by Ace Combat staple Keiki Kobayashi. I understand that in real dogfighting you can't take your focus away for even a second. But Ace Combat has never gone for absolute realism. Instead, it seeks to capture the wonder and thrill of flying without some of its real-world impediments. Fortunately, the PS4 version I got came with a copy of Ace Combat 5, which I will likely end up playing more than AC7.

Many people have legitimized high review scores by discounting the low review scores that many others have given. A common rebuttal to negative commentary seems to be "Well, this is an exploration game, you obviously don't get it and Hello Games told you how it was going to be." That's not a valid rebuttal in the slightest. Exploration is about finding new things, and while each planet is technically unique many of them feel extremely similar. Each planet is of a single biome. While Hello Games told us this would be the case, it doesn't excuse the fact that it makes planetary exploration fairly dull. While there are certain outposts placed on many planets for you to find (once you've seen one outpost, you've seen all of them). A level of diversity on the planets, mountains, rivers, deserts, etc. accompanied with varied wildlife for each of these biomes would give more reason to explore a larger amount of the planet. Currently, once you land on a planet you pretty much know how the rest of the planet looks like. Since everything you find is pretty similar, it's hard to even call this game an exploration game, and if it is it's most certainly a poor one. The combat mechanics of this game, both on land and in space, are absolutely abysmal. Framerates drop during combat, making aiming even more difficult than it already is. Space combat is boring, simply turning in circles and shooting at each other with each pass. The survival portion of this game serves mostly as a nuisance. With all of the resources that you need being incredibly common, there is no struggle to survive, which is not interesting at all. Since there is no struggle to survive, it's pretty difficult to call this a survival game, and if it is it is a poor one. Since No Man's Sky both of its genres poorly (exploration and survival) if at all, I question whether this is really a game at all right now. At the moment, this seems like a very elaborate procedural technology demonstration with very undeveloped gameplay elements. There is limitless area for you to fly around in, but there's really not a lot to find. Unfortunately the way people will view this game is a function of the hype surrounding it and it's AAA price. Without the hype and the $60 price tag, I think you'd see a lot of 6's or 7's for review scores, but when you build it up and you charge this much and fail, the fall hurts a lot worse. To me, I view this as being a bad product regardless of the price and hype. 3/10

Yes, it is 2015 and I am reviewing this game. As a huge fan of the series and a Playstation gamer, I was pretty upset when I found out that this was going to be a 360 exclusive, as this had previously been a Playstation exclusive series. With that being said, I finely got a 360 on the cheap and to be able to play this game was one reason. Keep in mind that I am reviewing this game for single player only and that I am reviewing it relative to the other base games (AC4, AC5, and ACZero, AC:Assault Horizon is a disgrace and should never have been made) in the series. Let's start with the positives: The graphics during gameplay are very good, especially for a title early in this generation. I think these graphics would even hold up in the current **** music is good, however, not as good as usual for an AC game. The game is in the Strangereal universe, which can make some interesting stories. Unfortunately, that's about it for positives in this game. The negatives: The biggest problem with Ace Combat 6 is that the developers thought that more is always better. This is not true at all. The amount of enemies on the map is just annoying, especially during air to air combat. Rather than making a few more difficult enemies, they decided throwing as many as they could on the map was a good idea. Also, the AI has the habit of launching missiles against you no matter what angle they are at with complete disregard for whether they even have a chance of hitting you. This leads to being in nearly constant missile alerts so the sound track may as well be a constant ringing sound. Fortunately I spent way too many hours playing Ace Combat growing up, so this wasn't a big problem for me, but it stopped me from enjoying air to air engagements as I had in the previous games. Rather than being a challenge, air to air engagements in this game are simply an annoyance. Unlike AC4, AC5, and ACZero, there is not one good dogfight mission in this game. AC6 had a good idea as far as spitting up the mission into separate "zones" as I will call them. However, as with aerial targets, the developers simply put too many targets on the ground. More targets should have been optional in that destroying them will benefit you, but not required for completion of the mission. The zone system also has the side effect of making everything feel so rushed. While I understand this is an arcade game and it should be fast paced, never before in an Ace Combat game have I spent so much time going from point A to point B with afterburners on to simply get to a new area as fast as possible. There's no time to relax, take in the scenery, the music, or the scope of the battle because everything is so rushed and you nearly constantly have a missile alert. The story is most definitely the weakest out of the Ace Combat base games. You don't develop any feeling toward your wingman or the other pilots around you. I don't mind seeing a story from the perspective of a civilian, but it ultimately has to lead back to the pilots. I think they were trying to emulate Ace Combat 4 as far as using a civilian perspective, however the constant jumps of perspective from person to person doesn't allow the player to develop a relationship with any of the characters. SPOILER ALERT In one of the missions your wingman decides to defy orders and continue engaging the enemy when told to cease fire, and it's just not a smart decision, you have no input in it at all, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, the fact that the wingman has very little personality and the story doesn't focus on him really makes you not care about him and you really do not understand his feelings or his reasons for taking those actions. Also, it's just really out of character for him. SECOND SPOLER ALERT Your wingman crashes and is assumed to be dead during the last mission. Other like other circumstances of losing a wingman in the Ace Combat series, I felt absolutely nothing and was not concerned about his outcome. The storyline itself is weak, and the execution (dialogue, cutscenes, etc.) are below what I expect for an AC game. It pains me to say this because I love this series and I hope it succeeds in the future, however I have to give this game a below average review score because of the poor gameplay and the poor storyline, There are certainly elements that are good, such as the graphics and music, however this game simply does not stand up to it's predecessors.

The biggest mistake that Maxis made was in trying to make this game run well on very low end computers. While I understand that they were trying to broaden their customer base, what they fail to realize is that fans of the game will actually seek to upgrade their computer so they can play the game. Now what they have done is created a game that is far behind the times. No Sims game is expected to be a graphic masterpiece, however this game is not even average. The Sims 3 came out over 5 years ago and at the time it was definitely above average as far as the look of the game goes and it still isn't bad today. The Sims 4 isn't good now, what will it be like in 5 years? In their crusade to make the game be less demanding of the computer, Maxis stripped down many of the best features of The Sims 3 including the open world which gave the town a much more life-like feel. Many other features have been taken away as well and you can find many lists of them if you search the internet. Ultimately, this game feels like something that was made for a tablet, not for a computer. While for a tablet the game would be good, as a consumer you're paying for a computer game and should be able to expect the type of quality we associate with computer games.

While there are a few areas where the series took a step forward, graphics and physics, there are many areas where the game is just not finished or even took a step back. My first problem is the map. While the map is huge, it doesn't seem to have the character of Chernarus and it doesn't feel like a place where you should be fighting a war. I realize that BI wanted to showcase new features with water, but I just think it's kind of strange to be fighting on a Greek island. There's just something about those post-Soviet states that just makes it feel like you should be fighting there. The next problem is just the overall lack of attention to detail. A great example of this is the Xbox 360 control scheme that is on the game. While you can edit the scheme by basically disconnecting the controller and putting it back in as a generic one, you would expect that the scheme that the developers made would be pretty good. Unfortunately that is not the case. Flying or driving vehicles can be very interesting with this control scheme. somehow I don't think the helicopter is supposed to shoot whenever you turn left and vice versa, but it does. Also, I just feel that they could have waiting until the single player campaign was finished to release the game. People would have waited. Releasing it without one has just made people angry. Another rather puzzling element is the lack of jets in the game (except for one that's from like the 60's). I was looking forward to some awesome air battles above the terrain (which is beautiful from above), but unfortunately there are no jets for the NATO or Russian factions. Another common complaint is the framerate issue. I haven't been having those problems and in my opinion that is more of a computer issue than a game issue. I do realize that they post the hardware requirements that the game needs to run, but those are MINIMUM requirements and you shouldn't expect it to run perfectly on the lowest settings. When you buy this game you should know you need something a little more powerful to run it and for it to perform well. I know that BI will improve this game over time, but I'm reviewing the game as it is now and unfortunately it just isn't very good at the moment. I will update my review as BI updates the game

I have several Paradox Interactive games and they really hit the mark on this game as far as the balance between complexity and playability. They got rid of many of the things that really held back EU III. First of all, the UI looks so much better and the graphics are beautiful especially for a grand strategy game. Some people will complain about how there is less to control in this game compared to the past games of the series, however I feel like this is a positive thing because the things that I actually can control make a difference to the country I'm controlling. Before it really felt like I was a bystander and could only do so much, but now I feel like you have much more freedom as a player. Also a lot of the particularly annoying things (for example: pirates) are gone or much reduced in EU IV. The only negative in this game is how long it takes to load up when you start it.

ArmA II is a game that isn't for everyone. For some people, this will be the best game they have ever played, for others it will be the worst. If you want a game with constant action like Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo this probably isn't the game for you. If you want an ultra-realistic experience that requires strategy and tactics, this game will fit your needs. The game plays more as a simulation than a FPS. While there is a campaign mode that is non-linear, the story isn't anything special and the voice acting for the characters is laughable. For me, the best part of the game is the ability to create and play my own missions. The map is very large and you have quite a bit of flexibility with what you can do. Editing missions isn't difficult and you can learn how to use the most advanced features from some well made YouTube tutorials. This game became popular because of its mods, most notably DayZ, but the base game is fun as well.

Ace Combat 5 is the best game of the Ace Combat series in my opinion. First of all, this game is much longer than the other two games on the PS2 having nearly thirty missions while the other games have around 18. Secondly, I like how this game incorporates the squadron as a whole, while AC04 is solo and ACZero is a duo. You actually grow to know your squadmates as the story goes on and more is revealed about them. Thirdly, this is the most challenging of the PS2 games in my opinion. I'm pretty good at flight sims and there were a few missions that I had a difficult time with. The challenge enhances the experience in my opinion. The storyline for this game is one of the most unpredictable I've come across in gaming, especially for the game being almost completely linear in nature, which is the only drawback in comparison to Ace Combat Zero. As far as overall gameplay goes, it obviously isn't the most realistic game out there, but the lack of realism makes the game more fun because nobody wants to only have 4 missiles and have to worry about blacking out. I don't give out tens often, but I feel this game really earns it based on the storyline and the gameplay which are both great in their own ways.

Uncharted 2 is a fun game, but it is one of those games that just doesn't have much value. The production quality is great, with very nice graphics, however the gameplay isn't always the best. There are a few reasons the gameplay isn't great for me. First of all, the gunplay isn't the best. Most of the time it just gets repetitive and boring. Second of all, there is no replayability to this game, I played it once and I was done with the game. If you enjoy the multiplayer then the game will have more value for you. The story is fun and it feels like an Indiana Jones movie, but once you know what happens the draw to play the game is gone. Definitely a game to rent and beat as quickly as you can.

As a pre-med student, I was excited to see what would be in this game. I knew it was kind of a joke, but the controls were so bad the game was unplayable for me. Could have been a fun game if they would have simplified the controls a little bit.

First of all, the user score for this game is in no way indicative of the quality of this game. Mass Effect games are very different in the world of gaming as they are a hybrid of several different genres. Obviously Mass Effect games are RPGs, but they also incorporate FPS, adventure, and even strategy elements all into one game. The best part of the Mass Effect series is that you get to know the characters well. Whether you like the character or not, you know them very well by the end of the series and become connected to some of them. Another great thing about the series is that every player has their own Shepard that they can come to identify with as well. Their are many things that I like in ME3 when compared to the other games in the series. First of all, the graphics look much better, especially in gameplay itself. The storyline is pretty good. If you've played the first two games of the series, you could probably predict some of what was going to happen, but after putting at least 50-60 hours into the first 2 games, this is probably to be expected since you knew this was the final entry of the trilogy. As far as combat goes, as with the other games, it can be as difficult or as easy as you want it to be. I've found different classes to be much easier to play because certain enemies are overly strong at the higher difficulty levels and certain classes make it much easier to defeat those particular enemies. The decisions of this game are heavily influenced by past actions, much more so than ME2 as ME1 and ME2 actions both have a large effect on decisions in this game. A lot of controversy surrounded the ending of this game, and it did certainly deserve some controversy, as when I first finished the game I sat and stared at the screen for 5 minutes in disbelief. I do encourage every player to look into the ending more, there's a lot of stuff out there which is interesting. For example, I find "indoctrination theory" to be a good explanation. The amount of emotion that this ending caused shows the amount of passion that this series creates. I really believe this series is a must play for anyone who likes games because I think it has a little something for everyone. This game is not perfect, if the ending were better if would be close. I give this game an 8.5, but it will show up as a 9. Lot's of angry people reviewed the game two seconds after they finished it and were upset. There are also people who fell in love with the original game and don't like how 2 and 3 play. ME1 is very different, and ME2 and ME3 are similar but with slight differences.

If you've played Mass Effect 2 and 3 before you played Mass Effect, it will take a little while to get used to how this game is set up, because it is very different from the other two games in the series. First, I'll start with the things I like about this game compared to the others. First of all, this game is extremely fun to play as a biotic. The powers are good and they work how they should. Also, each power has it's own recharge time, so you can almost constantly be using your powers. I've also played through the game as a soldier, which was fun, but I didn't find it as enjoyable as the biotic playthrough. This game definitely feels more like an RPG than ME2 and ME3, some ways are good, some ways are bad. First of all, I prefer the combat without the thermal clips. It makes the game feel more unique. Secondly, I like how much you can explore places like the Citadel. I also prefer this level up system to the other two games'. The first negative element is that the game has much worse graphics than ME2 and ME3. Secondly, the combat isn't as smooth. Another problem is that after missions you often have to run all the way back to the Normandy, which is annoying, (See Noveria). The inventory system is a mess. It wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't a limit, but there is and it's annoying to have to clear it out. Overall though, the game is good. You can definitely tell BioWare cleaned up ME2 and ME3 when compared to this game, unfortunately in some areas they cut out a little too much, but the series as a whole is really good.

Endless Space is one of those games that I think where you are going to love it or hate it. There are a lot of problems that I have with this game. First of all, the attempt to mix real time strategy with turn based strategy was a failure with having all players take their turns at the same time. This mechanic makes pursuing enemies extremely frustrating as you will attempt to move to there position and they will simply move toward you somehow going through your fleet. Secondly, there is an amazing lack of depth to this game. The different races really lack personality. The whole game really lacks personality. The launch price for this game was $30, however I believe this game looks like a $5 to $10 game based on the graphics quality and the attention to detail. The combat mechanic on this game really seals the deal for this being a below average game. The settlement elements, technology research, empire management, and and fleet construction are all poor, but that could have been made up for if the combat mechanics were interesting, challenging, and exciting, unfortunately this isn't the case. The whole system is basically a luck of the draw system. You pick a card and if it matches up well against the card the AI chose, your fleet will do well in battle, if it doesn't match up well, then you don't do well. There really isn't any strategy of any kind to the combat.

This is a very disappointing game. Personally, I always liked SSX: On Tour because it brought an open world element to SSX while keeping the other kinds of events. SSX is a completely closed world. It would be cool if they had half as many mountains, but each one was it's own open world that you had to clear to get to the next one. Also, the game gets fairly monotonous after awhile because there are only a few types of events. In comparison, On Tour, which was a PS2 game, had many different types of events. The addition of areas where you can fall off the track is stupid. To me, part of the fun of SSX was trying to recover when you ran into a tree or fell when you went a little too far with the tricks. Now, with parts where you fall off the track it takes a lot of the fun out of the game. Another thing that is frustrating with this game is how dependent you are on boost to win races. Instead of the race being about taking good lines staying low to the ground and going fast, it's about trying to as many tricks as you can so you can get boost. Without boost you can't even stay in the race. Another thing I noticed during races is that you hardly see your opponents outside of the very first part of the race. There's too many different routes on the track and not enough opponents going against you. I remember how fun it was in On Tour when your opponent would try to pass you and you would punch him to the ground. Another puzzling thing about SSX is the inability to create your own character. You are forced to choose from pre-made characters. This game doesn't have the same flow of the old SSX games, instead of a 10 to 20 run, you have these little short 2 to 3 minute runs. I can't remember how many times in On Tour I would start at the top of the mountain and ski or snowboard (oh yeah, no skiing in this one either) all the way down, trying to check out every part of the mountain. If you have a short attention span and like fairly easy games this one is for you.

When compared to FIFA 12, this game is definitely sub-par. There were few improvements made, and the things they changed were mostly for the worst. The new first touch system is extremely frustrating. I know it makes it more realistic, but I don't think it's good that the player has no control over the first touch's outcome. For something that can affect the game outcome so much, it is extremely frustrating. I was very disappointed to see that virtual pro's are gone. That was one of the parts of FIFA 12 that kept me coming back. It was fun trying to make your player as good as he could be. The reffing is still terrible. The computer almost never has fouls called on them, while if the player barely touches the AI player there is a foul. The skill games are frustrating because the controls are not sensitive enough to be able to get the precision that the games require. Another in game problem that is making me really angry right now is how EA was lazy and instead of making the AI smarter, they just make the AI's players better. The career mode is slightly better, few changes were made though. The commentary is very good, one of the few highlights of the game. I feel this year EA was very lazy. The differences between 10 and 11 or 11 and 12 were much larger than the difference between 12 and 13. Very disappointing when compared to the track record.

This game is really good if you get it on sale on Steam. I wouldn't suggest getting it at full price because the game simply isn't long enough. It is much longer than Portal. The first time playing through will take probably around 5 hours on average.

In the past few years there has been a theme of streamlining strategy games. With new technologies the perception is that people lack the patience they once had. Civilization V makes an attempt to streamline the game compared to past games in the series. Unfortunately, Civilization V goes too far. Let's start off with the good. First of all I like the hexagonal tiles better than the usual square ones. I think it makes the map look much better. The graphics are better in Civilization V, which you would expect. I like how accessible mods are in this game. It is much easier to use mods than past installments in the series. Now, the bad. The one unit per tile was a nice try, but it simply doesn't work. What should have been done is a Victoria II style supply limit system, where each tile could support a certain number of units. You could put as many units as you want on the tile, but there would be significant combat penalties for going over the limit. One unit per tile makes wars something you dread, as opposed to something you enjoyed in Civ IV. The diplomatic system is still messed up even two years after release. The AI leaders are inconsistent and change their minds quickly. The game got rid of religion which makes it less interesting. Finally, I'll explain my review score. Automatically, the game receives a four point deduction for not improving on its predecessor, the receives a 3 point deduction for OK gameplay.

ARE YOU SERIOUS PEOPLE! You can't give a game a terrible score just because you didn't like how it ended. I will agree that overall it isn't as good as Mass Effect 2. But, there is not excuse for giving zeroes to this game. I'm going to give it a ten to try to balance it out. It really deserves an 8.5, which is a solid score. All of these reviews are just angry people who reviewed the game 5 minutes after finishing it and are full of emotion. The amount of zeroes shows how much emotion the game brought out. It is very rare to see a game that has this much of an effect on people, which is a tribute to the writing of the game. I would say this game is definitely a must have for anyone who has played and finished Mass Effect 2. Also, the new ending DLC is out now, so you can pretty much disregard over half of the reviews on metacritic.

This is really the first game that I've had that has really pulled me in. Some people compare it to a movie, but I compare it to any long running TV show where you really get to know and identify with the characters. Anyone who says this is worse that Mass Effect 1 is delusional. This game is so much better organized and visually appealing. The first game was kind of a mess. It was good, but a mess. This is streamlined, but you don't lose anything from the streamlining. The writing for this game is great. The graphics aren't amazing, but they present the game well. The length of the game varies greatly. The top end is probably between 40-50 hours. The lower end: 20-30 hours. More games are going to the silent protagonist, which I believe is easier to write for. But, this game allows you to truly make your speaking protagonist in any way you want.

This game's really good if you get it on sale on Steam. People who complain about how short the game is need to remember that this game was pretty much an afterthought in the Orange Box. It's a quick game. Not as difficult as Portal 2.

The game looks great. Very nice presentation, fairly easy to use UI, but like many of the other reviewers, it didn't draw me in. I played it for a few days and just got tired of it. I can't put my finger on anything that made me tired of it, I just put it down.

The best thing about this expansion is the civilizations that are added. All of them are interesting to me and I have enjoying trying some really short games with each of them so far. As far as improving the AI as the developers said they would, it is definitely questionable. Did they make the AI more difficult? Yes. Do I agree with the methods they chose to do that? No. First of all, the developers decided to add hit points to the units of AI controlled units. While this has not been confirmed, I have also found that the AI produces units much faster than they should be able to. While playing with Byzantium (which is a fun new civ to play) Rome declared war on me early in the game. Rome had only one city with minimal improvements around it. Also, there was only one hill in their area. Their production should have been extremely low. Somehow, Rome had 12 military units less than 100 turns into the game. These were not just your low-level warriors, but also two ballistas, two spearmen, and a few bowmen. It would have been impossible for me, to create this many units if I had my city surrounded by hills with mine improvements. I was able to hold off the Romans in a war of attrition, but cheating AI's have a way of making me really angry. The religion feature is WAY TOO SLOW. It takes forever to earn faith points unless you put all of your civs resources into it. Spreading your religion is also to slow. For over 30 turns I waited for the city that was closest to the holy city to adopt the religion. It didn't happen. I had to send a missionary which took forever to purchase because I had to use faith points to get him. I haven't even got to espionage yet because I've been trying to figure out the religion aspect. It's a good idea. they just need to speed it up 2 or 3 times what it currently is. There was one problem I had with one of the new civilizations. Sweden's special ability is pretty stupid in my opinion. They are a civ I would like to play, but their special ability is useless to me.

I love Uncharted 2 and Uncharted 3, but I hate this game. Most of the reason is because of the amount of shooting in this game. There is too much shooting! It gets really boring when you crash on the island because you shoot probably 500 pirates. How they brought 500 pirates to the island I do not know. It gets really annoying. They could cut the amount of shooting in this game in half and it would greatly improve the game. Another thing I noticed on this game was that Drake takes much less damage as he does on the other games in the series. This is very bad because in this game you are going against more enemies (who sometimes magically spawn behind you and shoot you with a shotgun) all by yourself without the help of Elena or Sully. To me, the game stops being fun when you're being surrounded by 20 pirates at once, who somehow can take 5 to 6 shots from an AK-47 without going down. If critics give this game a 90, then Uncharted 2 should get a 100. If you're a fan of the series, this is definitely the one to skip.

I came into the Total War series fairly late with my first game being Empire: Total War. While most Total War fans hate Empire and Napoleon, I actually like the two games. I don't like how the Total War series went back to where it was before with the Shogun "thing". Moving forward to something new would have been much better. I can only hope that they decide to make a 1850s to 1900 themed game with the Civil War, Franco-Prussian War, and many other wars of the time period. That would be the best way forward.

Usually when you mention the words movie and game in the same sentence, it isn't a good thing. But, for the first time (at least for me) a game managed to have great gameplay and a great storyline.

This game never gets old. It is now six years since the game came out and I am still playing. This is one of those games that beats its successor. Civ V cannot stand up to this game. This game has the right amount of complexity to keep it interesting.