trooper1993

Can be fun if ignoring a lot of it's flaws. Very low value for price point. Breakdown below: Pros: - Good graphics and well optimised. Will run well even on lower end rigs with some settings toned down. - Can be fun if you treat it as a run and gun. As long as you don't take it seriously it can be good fun. - Devs fixed some issue present in FC5 like the excess of enemy presence everywhere on the map Cons: - Story and Characters written by an autistic five year old (Seriously, its Age Rated 17+, the uncalled goofiness of some characters belongs to Pepa Pig, it kills immersion) - Price. It's not a full-game and should have been the official DLC for the FC5 season pass. Only picked it up because I missed out on the Metro Pre-Order - AI & World. You can roadhouse kill kick frozen animal flocks around the map. Enemy AI behaves like they are both drunk and blind. The game teaches you to exploit broken AI code and not fight like you're supposed to.

Perfect Steam Sale purchase in 2-3 years when it's on 80% discount Game is definitely not worth more than 15-20$ and I feel that this is the biggest issue Many other issues are present like not-intuitive menu navigation, incoherent level progression and somewhat repetitive game play but overall if you find a mate or two to play it, it's actually not that bad

At its core, it's not Battlefield anymore. DICE created a Call of Duty clone with some Battlefield Elements. Please, do not buy this game and do not support EA as a company. Vote with your wallet and let's eradicate this cancer of a company from the market.

It's a good concept and it has a lot of potential to be fun if played with the right people Unfortunately, as a casual game it's pretty boring most of the time as there's too many elements involved that make it more of a walking simulator than a truly fun and exiting experience If you're friends really didn't get into Arma 3, avoid this game. It's very hard for others to get on-board.

It's not a bad game per se but it doesn't really match the hype at all. Graphically speaking the game looks visually stunning and gives off a fresh new immersive vibe. Bugs and Glitches are present here and there but really not as bad as most of today's Early Access titles. While the storyline at times is pure sensationalised fiction it is saved by the authentic acting that allows for immersion to resurface. There are also some major flaws in logic (e.g. Where does everyone live?) in the environment and story but granted it's a 'Far Cry' game it's best to just ignore these. Side Activities become boring after the first 2-3 tries. Shooting and gameplay mechanisms aren't particularly bad or good. For precision shooting I find myself always using a mouse. For Vehicles (especially Helicopters or Planes) and Open World exploring I suggest a controller. It's important to note that Map design is particularly bad as you're always clustered between the next wild animal or enemy AI. This overpopulation does not fit at all with the geographical area and does get frustrating both for gameplay and immersion. I was also pretty sad to see the core mechanism of crafting removed and substituted by a simplistic perk design. Considered this iteration doesn't drift too far away in all other areas from its predecessors I would have liked them to keep the original system. Microtransactions are present in the game but serve more of a cheat engine than as aiding the core of the game. I found it pretty easy to ignore them and suggest others to do the same. Just download a trainer in the future or something because it's nothing more than cheating. Overall having played and enjoyed all iterations of Far Cry, I would tie this one with FC4 or Primal. It's a game you will most likely finish but hardly remember. This is mainly due to the fact that 'Far Cry' series for me has always felt like taking a 'vacation' in an adventurous place and unfortunately Montana does not possess enough intriguing or mystic attributes to keep me hooked. I also really despise the big purple truck. This ain't Saints Row c'mon.

I Personally believe that the popularity behind the Battlefield franchise in the gaming market in recent years is due to its accuracy in depicting realistic and immersive scenarios happening in the present time. Essentially, Battlefield 3/4 managed to entrance the player into a conflict in which the average person with some military interest can relate too. Ultimately, any variation of the game set in a historic setting far away from contemporary warfare feels a little bit off and slightly affects the level of immersion. Whilst I still think that Bf1 is an amazing game and possibly a contender in its genre for game of the year, I don't think it's as good as its previous instalments. Gameplay wise, like all Battlefields it’s a good compromise between the overly realistic ARMA and the faster paced COD. Graphically, its stunning. Multiplayer is still buggy & Online customisation could be improved. In hindsight, I'd still buy the game again as current triple A title alternatives have not impressed at all. However, I’m doubtful whether the game will have the same lasting appeal as its previous instalment and this could be a major drawback for most fans. I think '7' is an honest rating for this game as it is above average yet missing the allure that made bf3/4 so immersive and enticing.

Frostbite engine has been a major revolution for the game. Finally there is a higher skill gap between players online. New additions to Career Mode are interesting. Although I feel like it was something that could have been done much earlier. This game makes me less frustrated than previous versions which is a plus point.

I was really hyped for this game but I'm sad to announce that it hasn't met the hype and has been pretty underwhelming up till now. Whilst there are some pro's in this game like the story setting and the genuine attempt at creativity, there is just no immersion. It's hard to relate to the character and the people that surround you. Whilst the previous installment of the series had a grim nature to it, this game just feels a little bit comical and childish at times. Gameplay and Shooting mechanisms are also pretty terrible. Maybe a decade ago it would have competed within the market. No comment on the graphics. The first cutscene in the game was enough to know it was going to be bad. Word of advice, if you had high expectations.. I'd pass on it

Not that the DLC is bad. Just don't see the point of investing time in building bases and manufacture plants when there is no more storyline/narrative.

To keep it simple, the Far Harbor Dlc is essentially Bethesda making up for the weak narrative in the original storyline. Taking inspiration from Stephen king's novel the entire storyline, map layout and overall ambience will keep you hooked and fully immersed. If the player approaches the storyline correctly he will be awarded with 20 hours of stimulating gameplay. Finishing the storyline can however be achieved in less than half of this time but is not recommended. The only real drawback in this dlc is the Dima simulation missions that felt completely unnecessary and excessively tedious. Please bear in mind that only 3 out of the 5 simulations are needed to progress through the storyline. The last level will temporarily lobotomise the part of your brain responsible for patience and will turn you into a human version of an infuriated Deathclaw.

It's definitely passable as a game but don't expect it to work wonders. The thing is, after starting the game you quickly realise that you're in 10,000BC, an era where there is absolutely nothing crazy happening. The grappling hook is the most modern thing you'll find in the game which is pretty alarming. Yes, of course the whole point of the game is about primitive survival. I get it. But cave man fighting other cave man with the occasional feline predator is not an ideal way of making a fun and stimulating environment. At least not the way Ubisoft have done it. Also, I'm guessing 8/10 people won't be bothered to keep following the storyline with the weird (but creative) primitive talk and the distracting subtitles. It's as good as the rest of the game. A lot of downs with an occasional high. On a positive note, the graphics and environment are pretty good. Fighting mechanics perform well too. It's a mindless Far cry. And if at the end of the day you realise you're playing with Cave Man, being mindless is what it is all about. I feel like this game on overall will end up sitting right on middle of the fence for most people. It's a one time experience. No-replay value at all. Some people will experience it as a 5.5 and some even as high as a 7.

Took me 5 hours to install the game between crashes, failed updates and Uplay. When I finally think I'm getting somewhere and the game loads the Multiplayer starts crashing after joining a match. Tried all the tricks in the book and was unsuccessful in fixing the problem. Support is of no help at all. Paid 60$ for a **** singleplayer campaign. I think I've found a company as bad as EA.

It's pretty terrible. But the fun type of terrible. It's obviously tailored for the new SW movie. I'd definitely recommend to buy this game in 3-4 years when it will be dirt cheap as it does a pretty good job at playing one long session. Just one though, the comical aspects of this game just make it really difficult for people to stay serious about it. It's a game based on a old generations classic that tragically was built for kids. Ultimately, the kids will love it, star wars fans will try to love it but those who bought the game hoping it would become a good alternative to bfh and bf4, naaah. No way

Being a fan of the Fallout series I really have to admit that the first few hours in the game have been the most absorbing and entertaining this year. For whomever is buying Fallout 4 as their first entry title within the series I advise you to be patient. The game has been obviously marketed towards old customers that really don't necessitate guidance to play the game. I see a lot of malcontent revolved around the game being too similar too Skyrim, Far Cry and to some extent with Minecraft in terms of house building. Yes, the game has definitely been shaped around other game models. But in complete fairness, these game models have proven to be both successful and entertaining. I personally really enjoy the major changes done. On a negative note however, this game is not finished. There are way too many bugs, glitches and corrupt saves files. It is imperative that a single-player based game distributed by a major company such as Bethesda should be completely functional at its release. Unfinished/Broken games kill immersion. It's really a stab to the heart to invest countless hours within a mission to then discover it was all for nothing because of a corrupted save file, AI glitching/not responding or simply the player getting stuck between two rocks. Every passionate gamer jumped on the hype train for Fallout 4 with great expectations. It's sad to see many people jump of the train due to the beta-nature of this game. Bethesda. Get your act together. Please.

The typical FIFA game that promises a lot of potential but always fails to deliver. Don't get me wrong, this game can be really fun! But sadly the fun is not merit based and simply a programmed choice. Essentially, this is the game that you will enjoy for a couple of hours per week. Finding yourself playing it everyday? Bad idea. Very bad idea. Skill is not the main ingredient in this game and because of this it will never guarantee a continuos positive mental stimulation. Frustration and rage will at times, if not mostly overwhelm your pleasure of playing and thus make this game a unfavourable habit. What's good about it? - Better football simulation (Less pace and a more balanced gameplay) - New teams - Simple improvements throughout career mode - Fut Draft What's bad about it? - Servers are not too stable and cause match disconnects (When will EA fix this? It's been a while) - Input Lag/Scripting/Momentum in whichever dose is still frustrating - The usual Ultimate Team cash cow, the real hole in the wallet

Realistically this game can be considered the only game that has met it's hype this year. Unlike many other releases this game has a flair for keeping the user engaged and willing to continue playing much like Skyrim did years ago. Although The Witcher 3 and Skyrim are essentially complete different games they both share two crucial aspects that enforce a genuine form of commitment on the user; The gorgeous landscape within the open-world arena and the intriguing storyline characterised by rich dialogue and well-developed characters. These two features have the ability to successfully involve a much wider clientele of gamers that normally avoid Role-playing games. However, this game has some flaws which cause it to run short from a perfect 10. On a graphical point of view this game doesn't really impress on consoles. Although on PC it's a complete different story it is a little bit frustrating that a game like this cannot perform equally on these "next-gen" consoles. Furthermore, the combat system although pleasant and functional has a tendency to be inconsistent and difficult to follow. Hopefully a patch can resolve these issues as it would increase the pleasure of playing this game even more.

To whomever is buying Hardline thinking it plays like Battlefield 4 or its predecessors, don't. On a very general basis this game incorporates some of the most basic components of the other battlefields but in terms of the actual gameplay it's completely different. The game itself feels more like a hybrid between an upgraded Counter-Strike and one of the better Call of Duty's. The map size's are rather small making the gameplay feel a little bit claustrophobic at times. However, the size favours fast-paced killing that both CoD and CS players will enjoy. Regardless of small maps vehicle choice is still present although limited in quantity and quality. The majority of vehicles feel pointless accessories that make you an easy target and don't really add much to the game. Weapon choice is definitely scarce and doesn't match at all the diversity found in the previous versions. From the graphical point of view this game is a real bummer. From the quality of the maps to the development of the gameplay it feels like EA once again went lazy. It is understandable that developing a game is not exactly easy and cheap but when you look at the companies annual income seeing an improvement is more of a demand than an expectation. One of the more positive notes for this game is the Single player **** vintage cop plot was a smart move from the developers as its concept gave us gamers some fresh air to breathe over other overly simplistic and boring game stories that we get to see each year. The game is definitely fun to play but will most likely not have the same lasting appeal as the other Battlefields. Charging this game full price is a little bit ridiculous mainly because it really doesn't play like a next-gen game. Personally, I would have preferred EA to distribute this game as a DLC for BF4 with a significantly lower price tag. However, lets not forget that this is EA, the usual Money over Customers ideology.

Considering the current FPS competitors on the new gen consoles this game deserves an 7. In the circumstance where there would be a wider variety of games available such as successful titles including the previous Far Cry this game would deserve a 6. From a graphical point of view this game is stunning. The implementation and development of the wildlife is truly impressive as much as the overall environment in which the main character feels like a real crusader of the jungle. However, in contrast to its previous title this game lacks a major component; the story. In Far Cry 3 the vast majority of players felt immediately absorbed within the storyline thanks to its deeply twisted and intricate characters. In Far Cry 4, the story is very flaccid. The main reason for this is simply the characters and the general build up of the story: Starting from the characters: The main antagonist (Pegan-Min) feels like a gender-confused sociopath that ends up in the Himalayas as the result of an excessive drug binge session. Unlike the previous Far Cry antagonist you feel no real desire to kill him. Actually, at some points you wonder why you don't just embrace his rule of power and help him blow up the whole rebellion. Then we have Anita and Sabal that feel very annoying. Yes, they stress the players morality by providing different forms of choices with their pertinent consequences but no, there is absolutely nothing memorable about their role. The last character that adds no contribution whatsoever is the protagonist himself, Ajay. Whilst playing co-op as Hurk I got a good glimpse at this "warrior". Huge disappointment. Beyond his complete anti-hero looks it is also the overall components such as dialogue and behaviour that don't feel right. Although I'm not expecting anything close to Rambo or the Terminator, I'd hope the character would feel a little more interesting. In terms of the story the only real disappointment is the ending. After playing more than 30 hours of gameplay you expect that the ending should feel like the cherry on top of the cake. Instead, in Far Cry 4 it kind of felt like that small piece of leftover cream stuck on the cutting knife. I found myself noob-tubing the entire enemy rebellion just out of boredom to quicken the process. No difficulty, no climax point and absolutely no fun. Especially at the end when you encounter Pegan I found myself daydreaming and thinking about dinner. There was just nothing noteworthy going on. Maybe noob-tubing his departing helicopter felt kinda good but not really. In conclusion, this game could have been a solid 10. Like stated before the gameplay and graphics are truly exceptional. The takedown system felt fluid and useful as much as the diversity of weapons was abundant and interesting. However, the lack of a solid story made the entire journey somewhat boring. Ironically, due to this I finally started doing the side quests which in true honesty where the most entertaining aspect of the game.

The reality of the FIFA Franchise is that in the course of the years it has simply shifted its focus on one goal; Profit Maximisation. In the course of the last editions of the Fifa franchise, the game developers realised that in order to maintain a competitive environment and subsequently a popular and profitable game they had to level out and balance the difference in experience between players. This phenomenon is mostly if not only relevant to FUT (Ultimate team), aka EA's cash machine. What the average dedicated Ultimate team player realises in the long-run is that at some point (if not at many) he will encounter something called Handicap (automated rigging) that decides to tamper with the game. The reason for which this (undeclared) system is implemented in the game revolves around two goals; The first being that the game becomes more "competitive" and it allows inexperienced players to have their say in the game to ultimately keep them hooked and entertained. On the other hand, their second goal, much in relation to the first one, is to milk out as much cash as possible from the players. The way that EA does this is by making players go on either winning or loosing streaks. In the circumstance of a loosing streak the average player will resort to buying packs in an attempt to increase its teams strength and redeem his/her losses. Now as you may know one single match will never provide you with enough money to buy loads of packs and win high rated players so essentially what happens is that many people resort to spending physical money in forms of Fifa coins (or online Fifa traders if smart) to increase their chance of getting a good team. Much like popular games in the past and present (Clash of Clans, Runescape etc), they as a company keep you hooked to maximise their profit. The most common examples of tampering are the following: Players missing easy tap-ins, decrease in pace, players falling and tripping, randomly assigned penalties, excessive hits on posts and bars, players getting injured on an attack, 85 Physical rated players getting knocked down by garden gnomes and of course ridiculously easy goals between specific time frames (1-5, 40-45, 85-90, 90+). Although everything above is the main reason why I have lost faith and interest in the Franchise there are another set of reasons why I think this game deserves a very low rating: - I feel that beyond a slight refurbishment in the GUI, Career mode is still the same dysfunctional and bugged game mode - The strategical environment of the game is flawed (Bad defence, excessive attack, etc.) - Tournament on Ultimate team get stuck permanently - Squads in Ultimate team get Stuck for days if not weeks - EA servers go down way too much - Over priced Fifa Coins - Unrealistic ratings of players - Fifa tax on FUT transfer market (Really?, a tax in a game?) The reality is that EA is playing us for fools and have effectively been able to destroy something that old and young generations have craved as a culture. In true honesty my verdict on this game is a 2. The only real solution to make EA come to terms with what being an ethical company is about is by not buying this game anymore. Next year its PES for me. Its about time that some sane competition puts EA back on track.

The singleplayer was very dissapointing, it felt more like a Mod rather than a true epic game. In Call of duty, the developers created a mood, in which the player actually felt like he was interacting with the storyline, MoH instead felt just dull and boring, the missions felt all alike with nothing exciting ever happening. One thing I think everybody noticed , is that the developers didn't bother to try something new, they didn't try at all to make it a unique game, which differentiated itself from all the other typical first person shooters. The graphics maybe are the only reason this game deserves a five.