Left 4 Dead

My apologies for this disgustingly late review. Not only have I been procrastinating a sickening amount but now the SEQUEL for this game has come out and it is truly late. I am as sorry as you are indifferent.

Valve at last made the jump the consoles with this survival horror installment (originally based on the zombie servers on CS:S), even if it's at the sacrifice of a reliably likable fanbase.  With the somewhat suggestive pun in the name, you play as one of 4 survivors in the zombie apocalypse in an unknown city, relying on each other to get the group to each iron-doored safehouse and eventually to a rescue vehicle. This takes place in the same formula on 4 different hour-long campaigns: No Mercy which involves a rush to a hospital roof, Blood Harvest taking place on a farm, Dead Air on an airport and Death Toll along a highway. Playing on your own, these aren't fantastic due to an element of repetitiveness and pretty stupid AI, however provided you have Xbox Live or even just another controller for split-screen this is where the game comes to life in co-op form. You'll find yourself in plenty of 'L4D moments' in a similar way to Battlefield in which incredible or hilarious things that could only ever happen once are just bound to happen. For example, while I was playing co-op on Blood Harvest some annoying kid on my team thought it would be funny to not go in the Saferoom so as to not trigger the checkpoint and start the next area. We shut the door on him. A hunter (basically a zombie ninja) jumped on him, pinned him to the ground and started tearing him to shreds as he lay helpless. We left him to his fate.

This is not the only multiplayer mode as there are also Survival and Versus. Survival is literally a case of 'you're going to lose, it's just how and when'. You're cooped up at a lighthouse with 3 allies an infinite zombie horde approaching, and you stock up on weapons, explosives and health packs and hope for the best. You're given a clock to see how long you can last, however this isn't always bursting with fun as the lighthouse is the only map and it tends to be too simple. Versus, however, is the real Left 4 Dead experience in my opinion. 4 players play as the Survivors, and another 4 as Special Infected: these types are Hunters, Smokers and Boomers, each with varying weaknesses, strengths and attacks. The Infected may respawn but the Survivors do not, so they really have to rely on each other to survive, moreso as some of the Infected are now being controlled by humans and can use their attacks strategically and tactically. Unfortunately being an Infected is plagued by a horribly long respawn time of between 20 and 30 seconds twinned with a tiny amount of health so it is usually less frustrating being a Survivor, but it is a great mode anyway.

What Valve also do suitably in a co-op aspect is the way you have to use your supplies efficiently. You start off with a fairly poor main weapon (pump-action or SMG), one pistol and a health pack. You can heal each other and sometimes their need is more than yours so to keep them alive you have to sacrifice your own lifeline, definitely contributing to the Survivor feel of the game and an odd fraternity to your allies; people you've never met usually. Throughout the campaign you gain better weapons, a second pistol, pain pills - temporary health boost for desperate times - and an explosive. Explosives do mass damage and these can really save you and your teammates when the situation looks grim but, like health packs and pills, the campaigns aren't overflowing with these so you might not be able to get another for a while and you really have to think about using it before you mindlessly throw it at the nearest thing that moves. 

Left 4 Dead does NOT have the best online community as a lot of them are kids just buying the game as another blockbuster to cash in on, and this can sometimes mean they're more interested in getting an achievement than reviving you, but I can't knock Valve for making such a brilliant co-op game. Provided all 4 survivors are you and your friends, you've got a unique experience that you can't replicate in any other game, save Left 4 Dead 2. Yes, the AI are plain silly and the campaigns could have had a little more variety than just different environments, but with a good connection and a headset, you stop noticing and focus more on your survival from the near-endless swarm of bloodthirsty undead. 8/10, but knock off two stars if you haven't got Xbox Live or a buddy to play with.

Call of Duty World at War: Nazi Zombies for iPod Touch

Shoutout to Rob Wells for brutally forcing me to play this and review it. I'll keep this quick.

As far as handheld consoles go, the iPod Touch is probably the most limited, usually keeping to simple motion-controlled games based on dodging objects or solving puzzles, which is why any FPS is either bad or pretty impressive considering the platform it's on. So despite my somewhat violent hatred for Call of Duty, for an iPod game I was still pretty impressed with the Touch version of Nazi Zombies.

If you remember before all the DLCs when it was just Nacht Der Undertoten, that's what you get on the iPod Touch, and I mean that to the letter. Everything from the Help Room and upstairs to the Mystery Box, it has everything. While in comparison to what you'll get on a full console I don't find that much fun, on a tiny thing made to just play music it's brilliant. The controls are based on look, run, aim, fire, and CONTROL which fixes barriers, opens new areas and activates the Mystery Box. You realise that this is really all you need and it becomes a challenge you really want to work at before long. 

Graphically it's also impressive for an iPod, it matches roughly PS2 quality which really isn't too bad. Take into account the selection of weaponry AND the fact it can be played with friends over WiFi and you've got yourself a top of the range iPod game. DLCs of all the other maps are said to be coming out so this really has everything you need for the full Nazi Zombies experience. I would say the only really downer for the game is its difficulty, you're killed a little too fast considering how tricky it can be to run away with the touch-screen analog sticks. 

In all, even though I usually hate handhelds and Call of Duty, this was genuinely enjoyable. The price tag of £6 is a bit much for any iPod game but I would say it's worth shelling out if you're on a lot of bus journeys and need something to keep you occupied for a fair amount of time. 8/10.

Assassin's Creed II

We all know Assassin's Creed I was a good game and not a bad start to the series, but definitely with a lot of flaws, some of which could really hinder the whole experience. A great, previously unexplored idea and fantastic setting, but who wants to do the same missions about 9 times over, with little or no character development in the frankly awful cutscenes, and you can't swim? Well, despite Ubisoft doing not a great job with some of the Splinter Cell games, and making a diabolical follow-up to Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones, it seems they've gained a skill all too few developers have: scouring the internet, seeing what people didn't like, and changing it. This is a sequel with a difference, and sets a very good example.

The setting of Creed II is both the same and completely different. It picks up exactly where the last one left off, in the room of (presumably) Subject 16 who you find out more about in the course of the game, and follow Desmond a lot more, discovering a good deal about the war of the Assassins and Templars continuing into the 21st century. However, when in the Animus, you're now accessing the memories of a different ancestor, Ezio Auditore, in 1400s Italy. You're only given two cities this time, but not only are they absolutely huge (Florence and Italy), you are also given access to a couple of smaller towns, and your very own town with the great Villa De Auditore where you can touch base if you're short of weapons or money. The cities are complemented with a much-improved crowd dynamic; you can blend with anyone and there tend to be a lot more civilians who instead of just walking robotically round huge scripted loops, actually stand in groups and talk, or shop, or (as irritatingly as the Harrassers in the first game) run up to you and play music. It is clear that this is the type of environment Ubisoft wanted in the first game but fell short of. The cities in general are, for the most part, a lot easier on the eyes too. When standing atop a building, you're not looking at a flat sea of yellow, brown and white. Beauitful European architecture is all around you and it's not hard to recognise some of the breathtaking landmarks, in particular the gigantic Duomo in Florence.

The storyline really takes off during the course of the game, while it takes a little too long for Ezio to take his true Assassiny form (even though he already has the ability to free run like a pro), a lot of questions are answered and even more asked, allowing at least two more sequels. More about 'the truth' is uncovered and you begin to understand the Assassin motto 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted' to a greater extent. It is considerably more complex than the first and I would say you are missing out on 60% of the game if you are not following it or have not played Assassin's Creed I. Thankfully the story is now shown in actually watchable cutscenes with decent camera angles and some fantastic facial expressions; the graphics aren't mindblowing but the faces are some of the best I've seen in a game. 

A very strong point of the predecessor was the combat system. It allowed skill and without irritating button-bashing you could fight elegantly with nifty counter attacks shown with gruesome detail, with a variety of weapons. Even this strong point has been improved upon, there are about 30 different weapons in all, ranging from swords and daggers, to spears and axes, to throwing knives and even a small gun. Fighting different classes of enemies spices it up and you have to use different tactics accordingly, and new moves such as fighting unarmed and disarming enemies means you can recover and get your own back if attacked off guard. I can't say it any more; Assassin's Creed II has one of the best combat systems out there and you'll find every fight being unique. 

For all these improvements, there are little criticisms to make. The main I find is while the actual cities look better and are more fun to traverse, the setting of the first game had a feel of religious tension, of 'Holy War' that brought it to life, and showed the contrast of the different cities. The most you'll get here is gang wars and it simply isn't the same, not to mention in this environment assassins are expected to be around, whereas during the crusade it's a much more original idea. The voice acting could also have been a lot better, it's far too obvious that it's done by Americans due to painful Italian sterotypes, eg 'Mamma Mia!' and the use of moronic American vocabulary, such as 'gotten' and 'someplace'. It's a minor criticism, but it's sometimes quite distracting.

Assassin's Creed II probably won't get into the books as one of the best games ever, but it is very, very good. Being one of the best single-player games I've had this generation, I rate it 9/10. Not perfect, but without a doubt worth a buy, so long as you're acquainted with the storyline of the previous game.

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising

Please note this is not quite a full review, as I have not played the multiplayer (and from what I've seen, do not wish to) and have had... another problem which I will explain.

The full-blown tactical military simulation genre is not an easy one to pull off, I'll admit. Having very reliable AI, decent tactical maps and realistic weaponry are all vital and it takes a good dev company to get this done, but OF:DR falls down in a horrible number of ways.

Before I get to that, I'll throw in the good parts of the game. One is the map, a fictional island called Skira off the coast of Japan, which in the almost non-existant storyline has been overtaken by the Chinese and the Americans and Russians have combined to re-invade. Think that's just a setting? Nope, you genuinely get the whole island. One of the biggest maps in game history, it's a truly impressive sight - and you genuinely get the sight, no foggy environments WHATSOEVER, you can see as far as the human eye can - when you stand atop a hill preparing for your raiding of a PLA outpost. They did a lot of work on the aesthetics, so day/night scenes look brilliantly tangible. Thankfully, for it being a squad simulation, they also included a huge number of commands, from formations to orders of when to fire, and as it is mainly aimed at the hardcore gaming audience, they made the intensity of shoot-outs very sudden and tense, instead of your ordinary 'they come blasting out the treeline, you mow them down'. Every bullet can kill you, and you have to think tactically and make the right decisions for your squad. 

All that is nicely done, but just about everything else went horribly wrong. This may take a while...

Firstly, this is where realism goes wrong. I understand that it's not meant to be easy, and that you're meant to be as vulnerable as every enemy, and I actually like the idea. But that isn't what you've got here! Why does every enemy have more health than you do? Yes they're not as clever as you, but that doesn't mean they should be able to take 5 bullets when you can take 2 at most. Speaking of AI not being clever, this game is a masterpiece of the moronic bots, in particular you friendlies. I've had numerous occasions where I'm shooting at the distant blob of an enemy at the other side of a valley, and my medic has thought it an incredible idea to jump in front of my barrel and get his brains blown out. They'll do what you tell them, but they don't do it well so for example while they will hold fire when you tell them to, when you tell them to open fire again they'll sometimes take about a minute to react and completely miss. Whilst desperately needing to escape a base I planted a bomb in, I was sprinting up a hill escaping enemy fire and there was my squad, crawling on their bellies after me. They were wiped out within 20 seconds. 

Another is the general bugginess of the game. While playing co op, I died and the usual thing to happen afterwards is that you view the surviving player and respawn after a minute (at least not on Hardcore difficulty). I got a nice view of the sea and never respawned. I've also experienced one which many others have had where at the end of a mission my squad and I board the extraction heli, which then never takes off. The mission can't end. You have to restart. Last and certainly not least, my Flashpoint is effectively broken because of this bug, I can't play my last two missions, and will probably never be able to. Why? My game doesn't save any more. I have 60gb free left on my hard drive so that's not the problem, it simply won't overwrite. And despite the good environmental look to the game, get near anything at it looks jaggedy and too PS2-like, especially the character models who all look incredibly angry/constipated. 

Apart from that, monotony will usually kick in, either from samey 'take out a mortar team' objectives or having to retry countless times because of enemies who apparently have skin made of kevlar. A couple of good sniper/stealth missions break the mould, but it's never long before you're back with your unbelievably dim fireteam. I rate this 3/10, Codemasters (surprisingly enough)  don't seem to know what a code is, let alone how to make a game out of it.

Update: Out of games...

Sup non-existant readers, I have successfully reviewed all my Xbox 360 games, and now I have a problem which is twofold.

1. I have no money.
2. I don't want to do any more reviews of old games that I played years ago, unless I buy them now, I want the focus to be on stuff coming out at least recently.

Soooo I am now on a short hiatus from game reviews, with the exception of Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising which should be within two/three weeks. After that I might be able to get Assassin's Creed II before Christmas but I can't be sure. After Christmas the old money problem should be solved but this is all until then.

In the meantime, please check out my game RANTINGS at

www.failboatskippersgamerantings.blogspot.com

and my/EnglishCarBomb's general thought blobs and rantings at

www.brain-remnants.blogspot.com

If you actually read ANY of these 35 reviews, thanks a lot.

Red Faction: Guerilla

Destruction. We all love it right? There's few things as satisfying in a game than blowing the crap out of stuff, and it coming down in a way that obliterates as much around it as possible. No doubt this is the selling point in Red Faction's third installment, and it does it damn well.

Ok, the whole game isn't just 'blow this up, and this, and this, and you're done. But it was fun right?'. It's a sandbox game based on Mars and you're a new member of the Red Faction, overthrowing the fascist Earth Defense Force who are oppressing your people. The game works in a very similar way to Mercenaries 1, just with a slightly more bleak landscape and more futuristic weaponry. The feeling of a tense, harshly dominated country is there; the civilians go about their business and manual labour quietly whilst EDF patrols of armoured cars fly past regularly. Your job is to help the Red Faction take all the sections of colonized Mars and eventually throw the EDF off the planet, which will be no easy task considering the lack of weaponry the Red Faction own. This means you have to resort to guerilla tactics as the title suggests, and at the beginning of the game you definitely get the feel of this as you haven't much more than your rifle, sledgehammer and charges but as you get upgrades - a system this game has done VERY well with ways to upgrade just about everything about you and everything you carry - this becomes less of a need as you become able to blow the crap out of most things they can throw at you. This is a bit of a disappointment considering the title, as there are plenty of one-man-army type games out there but not so many Fidel Castro-type ones, but you shouldn't find this hampers the game's enjoyability too much. The game should take you about 20-30 hours to complete the whole storyline - yes, a sandbox game released in recent times with appropriate length!

And now I come to the highest point and what everyone knows the game for: its glorious physics/destruction engine. Remember when Pandemic said for Mercenaries, 'blow up anything and everything?' They were lying. Yep, damn good as it was for its time, trees remained indestructible and buildings were destroyed in scripted ways and would leave the same rubble every time. That was all well and good considering it was on PS2, but we're in the 7th generation now, and it just gets better and better. Take a swing at a wall with your sledgehammer and you'll smash a hole in it, and plates and shards of metal will fall away. Place charges around the foundations of a building, blow them up and watch it collapse in on itself, or drive the biggest truck you can find through the ground floor of a building and watch it slowly lose balance on the remaining supports it has left, until it inevitably tumbles, crushing everything near it and leaving thousands of individual pieces of rubble on the floor and remains of pillars, furniture, EVERYTHING. This is the most realistic destruction simulation you'll have ever seen, Geomod 2.0, and it will undoubtedly blow you away, if it doesn't crush you first.

It’s worth noting that whilst Red Faction does make a good impression with the impressive physics and bringing a new ‘guerrilla’ type gameplay which has not been done many times before, it has a fair amount of problems which tend to make some of the experience less enjoyable. The most notable of the problems is the difficulty; I played through the whole campaign on Normal and many of the missions took far too many tries and did not have anywhere near enough checkpoints. Even when you upgrade your armour and get more and more powerful weapons, the amount of enemies you are put against in some of the later missions gets simply ridiculous, and it becomes very tempting to knock the difficulty down to Easy. I like a challenge in games, which is why I don’t play on Easy, but this got plain frustrating. The particular example I have in mind is the final mission, and though I believe this should be difficult, there is one checkpoint in the whole mission, AFTER which you have to drive a tank for five minutes just to reach the final boss which you then have to defeat. If you fail, do the driving again and try to beat him again. Doesn’t help one bit that the loading screens are about 30 seconds, even if you install it on the Hard Drive (for you good old Xbox 360 users out there...).

Apart from this which will generally affect the gameplay all the time, there are a few things that could have been fixed with a bit more work, such as the sparse cut scenes making the storyline sometimes hard to keep up with. There is also very little character in any of the people involved in the storyline, so really what you're left with is a visually impressive action game with a fair amount of playtime, but only running on a skeleton of a storyline. As such, it's never worth knowing WHY you're doing a mission and how it advances the storyline, you'll just want to know what you have to do.

So Red Faction:Guerilla did a good job, especially for the physics engines of future games, here's hoping this kind of technology will be used in something else soon. 7/10 for an explosive experience, albeit with little depth.

Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction

I noticed to my horror while I was writing the Just Cause review that this hasn't been reviewed here, despite it being one of the games in my life that I have spent the most time on...

Mercenaries is freedom of exploration mixed with ultimate destruction. Simple as that. Simple, but very, very fun. Unlike the sequel, this game takes a fairly more serious tone to overthrowing a government (in this case, North Korea) and this works a lot better and doesn't slowly reduce the game to a complete laughing stock. The storyline is pretty long and will take you at least 20 hours to finish, and it is absolutely fantastic. Each mission is unique and will take you to new places to do new things, be it assassinate targets or blow a lot of stuff to bits, I can't say it better than expect fun of the highest standard. The more you do, the more you unlock and this slowly builds up an impressively huge armoury of vehicles, weapons and airstrikes which are kept neatly in your PDA system. You need to use these tactically due to them being increasingly expensive but there are so few things as satisfying as blowing an NK bunker to bits with a bunker buster and watching tanks and cars blow up in chain reaction. You also are faced with many different factions which you can choose to follow or oppose; each with advantages and disadvantages, thus meaning if you play the game more than once (and I damn well did) it can be different the next time around. Factions begin to rival each other too, and not to mention you're faced with a whole new map at the half-way point of the game, so expect the game to keep changing as you play. 

Of course, you're not ever forced to do any of the main missions. You can roam North Korea: find and capture high-profile government members, raze enemy outposts to the ground, steal expensive vehicles and sell them to the Mafia, do side missions or just explore, it's all great fun and will keep you hooked even if you don't want to continue the story just yet. Destruction is a high point, somewhat obviously as it is the game's focus. Buildings are all destructible and have varying amounts of damage they can take, and although things like trees cannot be destroyed it doesn't weigh down the gameplay as it's in the context of early destruction engines and there are no points where you need to get past any huge forests or anything.

I can't find many criticisms, I enjoyed Mercenaries fully for the 100 or so hours I spent addicted. I find it is pretty much sandbox perfection for its time, I think maybe the side missions could be a little better rewarded, with new vehicles or something, and the big map would benefit from planes and a parachute (hello, Just Cause...).

So yeah, 9/10, for great originality, freedom and plenty of things that go boom. Would still recommend these days, for anyone with a PS2/XBOX.

Battlefield 1943

Having beaten the hell out of Bad Company, though not to say it ran dry, and having passed my GCSE exams I decided to be spontaneous and download Battlefield 1943, the recent remake of 1942 for the Xbox 360 arcade and Playstation 3 (PC version coming soon). It's a download-only multiplayer game which proves that time and time again Battlefield games will always be a success, with it already breaking the record of fastest downloaded game of all time.

For anyone comparing this to Bad Company, it is different in a few ways. The health system is no longer a bar which goes down and will only come up again if healed, it is regenerative in the same way as CoD, Halo etc. This may disappoint some as it admittedly takes a bit of skill out of it - at least that's my opinion. It's also using the classic Conquest game type; to anyone who hasn't played older BF games it's the same type that you play in the fairly-disappointing-yet-free DLC for Bad Company, or in the Star Wars Battlefront games. It's also limited to three classes (Rifleman, Infantryman and Scout) and no buyable upgrades or weapons, due to its download-only form which means there isn't a motherload of data, and this restriction can bring the game down in places.

The good parts of the game mainly consist of variety in playing styles, good maps and graphics. By variety I mean that you are able to use the many different vehicles - tanks, cars, boats and to my delight, planes - to get to your objective, and each class REALLY has strengths and weaknesses. For example, while you're able to take on a few men at some range with your M1 Garand with the Rifleman kit, you'll be screwed if you find a tank coming up to you, nor will you be able to fix vehicles. The vehicles work the same way, while a tank is great for capturing flags because of its firepower and it being hard to destroy, it's also a slow mover and is a sitting duck for planes. Flying in general is a strong point, once you get the hang of it it's great fun doing barrel rolls, and weaving around in elegant dogfights. This is even better with the new Coral Sea map with a planes-only gametype.

Despite the great Battlefield experience, something is still lacking. After a good 7-8 hours gameplay I can really no longer be bothered. I understand that it's a download-only game and as such it has its limits, but the lack of more than 3 classes and no upgradeable or buyable weapons, along with there only being 3 original maps and one extra, the fun will run dry at some speed, despite the fun being plentiful. The theme is great, and the gametype works well, not to mention fighting on what seems to be a real battlefield with a thousand things going on at once, but they should make a 'full' version of this on disc, with the same - if not bigger - amount of classes as Bad Company, and THEN I believe it will be what CoD WaW could have been.

So in all it's what Battlefield should be aiming to be with a WWII setting, just painfully limited. Worth the 1200 points, but don't expect to be hooked for weeks. 6/10

Battlefield: Bad Company

Bad Company, like Fallout 3 before it, has absolutely dominated my Xbox for a while now so I might as well review it. In fact it's been a while since a multiplayer game has been so addictive...

The Battlefield franchise is hardly known to be a bad one. There have been loads of installments around for a long time, varying quite a lot with each one. The latest, instead of taking place in a real war eg. Vietnam, World War II is more similar to Battlefield 2, with a modern day war going on (only with the Chinese replaced with the Russians).

The single player campaign was not a bad experience, while it lacked in variety and a lot of features that FPS games need to really rise above other games of their ilk, it had many things hard to find in a lot of today's games. One of those things is decent, light-hearted comedy throughout. This is hardly to be expected in a war game, it has been pulled off very well, and as well as making you laugh it shows you that war is not always doom-and-gloom, to many it is just a job they have to endure for the sake of money - or in the case of these guys, getting out of trouble by serving their country - and that they will make light of it to keep it bearable. The characters have been made purposefully rememberable; anyone who has played the game through will be able to remember that Haggard is the dim-witted redneck who enjoys nothing else than blowing everything up, Sweetwater the bullied nerd always fighting with Haggard, Redford the classic tough black guy who doesn't care to joke around, and your charcter, Preston who plays the timid new guy who just plays along. In this way it works very cinematically and really pulls you into the storyline, however basic it is. The environments won't vary hugely but the destruction physics of the game really turn anywhere into a battlefield; walls will be blown to bits by rockets and grenades or crumble from heavy vehicles smashing into them, trees will collapse with impact, and all this is both hugely immersive, and brings a little more tactical approach to fighting with cover not being an infinite life-saver any more; so the trick is to keep moving. Another thing which I found made the game very immersive, though not usually a hugely important point with games, is the audio. I don't even mean the soundtrack; guns sound so incredibly life like that people should be forgiven for thinking a mob war is going on in your bedroom, explosion will make your ears ring and reloading has never sounded so satisfying.

Keep in mind that although the campaign isn't perfect, everything good about it is used in multiplayer, and THAT is close to perfect. In my opinion, CoD can suck it, THIS is the ultimate army shooter. Battlefield is known for its huge maps and large scale battles, and I find it hard to describe how much fun this is. The game type is Gold Rush, one not yet used in the Battlefield series and it's a lot of fun. There is a defending and an attacking team: the defenders must protect the gold by killing all the attackers, and the attackers must destroy four pairs of gold crates before being wiped out. This can last between 10 and 30 minutes and although it doesn't sound like a realistic warfare experience, the atmosphere certainly is. You have to use tactics and teamwork, and there's an armoury of vehicles and class upgrades that can be used in different ways to help your team. All this goes towards one massive, balanced multiplayer experience which you'll find yourself playing for hours on end. Don't pass up on this, this is one of the best multiplayer games I've yet seen of this generation.

Negatives for Bad Company have mainly been noted already, the campaign could have been improved with some different mission types (hate to say it but they could have taken a leaf out of CoD4's book and done a sniper mission) other than just the ordinary formula and one helicopter mission. It also didn't have co-op, which I think it really should have, it being a squad-based storyline, and it would have topped off the multiplayer brilliantly. Graphics also weren't diamond, even if the colour scheme made the environments beautiful. There's also something which stops it being an all-time 'best game ever' type, perhaps because of the rather generic modern warfare genre which can be improved and improved, but perhaps never perfected - though I suppose that's not what Modern Warfare fans say...

I give Bayyyyyyddddd Company an 8/10. It hasn't got everything but I would say anyone who does online gaming should buy this and give it a go, even if you're not an age-old fan of the Battlefield series. You'll be getting at least 30 hours out of this and I doubt very much you'll regret it.

Assassin's Creed

Assassin's Creed is a real love-it-or-hate-it in the gaming community; although it is constantly criticised with the claim of being hugely repetitive to the point of considering suicide, it also is one of the biggest games to represent this gaming generation, in the same way Halo 3, Metal Gear Solid 4 and GTA IV have. It's a game everyone's bought or at least played and despite this it's still hated on.

I'll start with what I think really excelled in Creed. Let's be honest, even if as a whole it didn't offer an incredible gaming experience, the idea it is based on is fantastic, and the potential it had is huge. It's not your average Splinter Cell-type stealth assassination game (no discredit to Splinter Cell, it's a good franchise) and it really takes this genre of game to a new level. You don't have to silently walk through shadows, needing to wait for minutes on end for your target to get close enough for you to grab him and drag him into shadows. If you're seen, you're not instantly overwhelmed by a million enemies much stronger than you. No, you play the role of an actual medieval assassin; you take down your enemy wherever he is, even if he is in the middle of the street. This makes the whole game much more intense, whether you're trying to get him in the middle of a crowd so smoothly no one notices, or when you're being chased at full speed through streets or on top of buildings, using the incredible freerunning mechanic to hop from building to building, and climbing houses, mosques and churches. In this way, the game has been made superbly. The framerate is just about perfect, and every action is smooth as silk. The sword fighting is also a high point, and when you get good enough there's nothing like having a huge brawl with twenty guards on top of a building, elegantly dodging their attacks to return with graceful thrusts, and throwing others off the edge with gleeful satisfaction.

The game progresses with a variety of targets to be taken down to slowly reveal the secret of a Templar gem. The storyline really didn't capture me at all, as the cutscenes are really one of the parts that could have been worked on. They're hardly even cutscenes, you just stand in a room (you're able to move about and change the camera angle but that's it, you can't even skip them) listening to your contractor talk about who's next. The dull voice acting doesn't help...

This is where the reptitivity cuts in. To take down one target you need to scout out the area to find out more about him, this includes interrogating certain people, helping out an informer by killing someone for him, pickpocketing and eavesdropping. Sounds ok? It won't when you have to repeat this whole process for every single target in the storyline. Being an assassin during the Great Crusade is a great concept, but I'm sure assassins didn't go through an exact routine of conveniantly available recon missions before every victim was taken out. Needless to say this brings down the whole game to mediocrity I find; Ubisoft shouldn't have been so damn lazy when this could have excelled.

A final point to make is that this, as well as being an action/stealth game it's also set in huge sandboxes, as there are a few cities that you visit throughout the game: Damascus, Jerusalem, Acre and Masyaf (this is not really a city but a castle that the assassins operate from). Once all of these have been explored there is, in total, a huge area to work in. However, there is nothing to do! I'm not saying it should be an RPG but apart from the main missions that you HAVE to do, you have only to tediously find flags dotted around the place, and that's only if you're really desperate for the achievements (even I didn't lower myself). Finished the game? Well good luck having any fun apart from killing some guards, or civilians if you want to be a bastard.

I give Assassin's Creed an overall 6/10. It could have been absolutely amazing, as the combat and stealth was perfectly balanced, but horribly let down with easily avoidable traits.

Worms II: Armageddon for XBLA

Well Worms being a gud 'un for the old XBLA, it could only be expected that the second would do nothing but improve. Worms is quite good at making sequels seeing as usually they can do nothing but get better (due to the simple format of the game) with new guns, equipment and maps. Fortunately, this does not disappoint.

Because Worms uses a back-to-basics, pure fun approach to gaming, there isn't much to say about what's better about WII:A. Imagine Worms, with its multiplayer (Live and Local) and its singleplayer modes, but made better in whatever ways possible. The number of weapons has roughly tripled, and the campaign is longer, now including 'challenge' missions where you have to use your wits and knowledge of all the weapons to get your worm from one side of the map to the other, and your team is now so customisable they can have loads of different voices, hats and gravestones to choose from. Thankfully for Team 17 they've had a whole history of Worms games to nick used weapons and stuff from to put in this remake.

As for negatives, there aren't many. The challenges can sometimes get a little bit too close to impossible, they can at least get you stuck very easily. It would also be good to get some other game type than just deathmatch (I know it can't be that easy with just a mapful of Worms and weapons, but SURELY something) would be good, just something original I guess. Other than that I think it's fully worth the 800 point and sets a good standard for arcade games. 7/10.

Fallout 3 DLC (PC and Xbox 360): Point Lookout

Would you look at that, I actually just wrote a review for Mothership Zeta (the next expansion) without realising I hadn't even written one for Point Lookout first. I amaze myself sometimes.

Point Lookout, being after Broken Steel had quite the tough act to follow as Broken Steel not only added to the storyline but raised the level cap, changing the game experience altogether. Yet Bethesda do another DLC which branches off from normal play?

This DLC is focused more on chills and horrors, which previously the game hadn't done the best job on. Have they now added a real spooky factor to Fallout 3? No, no they haven't. It's not bad and I don't find it lets down the expansion at all, but I don't think Bethesda should have even bothered. It goes for the swamp-horror theme which isn't all that scary in films as it is, and quite frankly it's hardly noticeable. Oh well...

I must say, the storyline wasn't the worst they've had but it was hardly memorable. Some ghoul's being attacked by some ridiculously tough humans (Tribals) and you have to save him, and then find out their objective, then help out said ghoul in his little feud with his sworn enemy. It's not a terrible storyline and it even has moral choices for you to make (both brilliantly immoral anyway, in true Fallout style), so its not in this department where Lookout falls. It's also definitely not in the environment; it has the biggest exploration area of all the Fallout DLCs and varies brilliantly, from the dusty boardwalks to the murky swamps and forests. Search hard enough and you'll find some exciting side quests, which I greatly enjoyed. You'll also get the Bog Walker achievement for finding all the locations, if you needed more incentive. So Point Lookout does a good job in RPG traits.

However, where we were promised new weaponry and enemies, we get less than hoped. There are a couple of new weapons, mainly very redneck-y, eg the Double Barrelled shotgun, and as good as they look and feel they're virtually useless against the rediculously tough enemies. And no exceptions. Every new enemy in Lookout, from the Tribals to the weird mutated-hillbilly things has a huge health bar and you find yourself needing to run backwards and fire everything you've got endlessly with every hostile you encounter, not to mention use every stimpak you've got (of course, this can all be solved by changing the difficulty to Very Easy, but then you might as well be playing Viva Pinata). Bethesda might be trying to make this DLC more of a challenge, but there's something called 'overkill'.

I give Point Lookout a 7/10. It's expansive, has good side quests and the storyline isn't bad, and despite it being a little too hard it's an ideal for expansions.

Fallout 3 DLC (PC and Xbox 360): Mothership Zeta

Sorry my choice of pics wasn't exactly great...

Bethesda have FINALLY finished their quintet of Fallout 3 expansions - confirmed to be no more made - with a hugely unexpected turn. While the others focused on post-apocalyptic life, and the way I see it, things which were at least believable, this one breaks all boundaries and goes to space, into a stereotypical alien spaceship, classic green aliens and all. Did the risk of it being laughably stupid pay off?

In a way, yes. Mothership Zeta isn't a disaster. The game doesn't stop being Fallout 3, and everything stays in the usual format despite being somewhere completely ridiculous with ridiculous enemies. You keep your weapons and armour so it's effectively just exploring a new area with quests in it, though these quests seriously lack substance and the general storyline is incredibly weak; it's literally 'Damn. We've been abducted. We need to get back to Earth. Let's find a way back to earth.' You meet a few characters along the way, eg a cowboy and a samurai which the aliens had been keeping whilst studying humanity's history, but they don't reveal much about their back story and hardly add to the expansion as a whole. The environments aren't great either and get repetitive very quickly, and unless you're a real sci-fi fan you'll be begging for the Wasteland by the end.

Enemies hardly vary either, they're all aliens: some with helmets, some with energy shields and some normal, or robots. In this way, Zeta suffers in the same way The Pitt did. It's basically one big dungeon crawl, fighting a bunch of enemies, hitting a switch then repeating the process. New weaponry spices it up a little, but because of no hidden things to find (other than the Captive Recordings to collect making the MOST FRUSTRATING FALLOUT ACHIEVEMENT EVER) which all RPGs should have there isn't a great deal of excitement to be had along the way. So this also has the problem which Operation Anchorage had: too much focus on it being an FPS.

So Fallout didn't exactly make a joke of itself with Zeta, and the 'spaceship vibe' was successful, but it wasn't a great deal of fun. I guess this is a disappointment, as it's the last expansion of the five, and none of them managed to be outstanding, with Broken Steel being the best of the lot. I give Zeta 5/10 for another FPS-like experience which did bring some variety with the whole extra-terrestrial thing, even if it was pretty underwhelming.

Max Payne

Woah this is late! Having reviewed Max Payne 2 ages ago I think this deserves one as well.

One of the things that makes Max Payne as brilliant as it is is the time it was made in. The PS2 was barely on the shelves when this was released, and although this explains the poor graphics during gameplay it also makes the actual gameplay more impressive, as I haven't seen many PS2 games this immersive. The storyline is nothing short of outstanding, with similar graphic novels to the second, along with the brilliant voice acting and sound effects. It's dark, bloody, quirky and cuttingly emotional. As this game involves the cold murder of his wife and baby daughter that started his vendetta, the feeling of loss and the never ending striving for revenge is ever-present, and you find yourself violently wishing death upon ever thug you shoot in the face in slow motion, with grace and diligence on every shot.

For fans of realism in games, this one may be preferable, as this uses more weapons actually obtainable to thugs, and you can't do things such as magically throwing a grenade whilst holding a weapon; you have to equip it. There is no ragdoll physics due to the limitations of the time, but it's easily ignorable. It is also a harder game in general, your health is slightly less Incredible Hulk-like, but I didn't find this a letdown, in most cases I found this only added to the immersiveness. I would say that storyline is more of a focus in this game than the sequel, as although they both have great plots, this is far more grim and also goes with the tradition of originals in a series having the best stories. This isn't to say the actual gameplay is worse, just hindered by what was actually possible at the time.

Once again, it's gonna have to have an 11/10. I can hear a groan from people saying I'm a joke of a reviewer. Whatever, to be fair I haven't played better games ever than the Max Payne series. Huge kudos to Remedy and Rockstar. I really don't know how you do it.

Update: ANOTHER Fallout DLC? And other Fallout-related news.

It seems everyone knew about this before me, but there is going to be one and one more only Fallout 3 DLC, stacking up to five whole expansions. That's dedication if nothing else.

It's going to be called Mothership Zeta, and anyone who's really really REALLY into Fallout 3 like I am should be able to guess it's related to the crashed spacecraft near the Minefield. And indeed it is. It's all based on aliens and weird extra terrestrial stuff... and yes I do think it's risky. Fallout is fictional but stays variably within what could happen in the future but this seems to be crossing the line... not sure what specific sites have pictures but if you're interested a quick Google search will do the job, apparently the info's been leaked for quite some time.

NEW FALLOUT GAME

Fallout: New Vegas is the new title in the Fallout series and will not be developed by Bethesda (probably working their arses off for Elder Scrolls V). It will still be published by Bethesda but Obsidian Entertainment, those who made the RPG 'Knights of the Old Republic II', will be developing. The engine will probably be the same, and Bethesda have announced it will be similar to Fallout 3, but it is set in Las Vegas, and apparently will focus on the sleazy, immoral sexual side which the men of Las Vegas are letting loose in their post-apocolyptic freedom. I don't know much more but this article from IGN.com is pretty informative:

http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/100/1002811p1.html

That's all for now!

Bioshock

Yes, I finally got round to playing one of the most critically acclaimed games of this generation, said by many to be 'the best single player experience ever'. Well, actually, I played it months ago but I'm getting lazy with my reviews ok?

Well, to start with, it is clear why Bioshock had so much appeal. It's absolutely unique; I have no played nor heard of any game, let alone FPS that is like this. The storyline is winding and still has room for expansion (Bioshock 2...), it being based on a completely unknown-to-the-world underwater dystopia which you find at the brink of its destruction. I won't go further but as you delve further into the supposedly 'free from the chains of society' city of Rapture you experience many shocking twists and unveiling of unexpected truths; in short the storyline is expertly written and brings out just about every emotion possible, and that's saying something for a video game. In terms of gameplay, the game hardly bores as everything is kept new and fresh; with new weapons to be created and upgraded, including yourself with the huge array of new powers to be gained. Through this there's a large amount of different ways the game can be played, and you are free to choose whatever powers suit you best. The game should take you about 6-8 hours and will be a memorable experience, definitely one which suits and sums up this generation's ability to break barriers.

However, this game is not without faults. In general, I think the game is good but overrated, I don't think it deserves the 10/10s it has recieved as it can run a little dry. For example, as well-written as the story is, it's very easy to lose track and you feel you need to listen to ALL the tapes you pick up just to get a hold of what you're meant to know about. It's also bloody hard. I've played plenty of FPS games and I can usually pick them up pretty quickly (before getting hopelessly addicted) but this I found really quite tricky, even on Medium difficulty. The system for dying is so that when you die, the game doesn't restart from a last checkpoint but instead has you respawn nearby, with any enemies you killed still dead and any you weakened still weakened. Though this means its easier to tackle, you feel a bit pathetic as you can use cheap techniques like using a powerful shotgun right up close, getting punched and killed, and repeating the process enough times to eventually bring down your enemy. Some might not feel guilty about this but I think its unrealistic and plain boring how your character is effectively invincible, I think they should have just made it easier. The weapons are varied, and many unique (each with inventible ammo types and seperate upgrades - absolutely fantastic) but ammo is extremely scarce and you have to try to use your weaker weapons as much as possible to save the ammo for your power weapons and this ends up in you dying and slogging on- and before you know it you're out of ammo all together.

So Bioshock is not without its faults, and although it really has branched out the FPS genre, there are improvements to be made, as can only be expected for something which almost creates a new genre. I rate it 8/10, for good arty style, real creativity in development and a lot of variation, but could have done with a little more playtesting and checking all the systems work in harmony.

Update: E3 Stuff for the Xbox 360

Yeah, I'm a few weeks late with this one. Anyway, here goes I'll mention what stood out to me.

- The Beatles Rock Band: Looks like a pretty unique music game, huge set list is impressive. Would definitely buy if I was a Beatles fan.

- Alan Wake: Sam Lake himself turned up! That man is a legend, and with Remedy having made the Max Payne games, and with them worked on this game for absolutely AGES now, I can only expect good things. Game world looks massive.

- Assassin's Creed II: The first game is based on a killer concept that didn't turn out all that amazing. This looks like everything could be made up for. Exciting stuff.

- Project Natal: Fuck the nay sayers. This isn't the Wii. This is at least 10x the Wii. Scanning, recognition, so many new features and the approval of Peter Molyneux. Could be gaming perfection.

- Tony Hawk's Ride: I was a huge fan of the PS1 Tony Hawk's games, this one looks a lot different. With the board 'controller' it may end up with little variation and small possibility of intense tricks/combos. Looks risky.

- New Fallout 3 DLC: Point Lookout: Always happy for a new Fallout DLC. This one seems to be the size of the first two, but liking the Western theme. Can't wait.

- Halo 3: ODST: Didn't show anything I didn't know already, still looking forward to it. More Halo is good Halo.

- Halo: Reach: They didn't show us anything! I can make an educated guess at what it's based on but still clueless on the game in general.

- Facebook and Twitter on Xbox Live: Kinda useful I guess, but I do have a computer for that kind of thing, just 5 metres away...

- Modern Warfare 2: I'm going to save myself the disappointment...

Fallout 3 DLC (PC and Xbox 360): Broken Steel

The third DLC is yet another of Bethesda's attempts to do justice to the incredible Fallout 3, and unlike the first two, this has been really very enjoyable. Instead of it requiring you to take a detour from your current position and exit the Wasteland, this follows up from the somewhat abrupt ending to the main storyline. It is based on capitalising upon the Brotherhood's capture of the purifier and wiping out the rest of the Enclave.

This may make it sound like Anchorage, in the way it focuses on FPS-type gaming, and has you fighting with an army beside you. I assure you, though this is the case, it is pulled off a LOT better than it was in Anchorage. You're now free to use your own weapons and armour, you're not stripped of your gear, and as it remains in the Wasteland it remains in full Fallout style. With the Brotherhood fighting at full force around you only makes it more intense. The scale of this is slightly bigger, more side quests are available and the achievements add up to 150g, not 100. I was done in about 4 - 5 hours, and in my opinion it's the best they've made. There aren't a lot of new weapons, but 4 new enemy types are now included, a new Super Mutant, Radscorpion, Feral Ghoul and Enclave trooper. All the new ones are elites and are very tough to kill, the Feral Ghoul often requiring the Fat Man to do the job. A fun and challenging experience, with such variety leaving little to criticise.

Once you see the huge, satisfying explosion at the end marking the demise of the fascist Enclave, you'll look back and see an overall successful DLC. It fits perfectly with the rest of the game game, maybe except for the lack of total free roam of the new area. However, with the Level Cap raised to 30, your new skills and perks make it only more exciting the whole way through. I strongly recommend this to any Fallout player; if you buy one of the three current DLCs, this should be the one. 8/10.

Fallout 3 DLC (PC and Xbox 360): The Pitt

The second Fallout 3 DLC was released not too long after Operation Anchorage, and because of the flawed, if not very disappointing first expansion, there was a mixture of 'maybe this one will be better' and 'the first one sucked, this one will too'. I was actually thinking a bit of both; it would be nothing new for game developers to not learn from their mistakes. But, out of pure loyalty (if anything) to Fallout, I went ahead and bought it.

Firstly, YES, this one is NOT a linear, FPS styled 'go shoot enemies and blow stuff up' set of missions. Free roam is most certainly an option with this one, thank goodness. It is set in the devastated remains of Pittsburgh which wasn't nuked in the war, but instead has been plagued with radiation-related disease, slowly turning inhabitants who are exposed to the air and water for long enough into 'Trogs', a goblin-like type of Feral Ghoul. Unfortunately, those exposed are slaves, or 'workers' for a large band of raiders. So basically a fellow called Wernher comes along and tells you about the Pitt, you get to go there (sneaking in dressed as a slave) and take part in a revolt in order to get the cure from the raiders' grasp and save the slaves. I won't go further into the storyline, but it's been well put together without a large backstory, and it doesn't drag on or go by too quickly either. There are, like all Fallout DLCs, three missions, which are all in the style of normal quests and none of them really fall below standard, though they are fairly brief. A highlight for me - and most likely for Oblivion fans - was fighting in 'The Hole': an obvious remake of the Arena from Oblivion, with opening speech and all. The hardest challenge of the expansion is an optional mission which is collecting pieces of steel from the Trog-infested Steelyard, 100 in total. Finding all 100 will prove difficult but there is a reward for every 10 you find, these rewards include new armour and weapons, the best of these being the awesome Metal Blaster (a Laser Rifle which fires about 6 shots at a time with huge damage) and the Tribal Power armour, which is similar to the boss' armour with different effects. Even if you're not after the achievement for finding all the steel, these should be incentives alone. Where a majority of the DLC proves to be not much more than your ordinary playing of Fallout, I think the steel-searching and the Arena give it an extra something which Operation Anchorage didn't offer.

Once done you'll be able to return home with your new goodies, having chosen your Good or Evil ending. It's certainly improved upon the previous expansion, and has given just as good weps, but there's still some excitement missing. The new scenery is a nice change but, in all, the Capital Wasteland is real Fallout environment. I give 'The Pitt' 6/10 for an enjoyable experience, but I say again: Bethesda still haven't fully nailed it.

Fallout 3 DLC (PC and Xbox 360): Operation Anchorage

This is the first DLC that Bethesda oh-so-kindly released for good ol' Fallout 3 which was, I believe, necessary after the somewhat disappointing abrupt end to the main storyline, which I won't spoil for those who haven't completed it. However, like the Pitt, it doesn't continue with the storyline AFTER the final quest, so it has to be done when you're still playing through the game, which can be annoying if you had finished it before the expansion was released. Oh well....

What has attracted criticism from a majority of the people buying this expansion, including myself, is that this works NOTHING like the rest of Fallout - there's no Wasteland, there's no 'survival' theme, no radiation-poisoned animals, nothing like this. It's unfortunately based too much on your everyday FPS, linear missions and all. Fallout 3 was built to be a massively varied game, so focusing on just shooting stuff (and you ONLY shoot stuff in Operation Anchorage) makes it seem far worse than it is. The scenery looks good it must be said, the sound effects of blizzards are very convincing and the snowy, mountainous backdrop is great, but it's simply not enough. Because the whole scenario is based in a US Army simulation, bodies disappear and people 'warp' through doors, making the whole thing seem a lot less believable. Without packs of Giant Radscorpions or Deathclaws jumping at you from nowhere it hugely lacks the deadly and dangerous feel of a much more believable Wasteland.

There are 3 quests involved, and these are zero-complication 'go kill stuff' missions. There are no side quests because of the linear landscape which allows for no free roam, so once you've done the quests it's done and that's the end of it. I suppose you can't blame Bethesda for these things seeing as being a soldier you wouldn't be allowed to run around a war area killing who you like, but then maybe this just means the whole thing shouldn't have been made if it was going to abondon Fallout's traits entirely. The good points I can make are the goodies you can grab at the end of the quest, bringing home a Gauss Rifle (amazing), a Stealth suit which makes you invisible when you crouch and the Winterised T51-b armour, with almost the highest damage resistance in the game and a somewhat lucky scripting error by Bethesda meaning it almost can't degrade.

So Bethesda didn't make a great start with the expansions. If it weren't for the decent weps to take back to my comfy ranch in Megaton, I'd say it was a complete waste of 800 MS Points. You might find this DLC mildly fun if you're REALLY a fan of generic FPS games, but I won't go further than 'mildly'. 4/10, a big disappointment for one of my favourite ever games.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

18 months and roughly 18 million sales later, I FINALLY bought CoD4. It's won countless awards and has gained enough rep to be babbled about by 11 year old Floridians more than Halo 3. It's been said to be the best Call of Duty of all time, and although I don't generally believe that the vast majority has to be right, I thought with so much biggin' up there may be something awesome about CoD4. So I headed to the old Cex store and bought a second hand copy.

As I do with every game, I started off by playing the campaign, and my thoughts were in the exact same way as they were when I first played WaW; 'Well this is isn't too bad... Ok this isn't getting much better... is the whole game going to be like this?'. This was worrying, as WaW's campaign didn't turn out great... at all. Nonetheless, reminding myself of its 94% ratings from the very magazines that I trust and Gears of War 2's improvement during the campaign, I persevered. How did it turn out? Somehow, through unimaginable odds, WORSE than WaW's. Now, if I have any readers out there (which I doubt for the record), I imagine I just lost them all. Yep, I hated just about every minute of the campaign, nothing EVER happened that could vaguely stir up some kind of 'hell yeah' feeling, nothing got anywhere near intense, I was bored for a good 3-4 hours of playtime. Liking the modern environment is surely opinion-based but I have simply no idea how people could prefer samey, metal guns which aim for you with bloody stupid laser-sights and then miss horrifically with burst fire (thinking of the G36c right now...) instead the at least likeable WWII guns which had some character and vintage factor. The storyline is nothing original - a war with Americans and Britain against the Russians and Iraqis? What an original idea! - and because of this nothing was ever gripping enough to make me really want to beat the campaign. There's also a ridiculous amount of enemies and too many situations in which enemies will constantly spawn for about five minutes which makes it seem like you're some kind of invincible war hero on a anti-Commy kill spree, rather than the game being a modern warfare realistic - and realistic being the operative word - simulation. Lastly, the graphics, which somehow won an award, are hugely overrated. How were they awarded for a game with graphics not much better than PS2? Open your eyes; Halo 3 came out a whole year before Modern Warfare and they still blow me away.

Of course, what I should be commenting on is what made CoD4 so popular for the most part: the multiplayer. Once again, I set my hoped high because of the popularity and about 70% of my Live friends playing it religiously and whoop-de-fuckin'-doo here comes the disappointment again. Don't say it's because of me moving from WaW to an earlier installment; not only because I expected it to have fewer perks, weapons etc but because I'm also constantly told that CoD4's multiplayer is superior. Well, I couldn't agree with you... LESS. Nothing stands out to me whatsoever, the maps are boring as hell and don't allow for strategy, and the only thing I find enjoyable is sniping on Overgrown (lying down in the corn field wearing a ghillie suit makes you just about invisible, which is brilliant). How do you people play this game for so damn long?

Overall score is 2/10. Sniping's good fun, especially with the Barrett .50 cal rifle which is one of my favourite weapons ever, and there's the occasional 'this isn't so bad moment' but there is NO reason for all these people believing this game was crafted by the hands of God. Massively overrated and a huge letdown.

Tomb Raider: Underworld

Tomb Raider's evolved a lot since its early days, when you would work at it for hours trying to solve a squarely graphicated yet surprisingly complex puzzle, then getting a huge feeling of success after completing it and thinking 'this is what gaming is all about'. When the PS2 and the 6th gen consoles came into play (gaming pun) and more fancy-pants controlles and such tried to 'raise the bar', Tomb Raider unfortunately changed for the worst (don't kid yourself, we all know Angel of Darkness pretty much sucked). This is the first Tomb Raider I've bought for the Xbox 360 and I have hoped that in these new golden days of gaming of the 7th gen consoles that things have improved.

I didn't expect Eidos to have gone old school and made this exactly the same as the old games, and to be honest I kinda didn't want them to, because there's an element of high-tech gaming that's brilliant in new games. Fortunately, the game has been kept of an up-to-date standard, and yet it does work pretty well. I think a good way of putting it is that it's fun in a completely different way to the classics; it's got the brilliant jumping around, grabbing onto stuff, shimmying and of course shooting that you would think of a Tomb Raider and this is all well and good, in fact Lara can now do much more acrobatic things and this is definitely a good point, but it's noticeably dumbed-down. The puzzles don't require all that much thought, and although you should have great fun swinging and flying across huge Aztec stone chambers to reach that 100 foot high ledge, there's nothing to work at feel good about beating which was a let down.

Anyone who played Legend will be aquainted with the storyline (which irritatingly I wasn't) and it continues here. Even though I don't know the half of it I must say it's not bad at all, and there are good twists involving Lara's family. What was one of the best points overall is the scenery; some backdrops you get whilst carefully choosing your precarious paths are outstanding, in particular those in the Coastal Thailand mission. The graphics are brilliant when it comes to trees, skylighting and Indiana Jones-type ancient landmarks.

In terms of the 'fun factor', TRU is great in fairly short doses. It's not a game to be hooked on, and I wouldn't want to play the single player more than twice. It doesn't really break barriers, and although it doesn't necessarily let down the Tomb Raider franchise it's not enough like the first games in that it doesn't challenge you in the way it should. A classic problem-solving game is becoming a little too action-based, but there's not too much to dislike. 7/10 for stylishness, graphics and fantastic environments, but Eidos may want to take a step back to take a step forward, so to speak.

Update: Max Payne 3!

There's barely any info, but Rockstar Games have FINALLY annoucned starting work on the next Max Payne game. Seeing as I rated Max Payne 2 11/10, I AM SO EXCITED.

Unfortunately for now this is all they have as info - a picture and a rough date.

http://www.rockstargames.com/maxpayne3/

Halo Wars

Halo is not exactly one of the first games you'd expect to be made into an RTS, and I was certainly surprised. This game was in production for a long time, and I imagine Bungie really wanted an RTS version done (probably because they used to make RTSs themselves). For some reason it is not developed by Bungie however, it is done by Ensemble Studios (Age of Empires III), I imagine Bungie are busy enough working on Halo 3: ODST which I'm greatly looking forward to. Anyway, I bought the Limited Edition so as to obtain the Halo 3 Mythic Maps and I must say I'm not disappointed.

If you were a fan of the first Battle for Middle Earth game - which I strongly recommend - this works in a similar way; you get a central base and you have a certain amount of building slots. Players may find this annoying but it makes you build tactically, for example building a lot of supply pads will get you a strong economy, but will leave you less space for barracks, vehicle depots etc to build your army from. What's great about the units is that they're just about all recognisable from the Halo series - Warthogs remain my favourites and there are also Scorpions, Hornets etc. I nearly cried when I found you couldn't get Mongooses, though. In Skirmishes and on the Live Multiplayer you are also able to play as the Covenant and Ensemble have really pulled out the stops here. They run in a completely different way and it requires a different type of thinking to win as them. Units are generally weaker, such as the obvious grunts and jackels, but they work in a much more horde-like way as max population is larger. With enough Resources you are also able to build Scarabs which are definitely a bitch for your enemy to bring down. A few unseen units are introduced, minaly in the form of vehicles, and they fill the gaps when needed.

The campaign is set a decade or two before the first Halo game, so Spartans are far from extinct (and prove VERY useful). It follows the role of the frigate 'The Spirit of Fire' during the war, ranging all across the galaxy. You will encounter huge Covenant armies and the dreaded Flood. The storyline is great, but I must say there is a little repetition, with objectives that don't vary much from 'pick up Squadron Omega' or 'cleanse this area'. The maps can also seem fairly dreary. All round, not an awful experience, but could have been better. This can all be done on Co-Op over Xbox Live which I think livenes it up considerably. The cutscenes are also a huge plus, the graphics are sensational (some of the best I've ever seen, about as good as Resident Evil 5), and the cutscene before the very last mission is just fantastic. The multiplayer, however, is what I would buy the game for. Matchmaking has 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 games which can be done with friends or random people, and you can play normal games starting off with next to nothing or deathmatches where you start off with enough resources to build an army in minutes. It doesn't get old, and it really engages with your strategetic side, especially with its tactic-based maps. It takes practise and there is a certain nack to it, so no lucky shots, but one of the most satisfying games to win at I think.

As an overall rating I think it deserves 7/10, it's not a bad RTS at all. There's a slight lack of really powerful units so you sometimes feel you have to keep throwing weak units until the enemy can't take any more, but it's a good many hours of fun (there's even an achievement for playing for a total 24 hours :D). However, for people liking fast, pacy shooters this isn't your game at all.

Call of Duty: World at War

I was a big fan of the World War 2 games from CoD, so when I found they were making another go at them, I was interested to see what it was like.

As always, I started with the campaign. It covers areas of the second world war which many games have left untouched: the brutal, almost inhuman fighting with the Japanese which involves fire, fire and more fire, and the relentless conflict between Russia and Nazi Germany which required more endurance and pure resolve than firepower. I was impressed by the choice, especially in the Russian sections. So I got going. Unfortunately, I was not at all impressed for the first hour or two, in fact at that time I was considering taking it back to the shop already. There's simply nothing to it; endlessly repetitive sound samples of your comrades shouting - 'Miller, get that barrell. Miller, get that barrell. Miller, get that barrell' - the irritatingly mediocre graphics and the only occasional ragdoll. Very small amount of things really stand out and intensity has all but gone out the window. The campaign gets slightly better, and damn it I mean slightly. Russian battles are better but still live up to no promises. A disappointment to say the least.

Multiplayer is of course going to be the reason a majority of players buy the game since Modern Warfare just about blew the charts. For those, thankfully, this is NOT a dissapointment. To my (somewhat limited) knowledge of CoD4 multiplayer, just about nothing has changed negatively. Leveling system with perks, new weapons and prestige mode remains the same, and it is fantastic. No achievements to be earned which makes an achievement hoe like me sad, but you get enough of a feeling of achievement with the multiplayer challenges giving you large EXP boosts and a new gun for most level-ups. Lots of well-varied match types and all-rounded, even maps supply many hours of multiplayer fun, and I have yet to get bored of it. Good stuff here, very good indeed.

So it seems CoD: WaW is quite the one-trick-pony, which is very annoying for me personally seeing as I enjoyed Call of Duty 3 pretty much only for its campaign. Perhaps it's too alien compared to the classic Normandy campaign Saving Private Ryan stuff we're all used to, but I had hoped it would be pulled off in a particularly spectacular way, and Treyarch didn't deliver. However, for multiplayer fans this is a must-buy; as far as online play goes the game's brilliant.
I give it 6/10, the campiagn seriously weighing down its score.

Gears of War 2

Hype. There was a lot of it for Gears of War. It paid off by being one of the best selling games for the 360, and at points was the most played game on Xbox Live. There was a lot of hype for Gears 2. Make an educated guess what the game is like.

Where to start. What I love most about 'Gears Double' is that it is, as IGN put, 'definitely not Gears 1.5'. Everything has been improved or at least revised: from the new huge selection of executions (some being absolutely gut-wrenching), to the new enemies to the armoury of weapons, unlike its predecessor's selection of about 8. The combat is now truly intense, as cover explodes around you, and you blindfire ruthlessly until Locust blood covers the opposite wall, you'll realise what an incredible battle simulation EPIC have made. The colour pallette has improved, and although the rusty look of the first game was effective, the new look makes it seem a lot more real. The campaign is darker (somehow), but has what the first installment's campaign lacked: storyline and emotion. Dom's icky situation with his missing wive has both deteriorated and has become a large element of the game, but is noticeably Hollywood, so expect cheesy lines and all the rest. The storyline has a lot more depth, and although it is along the same lines (destroy the Locust all over again) it's much more army-based rather than just one squad embarking on a mission which results in the near extinction of the Locust horde - let's just face it, it was a rediculous idea, fun as it was.

The multiplayer. You remember what I said about it last time; well made, but shoddily kept. There was lag, bad lag, and lots of it. Gears 2 started off exactly the same, and I almost gave up hope. But a couple of months later, a title update came to the rescue and almost all of the bullet lag has been eliminated. It has huge variation, replayability and a big stack of achievements to be gained, making what I think is one of the best online games around. If you're an only-online kinda player, this is undoubtedly for you.

Bad points are getting scarce with my later reviews, I seem to be buying pretty good games. I would say that anything that could be labelled as 'bad' is nothing more than opinion; technically Gears of War 2 is a masterpiece, but some may not like the larger scale, or the huge variety of troop types. Seeing as the blood and gore has somehow stepped up, if you're squeamish stay right away, but that's really it.

9/10 sees it being one of the great shooters of this generatio, but just falling short of perfection. Brilliantly made and a heck of a lot of fun. Epic shows a strength many developers don't have: learning from previous mistakes and understanding what appeals to players and what doesn't.

Fallout 3

As a home-coming review, this will be long, as there is a LOT to cover. And I'm back after a long break, too long I think. I've been away as a result of a serious addiction I'm afraid. What's the drug? This very game no less.

I picked up Fallout 3 after hearing very good things from friends, and endless 9/10 ratings from loads of sites. My experience of RPGs is very low indeed so it was a new thing for me, but damn am I glad I did. Fallout 3 is very much different from its predecessors; instead of taking the Diablo-like camera angles and the much darker world, it goes to the first/third person style and the gameplay having friggin' loads of weapons and complex combat, fitting nicely into the RPG/Shooter genre. Its main feature is definitely addictiveness, I've had too many endless days of straight Fallout, but no regrets, it has to be among the best games of 2008, and can please many different types of players.

First off, combat/blood/guy stuff. There are about 60 weapons altogether, each being pretty much completely different and exciting in different ways (for example the Fat Man which fires mini nuclear bombs, or the seven different custom made weapons which you scavenge junk for). As for aiming, you use a system called V.A.T.S, which pauses time and lets you choose a body part to aim for, and shows your likelihood of hitting. After this, it will show the shot in cinematic beauty, and if you got a finisher on them will show flying limbs a many, blood spurting all over the walls. Not really a game for kids. The stuff you kill will range from savage mutated monsters like overgrown scorpions and ants, to the totalitarian government army, the Enclave. This keep things exciting the whole way through and I don't remember once feeling resentful to go into combat.

The storyline is long, and including the side quests can rack you up a good 40-50 hours gameplay, allowing you full exploration of a massive wasteland, which despite it being destroyed by man's inhumanity to man, has a certain tranquility to it which I have not before seen in a free-roaming game. The storyline has many twists and turns, but the basics are: You begin the game being born and raised in an underground vault within a community of those in the same position. The vault keeps them safe from the fallout of the war which ended in just a couple of minutes of worldwide nuclear devastation. The supposed belief is that the vault is shut and stays shut to prevent any danger coming in, but one day your dad disappears and one of your older friends is murdered. You must journey out of the vault to find your dad and investigate what made him leave, and discover the secrets of the past. I'm sure many Fallout players will agree with me when I say the moment you leave the vault for the first time, the sun blinding your eyes to reveal an obliterated village before a giant barren wasteland is one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of gaming...ever. The story will not bore you, it is emotive yet recognisable, and with dad being voice acted by Liam Neeson, can you really go wrong?

Bad things about Fallout 3? Erm... wow... let me think... I suppose if you don't like horror and zombies and stuff, some bits like the pitch black metro tunnels may not appeal. And generally if you're not into RPGs and think that 'quests' and the levelling system is too nerdy then well you probably don't want to get it. But technically it's well made, I've yet to find any faults with the enviroment and characters, as both are magically believable. The complaint I hear a lot, and one that I recognise, is character movement, as the running animation is shocking, and as it allows you to play in first or third person, you get the choice to make your character look like a twat any time you like. Brilliant! Also, I've experienced 3 crashes in the two weeks I've played, bloody irritating, but autosaves are regular so don't worry about losing too much stuff.

If you thought the main storyline was too short and ended rather abruptly (I don't really disagree with you, it was rather sudden), I have reason to believe an expansion is on the way, which I greatly look forward to. You guessed it, I'm putting this on the *choir music* LIST OF BEST GAMES EVER. 10/10 I give it, outstandingly good, the story, the amazing bullet cinematics, the harshness of the creatures and the gore, the voice acting, everything is enticing as hell. Animations in general suck, but that's the only thing I can really point out as bad, it is more likely you'll be too blown away by the sheer depth and ironic beauty to notice. I recommend in general to most, it is one of the best games of this generation that I have seen, and is replayable to the point where I have spent almost 200 hours playing it.