Ok, we all know that Dragon age 2 isn't the same game as Dragon age: origins, but is that really a bad thing. I don't think it is. For some reason many people seem to think that DA2 needed to be exactly like DA:O, but they shouldn't be dwelling on the fact that the combat is different, or that you can't equip your party like you could in DA:O. Yes those things are a bit offsetting at first, but if you just give the game a chance before dismissing it just because of those thing, I think that you would be surprised at the depth of game play and story telling that this game has to offer. First of all, the creators of DA2 have given us a game that much like its predecessor, lets you customize the tactics of all the characters you have coming on your adventure. But unlike its predecessor, DA2 offers many more tactic slots, giving you many more ways to make your team your own, and also opening up a depth of strategy that Origins only began to touch. The way that the story was told in DA2 was also an improvement in my opinion. The chooses that you have in Dragon age 2, while at times may seem simple, more times than not have a huge impact on the story, and on the Dragon age universe as a whole. For example *MAJOR SPOILER ALERT* when you talk to Anders and get one of his companion quests, he asks you to distract the enchanted mother in the grand cathedral while he did something that he was unwilling to tell you about. After the quest, it may seems like nothing really happened, but in the last act of the game, it becomes very clear that what you helped Anders do had much more impact on the game, and the dragon age universe, then what you first assumed. While you are trying to settle the Knight Commander's and the First Enchanter's differences, Anders thinks that the only way to stop the Knight Commander from eradicating all the mages in the city is to do something drastic. This is when the companion quest comes into play, as you, the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander are talking, Anders decides that its time to implement his play. "BOOM" the grand cathedral has just blow to bits, and Anders is to blame. As it turns out, what Anders was doing in the grand cathedral was planting a magical bomb that would change the course of the entire dragon age universe *END OF SPOILER*. I don't know about you, but I didn't see that coming. So if you would just give this game a chance, I think that you would be pleasantly surprised at how good it really is (except for the reused environments, I have no idea what they where thinking when they did that).

So by now everyone who played the first bioshock and liked it is gearing up for the release of Bioshock 2, well before the release of this very anticipated game i'd like to talk about Bioshocks end game boss fight. Let me start off by saying that I loved Bioshock, and I hope that I will love Bioshock 2, but there are some things about Bioshock that left me thinking that they kind of got lazy toward the end of the game. The game as a whole was a very well rounded game, great combat, great story, ok puzzles, etc...but the last fight in the game felt out of place. You fight the guy that was controlling your every action from the start of the game all the way up untill you fight him, and for some reason the developers of the game thought that it would be a good idea to make him into a big blue guy. I mean it doesn't make scence to make him into something that fells like it should be in some super hero game like superman, I think something that they could have, and should have done was make him into the ultimate big daddy, they had it all set up where they could have easliy made him be a big daddy, but instead they decided to make him into a big blue guy that looks like he took one to many steriods. They could have made the game feel alot more rewarding at the end for me if they had an end boss that looked right for a game with a dark setting like bioshock, but a big blue guy thats glowing just does not fell right, so i'm hoping that in the next game they don't get lazy at the end and actually think of a good final boss fight that lives up to the game.

I just got done watching the review for dante's inferno, and after I watched the review I started looking at some of the posts made by people. The majority of the postes where about how they didn't agree with the reviewers score, and that they only gave it that score because they are compering it to much to god of war, and that the game deserves a much better score. Well here are my thoughts on those posts, first off many great games have been compared to other games from their catagory and those games have gone above and beyond the game that they where being compared to. One game that comes to mind when talking about games that have been compared to another game is Darksiders, it was compared to The Legend of Zelda which for many is arguably the best rpg ever made, and darksiders proved that it can take aspects from other games and still be a great game, so if Dante's Inferno can't hold up to the game that it's trying to immulate then you can't really say that the reviewer is making a mistake by giveing his honest opinion on it. I say that you should wait for the game to come out and then make your own decision on whether or not you like the game, and stop saying that people that don't agree with your opinion are to take a quote from one of the posts "morons".