A classical battle royal fps that focuses on movements and gunfights. It is not so punitive, which is a really good thing.
Yet, I don't like BR structure. Gunfights, yet good, aren't great either. If you don't have friends to play with, I do not recommand.


The free-fall feeling is particularly successful : I wasn't able to parachute myself correctly because I was way too afraid falling.

Doing an Whodunit? videogame is I would'nt even think possible. Yet here Obra Dinn is. It is a wondeful game that gave me feelings very few games did. Every game system is sober. This sobriety gives space for the true star of the game : the human brain. Thinking, comparing, looking, moving, hearing are all the tools you'll use to determine who, how, by whom. This is much more stimulating than how it sounds on paper.
The end is sober and suprinsingly satisfying.
The game is gorgeous.
The sound design is wonderful.
This game is a masterpiece.

It's the most unliked of the 4. I understand that, I would love to say it is not the baddest but I honnestly don't know. Imho MGS games are unrankable. They all are masterpiece, that tried new thing with every game, renewed the formula and pursued the spirit.
It IS a masterpiece. I mean, I would'nt be able to even find it an absolute flaw, a really messed up thing that doesn't work. It might not be at your taste, of course, but saying an aspect of the game is made in a wrong way that doesn't fulfill a specific goal would be a lie. Even loading screens are thought about in MGS4. I humbly find it highly respectable, and I am happy this author was given a nice budget and a very talented team to create the videogame he wanted.

It is old. I don't thnik it aged very well, as a matter of fact I'm sure it aged way less good than its sequels. It isn't very well written when it comes to characters or dialogs.
Yet, it has brought so much. It is still fully playable nowaday du to the scratch, its simplicity in level and gun design. Some ideas are still great : vehicles, vast levels, modern health bar, certain guns like the needler or plasma grenades... Halo has brought the scratch technology, which every shooter use since. It is still a lesson in enemy design and world design nowadays.
This cave isn't a natural formation.

When I told a friend RE5 is a good action game, he answered that was the problem, it isn't supposed to be an action game but a survival horror, as RE4 is.
I'm sorry mate but RE4 isn't a survival horror, it is an action game.
RE5 is the polished version of RE4, more silly, more ludicrous, more unashamed (which is a feat considering RE4 was already very much unashamed). It is more dynamic due to a new inventory system, it features deeper light rpg elements that allow upgrading weapons in a very dumb way (hello, 100 bullets per clip pistol) and has enough ideas spread all along the adventure through its level design and bosses to never be boring. I must point out the mercenary bonus game mode, way more elaborate than RE4's, that really is a game in a game you can spent dozen hours on. Very arcady, very fun.

It is one of the only VR game I played. I think it is where VR will eventually lead (once the technology becomes better, cheaper, and less space consumming) : concepts that deeply revisit the 3Cs (Controls, Character, Camera) considering VR specificities (spacial awarness, fluid & free but limited vision, precise but limited moves...).
With SuperHot you have 3 innovatives Cs.
- Character : the game concept. Time goes on only when your character move.
- Controls : Moving is a way of accomplishing things (pointing and shooting a gun), but it is also as way of making the time goes on. Plus, your hand exist and allow you to do a lot of thing : grabbing, throwing, smashing, holding, stabbing, covering, dodging...
- Camera : you can move freely your head, but you have to consider the time going on and some enemies will attack you from your blind spots.

Simple, sober, original, efficient, fun.
SuperHotVR.

I think it is, with DayZ, my least liked game.
It's basically everything I hate. Let's pass very quick on obvious and exogens factors like toxic community, poor matchmaking and suffocating theme to speak about game design.
When I play a game, I actually want to play a game. When I play CS:GO, I do as everybody does : I take a gun, I move myself in front of other people with guns, sometimes I win the fight, sometimes I loose the fight. At this point, a game that pretends to be a game would give me a fair penalty, make me wait for 10 seconds, and then make me respawn to try again. This is what does 90% of games, and it is very useful in order to both reducing frustration and keeping me in the flow : I have the chance to try again, and I'll learn from this new situation. CS:GO does not have respawns, so once you're dead, you'll have to do one thing, which is the baddest thing that can happen in videogames : wait.
Ok then, CS:GO is a hardcore videogame. Agreed. It also pretends to provide coherent balistic and gunfights.

They indeed are coherent, but they also are stupid. CS:GO's recoil follows its own logic : if you shoot an automatic gun, you better crouch and look at your enemy's feet because every single bullet after the 2 first shots are going waaaaaaaaay upward. It is unfun to use (I have no pleasure looking at feet and praying a random bullet will go in a head), unfun to play around and unfun to play with.
When it comes to actually being a videogame, CS:GO here again fails miserably. It's the symbol of those awful games, where snipers are a rule acclaimed by the playerbased, whereas shotguns are fully useless. Unfortunately, game design wise, a shotgun make way more sens than a sniper : the first one is a high-risk-high-reward weapon (you have to come close to your opponent to deal massive damage, which gives your opponent the time to react) whereas the second one is a low-risk-high-reward weapon (you can be as far as possible from the target, you'll still be very efficient). It is an fps with asymetrical teams, where there are no differences (aside from an assault rifle, woah !) between the two teams. It is an FPS that doesn't feature weapons that try to be different : there are no flamethrower, no grenade launcher, no rocket launcher, no automatic shotguns, no miniguns, no mines, no outside-of-the-box weapons... (and of course if you try to use semi auto sniper, you'll be insulted by both your team and the ennemy team). Both game design and level design encourages camp, which is the lowest point of multiplayer action games. In the other hand, I must say it also encourages stealth, which is a really good thing.
It is a multiplayer game where there really is no multiplayer gameplay. Everybody goes its way and gets randomly shot at a badly named location (long ? Short ?). It's a vindication of kill-culture, which isn't fun.
Considering the amount of FPS that exist, I do not recommand playing CS:GO. I also recomand playing way more arcade games and way less competitive games.

Well, I did it on GBA but it isn't available.

I guess it's a great FF. If you're a pixel art fetishist, you're at the right place. If you love FF ost, this one is a succession of masterpieces. Finaly (Fantasily), combat system benefits a lot from ATB dynamism.

Imho tho, the game is (too) long. The way characters are playable in a short time, then unplayable for a while and you eventually simply use Lock or Edgar can be kind of disapointing. It has JRPG, FF and 90s flaws : I am softlocked due to a random difficulty spike (a behemoth on flying islands) and I'm am supposed to farm to level UP and beat it, which I'm not willing to do. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of Kefka.

A mix between horror and 2D plateformer that was one of the first milestone of cinematic platformers revival.
It is sober. This sobriety is its strength.
If you seek a mechanical plateformer, it isn't the case of Limbo. Yet, if you seek a plateformer that plays well, plus have some smart puzzles and a total mutism (which is wonderful, I hate when people speak), Limbo is a good choice.

Kids are killed in Limbo, watch out if you dislike that kind of theme.

This is a sanction note. I believe far cry isn't a good game, yet history has proven me wrong. When we take a look at far cry 1 or 2 or when we play them, we feel something very interesting. This hardcore way of seeing modern time fps, this everlasting unpredictability, this bizarre mixbag of infiltration, gunfights and environmental control... This is a unique proposal. When you play far cry 3, wether you play it in 2012 or 2023, you have a strange feeling that nothing matters. All the game can be played with the smae bow or sniper without at any time having one reason to pickup a shotgun or a grenade launcher ? It doesn't matter. You have to play the game with the x button always pushed to spent half of your playtime in looting animations and struggling against your way too small inventory ? It doens't matter. Gunfights aren't intense, gunfeel is poor ? It doens't matter. Stealth is that uninteresting but that quicker than loud that it becomes a go-to unfun fast problem resolving swiss knife ? It doesn't matter.

Plus, I did not find Vaas that good as an antagonist.
This game isn't for me, I recommand you play the first two far cry. If you liked far cry 3, all its sequels are the same game.