|By date||Most helpful reviews||By my score||By metascore||By user score|
Average User Score: 6.5Nov 19, 2011Just like any other Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim is filled to the rim with content. The amount of content in this game is enough to keep youJust like any other Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim is filled to the rim with content. The amount of content in this game is enough to keep you playing for weeks. And then there's the DLC (unfortunately PS3 owners don't get it until a month after Xbox owners do). However, there are alot of things Skyrim disappoints in. First and foremost is the game engine. Remember Bethesda harping on about this new "Creation Engine" when they'd preview the game? Well guess what? Turns out the "Creation Engine" is just the 10-year-old Gamebryo Engine but with better character models. Anyone who has played Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas will know first-hand that the Gamebryo engine is notorious for bugs and glitches, that can range from annoying to game-breaking. Its also worthmentioning that there are also huge framerate issues at times. To say that Skyrim is still using this horrible, buggy mess of an engine is a disappointment is a huge, huge understatement.
The graphics in Skyrim are also dated for 2011 standards, with most textures looking identical to those in Oblivion, which was 5 years ago.
The overall gameplay is same to that in Oblivion. Its fun, but there are a few things I've noticed. Using a shield in the game is redundant. You will still lose health when you block. Seriously, if you're a warrior and you rely on a shield, what's the point of using it when it won't block damage? You basically get shoehorned into using Restoration spells instead. Another gripe I have with the game is that there were times where I wanted to do some side quests and take a break from the main story. Turns out that you'll get your ass kicked time and time again (my character is level 18), and you don't have much choice than to do the main questline first. However, the AI in the game is alot better, and the characters feel alot more authentic than in Oblivion. Walking into a town and seeing the blacksmith forge stuff or seeing villagers going about their daily business is awesome.
In conclusion, Skyrim is a huge, engaging game and will tide you over for weeks on end with its content and lore, but for 2011 standards, the graphics and Gamebryo engine are really showing their age, and it's disappointing. Bethesda had around 3 years to make Skyrim (remember that they didn't make Fallout: New Vegas - that was Obsidian), and that would have been enough time to get a new engine up and running (Bungie took 3 years to build a whole new engine and make Halo Reach). It may be a good game overall, but it definitely isn't GotY material when you compare the improvement from Oblivion to Skyrim to the improvement other games have made like Battlefield 3 or Dark Souls from their previous titles.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.4Nov 9, 2011Just finished it, and I gotta say this game definitely doesn't deserve the 9's and 10's it got in all the reviews.
The combat is decent atJust finished it, and I gotta say this game definitely doesn't deserve the 9's and 10's it got in all the reviews.
The combat is decent at the start but gets extremely repetitive halfway through the game. Towards the end I found myself dreading having to kill enemies. The combat isn't paced well at all, for that matter.
I'd kill a bunch of enemies in an area, and just as I think its clear to move on, another wave comes out from nowhere. After I kill that wave of enemies, I take 2 steps into another room and hey look, more enemies!
Another few gripes I had were the aiming issues (they seem to be more prevalent from halfway through the game onwards), crap button response at times and poor controls at other times.
The aiming and recoil of the guns felt really inaccurate and off. I found myself missing shots all the time. The button response in the quicktime events was also poor at times, failing to register when you jump from platform to platform or press Triangle to counter an enemy's move. The poor controls were probably the biggest pain in the ass out of the three though. Numerous times I found myself trying to get to cover to avoid fire but instead of getting to cover, I'd end up trying to push a nearby enemy, which would result in me getting shot and killed.
I think Uncharted 3 was a bit disappointing compared to Uncharted 2. The story is great, but as for gameplay there was too much emphasis on shooting rather than platforming, and not enough platforming and puzzle-solving, and issues with aiming and controls that got extremely annoying and infuriating.
I honestly don't think Uncharted 3 deserved the 9's and 10's it got in reviews. 6/10 would be a much more suitable score.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.3Oct 9, 2011I'm just going to come out and say it. Rage is a disappointment. There are a few things Rage does well, such as variety in ammo types (like inI'm just going to come out and say it. Rage is a disappointment. There are a few things Rage does well, such as variety in ammo types (like in Bioshock) and having a consistent framerate of 60 frames per second (which never drops) with good graphics to boot. However, there are also a few things Rage doesn't do right, such as texture pop-in, the driving sequences, and the story.
The combat in Rage is good old FPS fun and the variety in using different ammo types makes the gameplay stand out from other FPS's. You can also craft helpful items that can help you get the edge over enemies, such as bandages, exploding RC cars, and even three sided boomerangs with steel blades on them, which is pretty cool. The graphics are also great, especially from a distance, but most textures look terrible up close. Not much of a surprise there though, given the overall scope of the graphics. Rage is also the most fluid game I've played in terms of framerate. Its always at 60 and never drops. This might not sound that impressive, but keep in mind this is on a console thats around 5-6 years old.
However, Rage seems to fall flat on its face with the story. I've played 4 hours of it and I can tell you now that it has absolutely no connection to the story whatsoever. I'll explain this the best I can without spoiling it. The first hour of the game sees you meeting a character that helps you get started and all that, which is pretty much essential. The next 3 hours, however, see you go to a town and do errands for people, namely the Mayor and Sheriff. You'll be asking yourself what the point of all these errands is and if they're related to the story, and your questions will be answered at around the 4 hour mark when you meet a character that is part of a discourse that seems to be central to the story.
Another thing that Rage doesn't do right is the driving sequences. You'll be driving everywhere from point A to point B and it just feels like filler. There is no incentive to go exploring, and killing the bandits in their buggies gets tedious. There is also texture pop-in, which is very subtle in some parts, but almost unbearable in others.
Overall, Rage could have been a good game, but never really delivered. The story is rather weak, the first 4 hours of the game are completely pointless (and considering people are saying its around the 9 hour mark, thats a huge worry), the driving sequences are merely filler, and ultimately it seems as if ID couldn't decide if they wanted to make an FPS or an RPG. For a game to have been in development for around 4 years and won a range of "Best in Show" awards at E3 2010, this is a big letdown. I give it a 3/10. This game is only worth a rent. It is not worth $60US/$100AUD at all.… Expand