TylKos
2008
This is the most forgettable GTA game and that's because it didn't really do anything noteworthy. Not a bad game, but it felt as if a lot of the charm from other entries is just not there.
2001
Classic game, not much to say about it other than the gameplay feels a little dated.
2018
This game is probably a 5/5 for most people, but I just don't like games that are super story-driven as much. Gameplay is fun, but I don't like having so many cutscenes and when the game itself is not that long, it makes it feel as if there is a lot more cutscenes than there really is.
This game is literally the definition of a 2.5/5 game. Nothing special, and I only played it because I liked the Ghostbusters. It didn't do anything just outright bad, but it also didn't do anything just outright good either.
2006
Fun game, not much to say about it other than it kind of feels old in the bad ways today.
2017
Fortnite is fun, although, I think it is lacking when it comes to the gameplay. It's fine and serviceable, but it also makes it so there is not much variation in how to play. Sure, they can add as many new weapons and power ups as they want, but it always just feels the same. It is an enjoyable gameplay loop, but it can easily get tiring if you're not really enjoying it.
Very fun add-on for a really amazing game. It's the most memorable one because it is not only the best one, but it also just remembers how to be fun.
2011
I don't think it accomplished much of what the first game did right, but it is better than the previous game. I liked the things they brought back from the first game, and I liked how there is a cool multiplayer aspect to it. However, my biggest complaint and criticism of this game is how much they strayed from what made the first game so good. I feel like I'm playing a slightly more spooky Call of Duty most of the time, and that isn't what I'm playing the F.E.A.R. series for. The gameplay is good, but it feels soulless and uninspired, which becomes a detriment to me and how I look back on it.
It's alright. I don't like all of the changes it made to the world of the series because it makes the first game feel as if that didn't matter. But, I tend to care less about story in video games, and so we go to the gameplay. Things I liked the most: making health more scarce and having to plan appropriately for it, the atmosphere, and the feel of the weapons. The things I did not like the most: the weapon design, the world layout, and the fact we have bullet-time again. That last part is important to note because it isn't any better than the first game and shows how much the people making this game couldn't have thought of anything new or creative for this game. It genuinely just feels like worse rehash of the first game.
2016
I wish this game didn't copy as much as it did from Far Cry 3. Everything I don't really enjoy about the game is just ripped from Far Cry 3, and everything I did enjoy was new. I also think the gameplay was repetitive and doesn't allow for many replays.
2018
I had fun playing this game, but it is just a copy of Far Cry 3 in Montana. The only things different about it are that we have an unnamed and mute playable character and we are in Montana. Everything else is just the same, and it makes the game feel dated and not special at all.
2014
Part of the reason I kind of hate Far Cry 3 for existing is because of what it did to the rest of the series. This game is fun, and I like the main villain, but it feels way too similar to Far Cry 3. I mean, the map is the exact same. The only real difference this game made was making the playable character mute and putting us in the Himalayas. This game is less egregious than some other games in the series when it comes to copying Far Cry 3, but it does impact the quality of it.
2012
This is the best Far Cry game, yes. I still have issues with it. I think I preferred the art style and atmosphere of Far Cry 2 in terms of colors and danger, but I'm not against what they did in this game. I also don't like the lack of variety in how you can be damaged and how you heal yourself. Gameplay is fun, if not repetitive, in terms of the shooting and movement. But, my biggest negative this game does is that it was developed by Ubisoft, and that's an issue because I do not like Ubisoft games generally. The main reason is because I have side-mission brain-rot, or, as I like to call it, I have Ubisoft Brain. The fact I can do every single side mission and get fully upgraded before the second mission of the game is not a great thing in terms of gameplay. And I know, this is a me problem, but I can't help myself. And a lot of these side missions are not very creative and can be accomplished doing many of the same things as before. Other than that, I actually like a lot of what the game does. I like having a named and speaking person to play as, I like Vaas a lot, and enjoyed the story.
2008
Really fun game, and I really enjoyed all the variety of injuries and healing. Gameplay is a little dated, but I really enjoyed the atmosphere and the threat of dying at any time.
2010
It is the best Fallout game, that's not a debate. But I think it kind of plays really clunky. I also don't really care for open-world stories as much as others. Like it is nice to have, and I don't feel any way about it, but I generally think that open-world games can be more of a detriment to the overall game then a bonus. And I feel as if the openness of this game is slightly a detriment to it. Also, I am not a Fallout fanboy, so a lot of the stuff that was clearly meant for those people didn't resonate with me and just made me kind of annoyed. This is a lower 4.5/5 than other 4.5/5 games in my opinion.