So glad to see so much love for F.E.A.R. Btw the 360 version will have worse graphics, but an extra gun and some instant action maps (which emphasize everything discussed in the article).

@ awkm:

Did you even play Alan Wake?

I'm also rather frustrated by the amount of criticism Warrior Within continuously receives. It's treated like a garbage sequel when it actually sticks out in my mind as one of the better games I've played over the last decade. Get your heads out of your asses, and find an actual bad game to criticize.

Why is the post-apocalyptic setting always so brown? It was the only major problem I had with Fallout 3 and Borderlands, and Rage looks no different. Good graphics are worthless when all they render are different shades of brown....

In other words, we should stick to buying RPGs.

I don't even see how it's possible to spend less than 40 hours on games like Fallout 3, Oblivion, or Dragon Age, at least on the first playthrough.

There should be more games like Fallout 3, Borderlands, Deus Ex, and Mass Effect - near-perfect mergers of the speed of FPS pacing and depth of an RPG, and with enough polish to keep the gameplay interesting. I would drop money for any sequel of these games in a heartbeat.

Sorry for double post, computers suck sometimes.

I think Starcraft Ghost was supposed to be slated for consoles only...but worth mentioning anyway.

At one point I was excited for Duke Nukem Forever. As the years went by excitement turned to frustration, then finally apathy. I am now convinced Duke Nukem Forever was an elaborate and evil publicity stunt...

I think Starcraft Ghost was supposed to be slated for console release, not PC - but in any case, Ghost was the biggest letdown for me since my assessment that Duke Nukem Forever was nothing more than an elaborate and evil hoax....

I've always felt Civilization was a bit overrated as a series. It's intelligent and deep, but too much like a virtual Risk - it almost defeats the purpose of what video games do, or at least what they are capable of. If they give the game a significant visual and/or interactive overhaul then I will definitely consider getting it...but if it's pretty much like every other Civ then what is the point?

Definitely not better than KOTOR, but there are years of nostalgia behind that sentiment...

While Dragon Age might not stick out for any one particular feature, the game is about as polished as a game can be. I had to admit I was also expecting a Mass Effect-like experience, and was a bit perturbed when my character chose not to speak and when I discovered the combat was all tactical.

However, after having put about 80 or so hours into the game (almost done with second playthrough and planning a third), I realize just how ridiculously deep this game is. The narrative still isn't quite on the level of either of the KOTOR games, but the game will still suck you in. This is one of the most detailed games I've played in my life.

Confusing to me is this: ME1 and ME2 are essentially the same game. How can Dragon Age be better than one and not the other (according to reviewers on this site).

I would recommend playing Bioshock 1 and/or Mass Effect 1 first, then buy the sequel based on which game you liked better.

Thank you, ChiefLethal, for noticing and commenting on the reviewer's mistake of saying Mass Effect is better than Fallout 3. This is not the first time a GR reviewer has made a similar grievous error (Dragon Age better than KOTOR? WTF?).

I have played and finished both games (ME2 and Fallout 3), and they are on totally different ends of the videogame spectrum. While both RPGs, the two are so drastically different in terms of what they offer the player that to say one game is better than the other is a pretty narrow-minded analysis. Where Fallout succeeds Mass Effect fails, and vice versa (and this is an argument that could go on for hours).

The same goes for Dragon Age comparisons. While Mass Effect might be more engaging in terms of storyline presentation and originality, the universe crafted around the Grey Wardens is a much deeper gameplay experience (again, just my opinion, but I feel like tweaking with the Combat Tactics options in DA is a game within the game). I did not use my teammates in Mass Effect 2 - the Vanguard is a ridiculously overpowered class - but in Dragon Age, I couldn't pass a single boss battle without having a well-designed team to back me up.

Basically, I feel like ME2 is a step forward in interactive gaming, but a step backward for traditional RPGs. The ability to import and continue a character from the first game is awesome, as is the fact that your protagonist actually speaks; and the universe crafted around the game is awesomely deep. For every awesome feature, though, one equally terrible exists (i.e. pointless minigames, dumbed-down leveling-up, limited weapon/loot options - which sucks for both shooters and RPGs).

Please, PLEASE, don't jump to rash conclusions like "Mass Effect 2 is better than Dragon Age and Fallout 3!" That decision is ultimately up to the player - each of the three games is awesome in its own way.

And am I the only person who misses the Mako? Upgrade it, don't scrap it!

Is anyone else worried that this game might end up being even easier than the first one?

Uhh...where exactly is KOTOR? I expected it to be #1, and it's not even on the list.

I am also amazed that there are "gamers" who haven't heard of this game, and I pity those who buy this game simply because the name "Halo" is in the title.

GR was the most critical of the reviews I've read so far, but I'm guessing Halo fans should stick to other shooters and RTS fans should look elsewhere. Even at its best I can't see this game competing with the majority of 2009's Q1 lineup.

Sorry Batman, I've given up on you. GR's review is the only thing that can save you now...

So is the next CoD going to be titled as #5 or #6? And where does this game stand in the series if the next one is going to be CoD5?

Level cap of 20? F you too, Bethesda - you spoiled us with Oblivion

This game still kicks major ass though