I enjoyed it well enough. I was waiting for a convenient time to play it, because I thought I might be a bit lost, if I didn't refresh my memory on the source material first. I'd just reread the third book and figured this was the perfect time. In hindsight, I'd say that was unnecessary. As long as you remember some basic things about the lore and know what the Red Wedding is you should be fine going in. The plot is competently done overall. I'd say that some narrative decisions felt a bit contrived. As in, they don't fit that well into the GoT universe and/or were made just so they could have cameos from some of the main characters from the show. That's probably to be expected, though, and not that big of a deal. As with other Telltale games, many outcomes are fixed and can't be altered by your choices. But I looked up a guide after finishing the game and was surprised to find out that the player has more agency than I originally thought. I was actually tempted to replay the game so I could get a more satisfactory ending. I won't be doing it right now, but maybe at some point. Of course, as you probably already know, Telltale went under so there won't be any more seasons. If you know the lack of a proper ending is likely to frustrate you, maybe don't bother. Otherwise, I think fans of the show/books will probably enjoy it. I wouldn't call it essential, but worth a playthrough if you're in the mood for some GoT.

A really fun sandbox with a destruction physics system that's pretty impressive even in 2017. Simply going around and demolishing buildings with a sledgehammer for no reason whatever is a blast. The actual missions are good too ,though. Some of the weapons and gadgets you acquire by the end are very creative and fun to use. For example: the pulse rifle (which makes a return from the original Red Faction) which allows you to see and shoot through walls, a gun that can literally disintegrate matter, and even a jetpack.

It's not a flawless game. I have some issues with it. For example, it allows you to carry only four weapons at any one time. Ideally, I would've liked to have all my arsenal available at all times for a game like this. Or it could've allowed you to purchase additional slots at least. Instead you have to look for these ammo crates which are scattered around the map. They allow you to switch weapons and refill some of your ammo of which you can't carry all that much.

Also, checkpoints are rather sparse. More often than not if you fail a mission you have to start all the way from the beginning of it. Some of the missions include lengthy shootouts or driving sections and it can be frustrating to have to redo the entire thing. It is an older game but is not old enough for it to be an excuse.

To be fair, I played on hard so these last issue may not be so pronounced on lower difficulties. In fact, I found it a bit more difficult than I would've liked, but I didn't want to change the difficulty midway through the campaign. Not impossible or anything, but I died quite a lot in the second half. It's the kind of game in which I just want to feel like a badass and blow shit up and not worry too much about dying. If I ever replay it I'll play on medium.

The driving is fine. Nothing special about it but it works well enough. The variety of vehicles is not too great, but they feel distinct from one another. The damage system on them is not very impressive considering what you can do to buildings. Every now and again you can get your hands on a mech (or walker or whatever) and those a lots of fun. Unfortunately, you only seem to be able to get them during specific missions.

Graphically, it looks good considering its age. With everything maxed out in 1080p it is still pleasing to the eye. The performance was locked at 60fps 90% of the time but, unfortunately, I got some drops during more intensive scenes. Particularly when you are standing next to a huge collapsing building with lots of particle effects around you. When you walk right through a building with a mech, for instance, it will slow down noticeably. I'm talking low 50's to mid 40's at the worst and only rarely. I have a 1060 6GB and i5-6500 and both of them were running at around 35-40% capacity. It's definitely not my hardware. The game doesn't seem to be able to take advantage of the extra power you throw at it during these more intense moments.

Overall, like a said, it's a very good game and I had loads of fun with it. Highly recommended if you like wreaking havoc in open world games. I'm surprised that they haven't made a newer game recently or that anyone hasn't picked up the idea of a huge open world game with destructible environments.

I could have sworn that I left a detailed review on Steam back in the day, but for some reason, it's not there. Anyway, I'll try to summarize by memory. The core gameplay is similar to older LEGO games, it's just that you have a huge open/hub world now. It's really not like GTA at all, despite what a lot of people are saying. Probably as close as a LEGO game is likely to get to GTA, but still - not really like GTA. I find it baffling and even annoying that so many people make that comparison in reviews as the similarity is very surface-level. Pet peeves aside, I enjoyed seeing an entire modern city made out of LEGO parts. It brought back many childhood memories. All the movie references are cool and funny and the game can be enjoyable overall. But underneath all of that you find the usual casual busy work from prior LEGO games. While I did do a 100% playthrough, I think it was just the completionist in me getting activated. I had very mixed feelings about it towards the end.

Only commenting on the campaign. It's fine. Feels a bit on rails. Dialogue is filled with jargon which is probably appropriate, but it makes it a bit hard to understand exactly what's going on at times. Then again, I wasn't paying that much attention to the plot. Game looks good for its time, except the cutscenes which are pre-rendered and artefact-ridden. Didn't run into any issues on Win 11. If you're in the mood for a modern combat shooter, it might scratch the itch. I'm sure it's derivative of Modern Warfare, but I've only played the remaster of that game and that was years ago now, so I can't draw any comparisons.

Edit: Decided to give it another go for some reason. The story does make sense, if you pay attention. My overall opinion is the same, though.

Edit 2: I just played the original CoD4. I'd forgotten how action-movie-like those games are. It's a lot more light-hearted and over the top. MoH is not that similar at all. It clearly has more of a focus on realism. I can't judge how accurate it actually is, but it definitely has a different feel. They may have been looking to capitalize on the success of CoD at the time, but I think calling it a CoD clone is unfair. Can't speak for multiplayer as I said at the start.

In short, I found it very frustrating, with hardly any redeeming qualities. I can't recommend it.

About the only interesting thing about the game is the art style. It reminded me of that 2004 Van Helsing movie with Hugh Jackman, only with a western twist. It's the main thing that drew my attention to it, along with a tentative recommendation from a youtuber I like. And, yeah, the weapons and some character designs and locations look kinda cool, but that's where the good ends.

The main issue are the controls. They are very twitchy, making it very hard to aim. I tried messing with the sensitivity setting, but it didn't help. I found myself getting frustrated from the start because I couldn't seem to consistently hit even enemies who were right in front of my face. Even grenades wouldn't go where I wanted them. Somehow they always landed either too close or too far. I was never quite able to adjust to the aiming. It made the game way harder and more frustrating than it should've been.

Poor controls aside, there's just nothing worthwhile here. Just an average shooter with a campy boring story. The visuals are alright, but nothing special. The music didn't really stand out to me - it was suitably westerny and that's about it. The game ran mostly fine, but with some heavy slowdown when things get hectic. I've seen better and I've seen worse.

I saw some players comparing it to Halo in reviews. There's a shield system that's similar to the one in Halo and also a warthog-like vehicle you drive in one of the levels. Aside, from that, I saw nothing Halo about this game. I wouldn't have made the association myself and it's certainly not in the same league.

By the time I got to the final boss I couldn't wait to be done with it. I had no patience for it so I switched to easy, just so I could get to the ending. I would have cheated, if it was an option and I rarely ever do that.

Evidently, some people see something in Darkwatch. Maybe if you played in an emulator with a mouse and keyboard it would be an alright experience. It would still be a very unremarkable shooter, but probably a lot less frustrating. Maybe some would enjoy the story in a campy sort of way. Maybe it would be fun in co-op with a friend (apparently, the Xbox version has online multiplayer, but not co-op for the campaign). I wouldn't know. For me it was a waste of time.

Originally written in 2014.
This game had been in my library for some time. I started playing because I had the chance to try Last Light and thought it was great but I always try to play any series in order of release.

Perhaps the best thing about 2033 is its atmosphere and sense of style. You get to discover a whole living and breathing world in the tunnels of the metro. There's been a nuclear holocaust and the survivers have taken refuge underground. They have build new cities there and are trying to lead a normal life but they are plagued by mutated monsters and the constant war between the different factions (Reds, Nazis, etc). Your journey will take you accross the whole network of the metro, letting you see people in their daily environment. You can stop and just listen to their conversations and it's actually worth it, but you don't have to do it, if you don't want to. You'll also see the different sides of the conflict so you can make your own judgements. There's also the surface which you'll get to explore a bit, but I wish there was more of it. It can be even more unnerving than the darkness of the tunnels. You have to wear a gas mask and watch your oxygen levels. While you're forced to listen to your character heavy breathing you are being attacked by mutated beasts.

Gameplay-wise 2033 combines FPS with stealth elements. Unfortunately the stealth isn't that great. Sneaking is not always an option and to kill silently you have only throwable knives and any silent weapons that you may have. These are not always reliable since enemies later in the game have heavy armour and a headshot won't do and my knives just bounced off them sometimes. If your cover gets blown every guard in the area knows your position and you'll likely get butchered. This led to some of the most frustrating moments of the game. When fighting, enemy AI is ok but I caught them doing some weird stuff like taking cover on the wrong side of a wall and just begging to be shot. The sections where you fight mutants are exciting and challenging. This is not the kind of game which let's you play Rambo style. Ammo and supplies are scarce and you need to watch them closely.

Overall I like the weapons in the game - they realy look like they come from a post-apocalyptic world. I'm not a fan of the pneumatic ones which are powerful but require you to pump the manually as well as reload them. They are unrliable when you are in a big fight surrounded by enemies. The game actually uses pre-war bullets as currency and you can either buy equipment with them or put them in your gun for a bigger punch.
In Metro 2033 you play as Artyom - a young man who has spent his life in his home station (town) and has no knowledge of the other parts of the metro. Now his people are being killed of by the Dark Ones. These are a new kind of mutants which seem to have some psychic powers. Artyom is somehow special and is able to establish contact with them. After even a highly trained soldier disapers fighting the Dark Ones, Aryom sets off for the city of the rangers (a neutral faction) to report the situation and ask for help. The game has a strong sense of adventure. You'll meet several interesting characters along the way (Khan being my favourite) and you'll explore various environments. There are two possible endings to the game, but this may remain hidden for most players. I wouldn't have known myself, if I haden't looked it up. If you intend to play the game only once, look it up. Otherwise it's better not to spoil it for yourself. Also the silent protagonist doesn't help the storytelling much. Voice acting is a bit of a hit and miss and some of the character models of the supporting charecters are difficult to distinguish from one another. Overall, the story is interesting, not the greatest, but pretty good.

I should mention some of the main drawbacks for me. Like I said above, the stealth needs iprovement and the AI could be a bit better. Also the controlls feel kind of weird (I play with a 360 controller). For instance melee and iron sights use one and the same button meaning you can't melee with some weapons and can't look through the sights with others. Also you have to cycle through weapons rather than having a seperate button for bringing up a selection menu. It's just not up to date with modern shooters (in terms of controls).

To sum it up I enjoyed the game and I recommend it to anyone who values atmosphere, story and a solid single player FPS experience. You rarely get so much attention on the campaign especially in this genre. I've just started Last Light and it looks like it's not necessary to play the original to get in to it, but I suggest that you do.

Basically what I expected, in a good way. I had a great time. If you've played Last Light or 2033 Redux, this should be right up your alley.

Despite the open element, not much has changed. The core gameplay (stealth, gunplay) feels almost the same. You still have walking-simulator sections where you walk around and listen to people talk. Even the controls are almost identical. Going from the metro tunnels of Moscow to a desert or a dense forest may seems like a dramatic change but they've made it work and it doesn't feel out of place. Exploration feels organic and the maps are not overly cluttered with pointless objectives and side-missions. It's a bit like The Walking Dead now only the apocalyptic event is a nuclear war and it takes place in Soviet Russia. And there are still many indoor areas which feel like classic Metro. The crafting system is pretty basic and doesn't get in the way. The weapon-mod system is an evolution of what was already there in Last Light. They just let you do a lot of things on the fly now.

The plot is fine. For me it was always more about the overall vibe and atmosphere in these game, rather than the story. The mute protagonist thing never worked and still doesn't. They wrapped up the Dark Ones arc in Last Light and they don't make a comeback. You still get visions every now and again, but it's very sporadic and without the supernatural element in the plot, it felt a bit out of place to me. It's strongly suggested that it's the radiation that causes the visions, rather than any special senses that Artyom has. Regardless, I'd say it's a fitting finale.

Both DLCs are very much worth playing. The Two Colonels is pretty short – about 2 – 4h. It's a linear experience, more akin to the previous Metro titles. Sam's Story is more substantial at 6 – 10h and it's also more open like the main campaign of Exodus. I'd say it's long enough to be a standalone game. Both DLCs add to the main story. I'd even argue that Sam's Story is actually more engaging story-wise simply because the main character actually talks.

I'd definitely go back to this game when I get my hands on an RTX GPU eventually.

It's great fun if you can enjoy it for what it is - style over substance. There's nothing special about the gameplay or the narrative. It's all about the explosions and destruction with bullets, bodies and debris flying everywhere.

I'd argue it's best enjoyed on normal or even easy. This was the first FPS I ever played with a gamepad back in the day, so I sucked really bad and had a tough time. Eventually, I came back and beat it on the hardest difficulty, more to prove a point than anything else. On this last playthrough I played on normal again and found it pretty lenient, but in a good way. You can afford to be sloppy and just go in all guns blazing like it says on the back of the box. On the harder difficulties you can't carry health packs, so you are forced to go more slow and steady and pick off enemies from afar, which is not a fun way to play what is ultimately a power fantasy game. You also don't have to worry about mandatory collectibles which can disrupt the flow of the experience. Leave those for subsequent playthroughs, if you are the completionist type. The game's super short anyway.

The story is not very original or interesting. Something about a deep black ops conspiracy. They throw so much military jargon at you that it's a bit hard to follow. I do like the visual style of the live-action cutscenes, though. The orchestral score is used sparingly, but it's really good at building tension or creating an epic feel.

I've seen people make the claim that this is the best FPS on PS2. I don't know about that, but it might very well be the most technically impressive one. Yeah, the lighting is all baked and the destruction is pre-calculated, but it looks great in motion, especially for the time and hardware. I played in 480p (activated by holding X and triangle while the game boots) and it does have some slowdown during heavy scenes, but it's fairly minimal considering the quality of the visuals. There's a widescreen mode, but you should avoid it, because it's just cropped-in 4:3.

It's a bit of a departure from the original game and the flagship CoD2. In those games the point they try to make is that WW2 was won by millions of nameless heroes who all sacrificed themselves for the greater good. There are many fellow soldiers who fight alongside you, but they are just random NPCs, so you can hardly form an emotional attachment to them. Those games also switch between soldiers from the different allied countries, so you don’t even play as the same person throughout. In Big Red One they tried something different – you play as a member of 1st Infantry Division (a.k.a. the Big Red One) throughout the entire campaign. The members of your squad are proper characters and you get to know them over time. This is the main standout feature here and arguably makes the game the most interesting of the CoD titles released on PS2.

Most WW2 games at the time were trying to imitate successful contemporary movies like Saving Private Ryan with varying degrees of success. The technology and the production values weren’t quite up there yet and I’ve seen some pretty pathetic attempts, but this is one of the better ones. They actually hired some of the actors from the Band of Brothers series to voice your squad mates and do the mo-cap as well. It’s not actually Band of Brothers, but it’s a decent effort for what it is. The characters are reasonably well fleshed-out. After not having played the game for over a decade, I still remembered them and the major story events, so the developers must have done something right. If you're into these kind of movies/games, you’ll probably enjoy it.

In terms of gameplay, there’s nothing special here. It’s similar to the original CoD from what I remember. It still uses health packs, rather than regenerating health. The controls are not too far off from a modern shooter. I’d say they overdid it with the mounted turret sections and the friendly AI has a tendency to get in your way, but there’s nothing too offensive. Just an average shooter overall.

What it has going for it is variety, but that’s mostly cosmetic. You have your obligatory D-Day landing, but you also get to fight the Vichy French in Africa and the Italians in Sicily. Each level offers a unique location and you get to use some French and Italian weapons which are not common in WW2 games. Said weapons do not change much gameplay-wise. On normal, enemies seem take two shots to the torso to go down no matter what you use (snipers being the only exception). Still, it’s a nice touch and the guns in general do look and sound good.

The PS2 version plays OK when it runs OK, but it can feel very heavy when there’s slowdown and there’s a lot of slowdown in some of the later levels. It looks decent enough, but it’s not up to the level of a first-party game. It has a 16:9 mode that actually gives you a wider field of view which is rare. The collector’s edition version has some extra featurettes and concept art to check out, but it’s the same otherwise.

In one of the behind-the-scenes featurettes they talk about their creative process. Basically, they explain how they came up with ideas about cool set peace scenarios first and then they tried to build a game around those scenarios. That's exactly what it felt like and I don't mean it as praise. Uncharted 3, to me, is a bunch of, admittedly, really cool and technically impressive set peaces, held together by a somewhat disjointed plot. The pirate section is the perfect example. Very neat concept, fun to play and a technical showcase, but it comes completely out of left field and feels tacked-on story-wise. The game lacks the cohesion of the second installment, which makes it less enjoyable overall, even though many of the individual elements are objectively improved.

I read online that the actor who plays Cutter had to leave the project early due to his schedule, which lead to the story being rewritten last minute. Maybe it would have turned out better, if it hadn't been for that. Maybe not. Either way, Uncharted 3 is still lots of fun - it's just not as good as Uncharted 2.

The PS2 version is practically ruined by poor performance, quaint controls, long loading times and a weird save system. Honestly, one of the most frustrating experiences I've had with a game in recent memory. It was a mistake to play that version, but I'd had it in my backlog for years, so I figured what the hell.

The game by itself is not perfect, but it has some redeeming qualities. Namely, the atmosphere. The music is quite good and can be enjoyed on its own - it reminds me of KMFDM. The art style is very reminiscent of Total Recall (and other Verhoeven movies). They're are a few interesting weapons. And there's also the geo-mod tech, of course, which is underutilized, but still fun to mess around with. The game as a whole has always had a bit of a Half-Life vibe for me, but there're probably a lot of games from this period which tried to imitate Valve's work to some degree.

Unfortunately, Half-Life this is not. The gameplay is just not on that level. The AI is kinda funny for the first 15 minutes, until it gets annoying and every single human enemy behaves the exact same way throughout the game. Non-human enemies are even less enjoyable to engage with. There are nasty difficulty spikes during the last third of the game, including enemies who can one-shot kill you through walls. Yup.

Anyway, I understand that there's a community patch for the PC version which fixes up the game nicely for modern systems. I think if you play it that way, you can probably overlook a lot of it's fundamental flaws and enjoy the good parts. In the PS2 version the issues are just amplified tenfold. I'd stay clear of it, even if emulated on PS4/5.

You've probably heard of this title as the game that invented the 3rd person cover-based shooter. That's how I came to know of it as well and why I decided to give it a go. Well, I've played it now and I can say that this really is the only noteworthy aspect about it.

Still, that's nothing to sneeze at, considering it came out in 2003. It has almost all gameplay elements of a modern 3rd person shooter. The only thing it lacks is the ability to switch the camera from shoulder to shoulder. In terms of controls, it is still very playable in 2024 and that's by no means a given for a console shooter of this vintage.

Apart from that, though, it's fairly average. In terms of gameplay, the main thing I disliked is that your weapons don't feel impactful. The animation for enemies is actually decent, but the game is from before the time ragdoll became common and they opted for no blood. All you see when you hit someone is some feeble sparkling effect. The environments are static apart from some basic decals. You don't get that visceral feeling you want from a shooter. Enemies are also able to dodge your line of fire, so a lot of the time I wasn't sure if I hit an enemy or they just threw themselves on the ground. Not very satisfying and mildly annoying. The weapons themselves felt pretty samey and the shotgun is one of the puniest ones I've seen in a game.

The enemy AI is, at least, half-decent. They will actually take cover and try to avoid fire, as well as flank you, rush you and throw grenades at you. In fact, despite pioneering the cover-based mechanic, I'd say the game favors a more aggressive approach. You are definitely supposed to use cover, but you are not supposed to just sit around camping. The player speed is quite high compared to most modern games. Enemies die from one or two hits, but you can be killed very quickly too so it balances itself out. The health system is somewhat similar to the way your shield works in Halo. You can be almost killed in a matter of seconds, but if you manage to avoid getting hit for a few moments after, most of your health will be recovered.

Now, on the normal difficulty, this really isn't a hard game. The levels are very short - about 5 to 10 minutes. However, there are no mid-level checkpoints at all. If you die, you go back to the start of a level. Since, you can be killed quite easily, as I mentioned, this can lead to some minor frustration. You could just get blindsided near the end of a level and you'll have to redo the entire thing.

Apart from combat, there's literally nothing else to do in this game. No collectibles or secondary gameplay elements of any kind. You go in, kill all the bad guys, maybe collect a key card or flip a switch and go out. You'd expect this to get old but the game is so short that by the time it starts to get repetitive, it's over. That’s a plus, as far as I’m concerned. At least it doesn’t overstay its welcome.

The story actually has an interesting enough premise, but it's just not fleshed out enough. I'd call it B movie tier.

Graphically, it's again just average. I don't think it's technically impressive even for a PS2 title from 2003. Most locations are bland industrial areas such as docks or warehouses, so it doesn't make up for it with good art design either. It's one of these games with a hidden 480p mode. Instead of having a toggle in the menu, you have to hold X and triangle at the same time while the game boots to enable it. The performance target is 60 fps, but it's far from stable in either mode. For some reason, you get full vsync and stuttering in 480p, while in 480i it's adaptive vsync and screen tearing. It's a pick-your-poison kind of thing, but the game remains perfectly playable at all times.

About the only other thing that stood out to me, besides the cover-based mechanic, was the music. There are some surprisingly good tracks that almost made me give the entire game a slightly higher score. I would give it a listen on its own.

So, would I recommend this game? Honestly, if you're just curious like me, I'd say it's safe to give it a try. It's so short that you don't have much to lose. It's cheap if you want to buy it and the PC version can be found on abandonware sites. But you can also safely skip it. Apart from being the first to put all of the elements of the cover-based shooter together, it has no other noteworthy features and there are so many games that have done it better by this point.