So as many of you know, unless you live under a rock, literally, that GTA V's trailer will be hitting on November 2nd, 2011. Despite my many problems with Grand Theft Auto IV, I can't help but be excited beyond containment about a new GTA. I've fallen in love with the GTA series since it's debut on the pc way back when, and it's one of those rare games that I actually still own every single game in the series. In many ways, Saint's Row 2 revitalized a lot of what I love about the Grand Theft Auto series. The only downfall there is that I feel Saint's Row 3 was just a bit too over-the-top. However, I present the five things that need to be addressed or changed to make GTA V a true successor to it's predecessor.

Bring back some hilarity to balance out the serious tone.One of the biggest things that bothered me about Grand Theft Auto IV was the insanely serious tone 90% of the time. The tone was so serious in IV that anytime a joke was cracked or something was played off as being funny it came out of no where and misfired. The DLC tried to add humor and at times it was funny, but at times it was just completely distasteful (digital penis anyone?). But bring back the crazy things, like jetpacks and bizarre weapons.

Bring back some of the fun arcade elements like Rampages.There were always some pretty cool side-mission things in the earlier GTA's, that fell off on the wayside with IV. I'd love to see Rampages and some of the other cool side-missions you can discover to bring a nice distraction to the series, not to mention something more fun to do then simply run around and shoot pigeons as a collectible. Those "hidden package" pigeons really sucked.

Don't focus so much on a multiplayer aspect.I'd rather see the development team spend more time on making a great single-player campaign then dump there time into a throw away mutliplayer component. Grand Theft Auto IV's multiplayer was a joke. Let's be honest. And in a world where only games like Halo and Call of Duty are really played competitively online, lets stop while we are ahead. I'm all ok with a freemode, but that's about it. Unless Rockstar can blow my mind and make a decent multiplayer like Red Dead Redemption, but I doubt that's the case here.

Fix the driving!Anyone who claimed that GTA's driving mechanic was the best, they were simply drunk or just flat out stupid. I shouldn't hop in a car and feel like I'm driving on a thin sheet of ice at all times. That would make sense with it raining or snowing in the game, but not when it's Sunny outside. Seriously, the driving in GTA has abysmal to say the least. It was so awful I never finished the races for Brucie. Saint's Row has a nice driving mechanic, I hope that Rockstar has been paying attention to them.

Minecraft is out people, you know what that means! Time for me to **** it all over it in this review!!! No, but really, most of these reviews for Minecraft that I have seen on every review sites are giving it insane scores of 9/10's and 10/10's. Now I know you may not want to hear this, but Minecraft, as a game, does not deserve these scores. Let me explain. Minecraft is fun, there's no denying that, it's really fun, but basically as a toy box and not a game. However it is a game and is marketed as a game, so I will review it as such.

You see, Minecraft's main appeal, is that you can build anything you want, change the environment, push blocks with pistons, create a stone castle with a lava moat, enter the nether and fight hellish creatures, build a house, breed animals, and that's great! However, Minecraft as a game, sucks. A game needs good game-play mechanics, challenge, and reward for accomplishing said challenge, Minecraft has none of this. Now, I'm getting the feeling that I started this review out on a bad note, and most of you out there are probably ready to tear my heart out and eat it, so I'm going to say that I personally love Minecraft, but not as a game, as a giant playground. By the end of this review, I'm pretty sure you'll have a good idea of where I'm coming from.

Now, first off to address the presentation. It's **** ugly. I know that the block style has a certain charm to it, but that charm you see, is called "programming graphics." They're basically just a place holder for the real graphics when the game gets released, only problem is, the game already is released. Notch wanted to hire an artist to replicate a retro style for Minecraft, however, he never found one, so he just released the full version with the placeholder graphics, and before you say anything, no, flat, square models with textures is not retro, and it is not an art-style. I can see how there would be a certain charm to this art style, however it does not excuse this.

Now, onto the other aspects of the game. How bout that crafting? It's like half of Minecraft right? Well here's the thing, it sucks. There are absolutely no recipes, instructions, blueprints, anything telling you how to craft or use anything. Even the Minecraft CLONES got that right! I understand you can get all you need from just looking at the Wiki, but think about what this game would be like if you didn't have Internet access. It would be terrible! You wouldn't remember how to craft anything. I understand you using the Wiki for like a hint or something, but not one of the main aspects of the game that you absolutely need to do in order to progress! Speaking of progression, there pretty much is none. I know that Notch added an Enderdragon boss at the end, but this boss fight is pointless, there's no reward to it other than an End Credits screen, boy do I feel good. Going through all that and receiving absolutely nothing, not a new weapon, or piece of armor, metal, material, nothing other than experience, but that's only used for enchanting weapons and armor. Oh yeah, thanks for not even letting us choose which enchantment we get, thank you so much Notch for writing the enchantments in some bull**** language, and just making me take a blind ass guess as to which enchantment I'm going to get. I really want to get all that experience just to gamble with it on enchantments I probably don't even really need. In fact the only form of progression, is basically how good you're gear is, and how big and awesome your virtual house is. One of these aspects of progression however, is completely useless, the gear progression, as these enemies are so easy, the only reason you'll need gear is out of fear on will get the drop on you. In fact, getting the drop on you is pretty much the only thing that makes the enemies challenging, they do nothing else. There is literally no path-finding for any enemy in the game, if an enemy is chasing after you, he'll just walk in a straight line. If there is a wall in between you and the enemy, he will jump. If that doesn't work, he'll do absolutely nothing else. The AI in these enemies, are terrible, Diakatana levels of bad, you could defeat every enemy by just digging a three block wide hole in between you and him. The enemy will make no attempt to go around it, or jump over it, no path-finding whatsoever. Now, the combat in Minecraft is simple and boring. Basically, you swing at an enemy, they get knocked back, an enemy hits you, you get knocked back. Repeat until one of you dies. There are no weapons other than the sword and bow, two weapons, that's all ya got. The bow can be charged up for a more powerful shot, and with the sword you can block, and that's all you need to know. There are no techniques, no other weapons, no special attacks other than the bow charge, it's not like the enemies are going to make the combat any more fun, all they do is walk in a straight line. In fact, if you get attacked the enemies preform no attack animation, when they die, they just fall over preforming no animation, just fall on their side and disappear. You can get armor, but that only decreases how much damage you take, and you can craft yourself a better sword, but that only increases the damage it does, nothing else. The only enemy that provides some strategy, is the Enderman, which teleports behind you after you get close to him, however still, no pathfinding whatsoever, just walk in a straight line. The friendly AI for tamed wolves is just as bad, they can't follow you worth a **** because guess how the do it? Well, in a straight goddamn line. However, those two aren't the worst in the game, no, the worst are the NPC villagers. You see, when you're traveling around Minecraft, you'll happen upon several NPC villages, filled with NPC villagers. You wanna know what they do? Abso-****-lutely nothing. If you attack an NPC, they won't react. If you attack an NPC, other NPC's wont react. If you take apart his house, he won't react. If you right click him, he won't react. If an NPC encounters a monster, they won't react, neither will the monster. Did I mention nothing in this huge, randomly generated world reacts to each other at all? The villagers can't even open the doors to their own houses. Now let me remind you, this is the full version. Not a beta, the full released version.

Now, the hunger meter and regenerating health. It works like this, if you're hunger bar is full, you'll regenerate health, eat food to keep you're hunger bar full, if it's empty, you'll lose health. Pretty simple right? The game also features poison food, such as zombie flesh, if you eat these, you'll gain a couple of hunger points, but lose twice as many. However, if you have a whole bunch of these and keep eating them, you'll gain hunger points, since the number of hunger points you lose by eating these does not stack. This is completely pointless, why would you put in a poison food if I can get the same effect from regular food if I just eat a whole bunch of them, that makes no sense at all.

Now, to appeal to the "game" side of Minecraft....y'know, cause it IS a game. Notch added a brewing system to brew potions with, and an enchantment system to enchant weapons and armor with. As I've already mentioned how dumb the enchantment system is, I'll move onto the brewing system. It is actually pretty good, you can create a variety of potions that heal, make you faster, stronger, less hungry, more durable, also you can make splash potions, that you can throw at enemies, along with stuff like poison, slow down potions, fire, and a lot of other nasty stuff, oh but here's the kicker, NO **** RECIPIES! For god's sake man, if you're going to put books in the game, at least let me write in them so I can remember these recipes. A game shouldn't rely on an outside source like Wikipedia for basic aspects of the game like this. Well at least it's better than crafting, where as in brewing, you put two ingredients in two slots, mix 'em, and see what comes out. Crafting is nearly impossible to figure out without a guide. It's not enough that you just have the materials, oh no, you need to place them in very, very specific spots on the crafting table. If you're not going to have directions on how to do this in game, then why in the holy mother of all that is good would you do something like this?!

The only good aspects of this game, are the many items of which you can craft (which the system to do that sucks my balls) the building, and the exploration...that's it. There are no good game-play mechanics or anything other than that, and this is why I said what I did before. Building and crafting is good, but getting the materials to do so is a chore. Exploration is kind of fun, but just to see the randomly generating terrain, not mystery or discovery, since I know exactly what I'm going to find anyway. Honestly, ask yourself, if these worlds weren't randomly generated, would you still be playing Minecraft?

Now, you may be thinking from what I've said in this review, that I hate Minecraft, well I really don't. I just like as a building tool, not as a game. If Minecraft had gone in a more game-play focused, RPG centered "game". Don't just focus on the building, instead do what you're game does, BUILD around that idea. What if the game had actual, laid out dungeons that are human designed and just linked together randomly, complete with treasure chests, traps, corridors, smart enemy placement, and stronger, unique enemies, along with perhaps a boss fight and special gear that you can't just craft on your own (and that is actually better than the stuff you can craft on your own, unlike the cocoa beans which are completely useless, since food you get on your own restores much more hunger than that of cookies)? What if you could interact with NPC's? Trade with them, talk with them, perhaps even do jobs for them or hire them to do your jobs, like farm, or help you fight. Maybe the enemies could interact with the NPC's as well, and you could act as a hero, defend the town from a monster invasion, after they're driven off, build a wall to keep them out, and be rewarded for your efforts by the leader of the small town. Speaking of enemies, what if the enemies actually had competent that exceeds only Atari standards....in fact, Pac-Man's AI even exceeds Minecraft's AI. What if the Creepers, instead of just running into a wall and waiting for you there, actually stalked you throughout the world, waiting for the right moment to strike? What if the enemies could actually figure out how to move around a wall? What if the combat was better? Incorporating special moves and techniques, perhaps power moves? If none of that, at least give us more weapons that operate differently from one another, that alone could make the combat fun due to the weapon variety and each weapon's strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps most importantly, what if the crafting, enchanting, and brewing systems included recipes or blueprints so you could know what the **** you're doing without just taking a blind guess 100% of the time? Hell, those blueprints alone could be the rewards at the end of dungeons. Go even further, a magic system in which you could craft your own spells, how awesome would that be?! What about just more mobs even? There's only like five enemy mobs, in a world as big as Minecraft, that's a shame. Imagine now, all these features implemented into Minecraft, all with Minecraft's randomly generating worlds. It would've easily been a competitor with Skyrim for Game Of The Year, but no. Instead we get this, an unfinished, extremely underwhelming and under-designed, **** load of lost potential, poorly implemented, and pretty much gets boring after a couple days, mess of a "game". Minecraft is great as a building tool, but sucks as a game, and so far, I can't recommend it to anyone for its thirty dollar retail price, as opposed to its ten dollar Alpha stage price. Now you may think I'm being too harsh with this review, but ask yourself this, was the actual game, the sense of exploration, discovery, and accomplishment the thing that kept you playing, or the idea of finishing your "dream house" the thing that kept you playing?

There's nothing worse than too much free time in a gaming release gap. Typically i can entertain myself with Battlefield 3, but that gets old pretty quickly. When I'm bored, I end up thinking of what appear like a lot of good ideas. "Oh yeah, I'll finally get into this old game". However, it never comes into fruition. Last weekend I turned onChrono Triggerfor the first time, ever. I thought I would delve into my pile of shame.Unfortunately, i think that game is a product of its time. I can't enjoy it, for the game is too slow and is riddled with JRPG cliche. Sometimes i even scope theMarketplaceor even Amazon.com just looking for something cheap I may have missed out on that also soundsenticingto play. Then I just go back to Bad Company 2.Right now I'm casually going through the PC version of Resident Evil 5. SinceDarkness 2releases soon, I was thinking about running through the original one more time. I guess I'm just searching for a good "go-to" game. DoesTiger Woodssound good? When I don't have much to play I also end up staring at my friends list, looking at what other people are playing. Typically between releases everyone plays Black Ops, which doesn't sound very fun.I ask you, community. What do you play when bored? I also need a good suggestions for a go-to game

On another gaming site I read an article posing the question: Do we still need Boss Fights in video games?

It's thought-provoking, so thought I'd post the article link here(LINK)along with a few thoughts of my own, and hopefully gauge what you all think about the role boss-fights play in today's modern games. ***Possibly minor spoilers on games you should have all finished by now*** ; )

In regards to the article's question - do we still need boss fights? Well, I'm in two minds. It really depends on the game. There are those game where boss fights mesh well with the rest of the game play (Borderlands,Gears of War,Dark Souls,Dead Spaceto name a few) and those where the boss fights do not mesh well with the rest of the game (Batman: AA,BioShock, the finalFontaineboss fight that is, and ANY FPS game akin toArmy of Two).

But there is some middle ground to consider - people in the comments do make a good point in suggesting boss fights add tension as you're expecting a fight and the closer you get, the more wary you get. Examples of this: The Leviathan in Dead Space is one; You see its effects throughout the level with its alien form warping the nature of the ship around you. Or whenever your HUD tells you there's "Some weird happenings" in a game and you begin to see more and more human bones and gore the closer you get to a particular point; you begin to silently sh*t yourself! I mean even though there was no boss fight, who wasn't wary when you see the globs of guts and weird marine inHalo: CEright before you see theFlood? You're going "Hey, this gunk must come from something... Gee I don't want to meet it!"

And then think when you're utterly let down by the anticipation of a boss fight. Foremost in my mind isFable 2. You're building up to a massive showdown as in the first game, but when you finally meet your nemesis, it's an on-rails scripted fight that you only shoot one bullet in!! LET DOWN!! You felt cheated and robbed! So in terms of tension and keeping a game moving forward, boss fights are in my opinion, necessary. And if not boss fights, at least a harder enemy or tricky situation.

And that brings me to the other thing to consider: Demi-bosses. I'm talking about the ones from BioShock, the mini bosses from Dark Souls and the Dragons fromSkyrim. They're great for multiple reasons: Firstly you're not abruptly placed inside an arena with maybe a few waves on enemies trying to figure out a weakness and slowly whittle down a health bar before he goes into a berserker state etc. There's no sudden lava pit around you or dodging or scripted machine guns and thrown mines. It ain'tCrash Bandicootbasically! Secondly, they're natural and flow with the gameplay more. As in BioShock and Skyrim, they're usually strolling around doing their thang. You could meet them in multiple places and have different situations. You're often not stuck in to versing them and can usually run away. And lastly, the approach you use can vary. Some boss fights are unvarying - you must use X weapon to take down X weakness then attack with X weapon until X health when X happens etc etc. With Demi-bosses, you usually can set traps, choose the right moment and use a lot of different techniques depending on the surroundings. For example in Skyrim I provoked a dragon into attacking, leading it to a small keep where I took cover and whittled it down. And in BioShock,Big Daddieswere always easy prey when they ventured into water or near a bunch of explosives! So in terms of breaking up the monotonous equation of Level then Enemies then Boss Fight then Next Level, Demi-bosses are great for inserting when a player least expects it and can be used to expand areas far beyond if they'd simply had a big boss at the end.

That said, one of the best games I played on the PS2 wasShadow of the Colossus, which is pretty much an open world comprised ONLY of big boss battles! Go figure...

Considering those things, it brings me to a last point to consider: difficulty. Nothing annoys me more than utterly enjoying a game and only to find my enjoyment cut fully short by a boss battle that is too difficult to pass. I know this doesn't happen too much any more, but sometimes a boss fight is simply too hard. This can be compounded by the possible fact that you may indeed KNOW how to defeat the boss but simply cannot due to poor reaction times or a faulty controller or maybe impatience! I know that even if I've done the same attack several dozen times on a boss, that if I get him down to one bar of health left and need to simply do one last attack, it'll be THAT time when my heart begins to pump and I make the one mistake and have to begin the task all over again. Enjoyment=zero. This happens very rarely with Demi-bosses, and that why I prefer games without large scale boss fights, so boss difficulty in these fights is really hard to perfect but essential.

On the flip side, easy boss fights just make you yawn and detract from the game. You breeze by them and wonder if you have any final climax to look forward to at all! It probably even makes the game feel boring and repetitive, if all you're doing is slashing through foes to reach a boring boss.

So considering all this, I have to agree that in general boss fights are obsolete. And by obsolete I mean not necessary EVERY game. This is notSonicorMario. There is no princess in the other castle and there is no Doctor to defeat at the end of every stage. If it suits the game's theme, by all means put in a boss fight. Maybe supplement them with Demi-bosses (yeah, I'm definitely copyrighting that term...) but be careful the big boss fights don't ruin the flow of the game. So if you're playingModern Warfareand suddenly a genetically alteredCaptain Soapcomes out with a massive machine gun and waves of screaming suicide bombers, then this would be a perfect example of a flow-breaking, BAD boss fight lol. And by golly make sure the difficulty if damn perfect, and if not, make a path to circumvent them for a while. I know I go on about the game a lot, butDark Soulsreally is what I see as a perfect example of a perfect boss game: It's a fantastical mythical world where large monster bosses don't feel out of place. Most bosses you can avoid for a time or all together (the multiple pathways means some bosses don't even have to be fought at all!). As you rank up the bosses get slightly easier, but are still very challenging if you don't know what you're doing or make a lot of mistakes/come unprepared. They can be fought co-operatively if you're still having a really hard time. And the game is wrought with Demi-bosses to make stages feel well spread out and well paced. And the sense of accomplishment is huge because the game is so hard, so all in all, the game shines in this regard.

In other news , just finished my sort-of-late Skyrim review , do check it out , here's theLINK

Here's my list of some of the best games of 2011 -

Most Suprisingly Good Game -

Driver San Francisco

Best Story -

The Witcher 2 and L.A Noire (Couldnt Choose)

Best Graphics (Technical) -

Crysis 2

Best New Character -

Vincent

Best PSN Game -

Outland

Best Atmosphere -

Dead Space 2

Best Voice Acting -

Batman: Arkham City

Best Soundtrack -

Assassins Creed: Revelations

CO/OP Multiplayer -

Battlefield 3

Best Boss Fights -

Shadows Of The Damned

Most Memorable Moment -

Gears Of War 3 Ending

Best Racing -

DIRT 3

Best Shooter -

Call Of Duty : Modern Warfare 3

Best Grahics (Artistic) -

Rayman Origins

Biggest Disapointment -

Rage

Best Download Only Game -

Bastion

GAME OF THE YEAR -

The Witcher 2 : Assasins Of Kings

This blog is dedicated solely to what some games do in order to piss me the **** off to the point of pulling hair or cussing so loudly that people from the town over can hear me and my rage! We have all had at least on frustrating game moment in our lives. I have had many. I will list some of my most frustrating moments right here, right now. I will not list ninja gaiden 2 for the sane fact that it was designed to piss people off.

1. The AI in Dead rising 1.

Anyone here who has ever played this game knows of what I speak. Imagine guiding a group of 8 people, you tell them to go around a big group of zombies and get to the other side, instead, they run STRAIT into the damn zombie horde, not even defending themselves! Next thing you know is that they are all getting mauled to death while you have to deal with a deadly clown with a chainsaw! Hell, my dog could be more careful then these AI, at least he knows to not run into hordes of deadly monsters! Thank all things good on this earth for the AI fixes in 2, THANK YOU CAPCOM!

2, Portal 2 co-op.

Now this game is fun as all hell, singleplayer and co-op, but if your freind is NOT good at instructions, expect to be propelled into spikes all the damn time. It's like this, "Come on man! open the portal here and press the switch!" "Wut? press the switch FIRST and then portal you out of there?" "NOOOOO!!!!" *I die by being crushed...*

3. Mass effect 2 on insanity... with an adept...

Yeah, I realized I did something immensely stupid, don't worry, I know. I died so much due to not having a damn shield to begin with and the fact that they have the weakest attacks and special powers on this difficulty that I should've given up and started as a soldier again on another file. which I did. I was literally yelling at my TV due to the amount of crap was being thrown at me while I just tried to live!

4. Battlefield bad company 2 multiplayer, helicopter jackasses...

Anyone who has ever played this game online and on isla innocentes knows of what I speak, when the attacking helicopter just stays in there own damn base and snipes people with that cheap ass gun on the side! Now imagine it going UP AND DOWN, UP AND DOWN!!! RAAAWWWRRR!!!! It is near impossible to hit them with rockets or tracer darts and they always annoy you by shooting at everything! I ****ing hate the drivers and the gunners of those things, those are the only type of people I teabage in video games other then the camping shotgunners from two miles away.

And finally, Dead space 2 on hardcore mode.

Where do I begin with this? You can die in three hits or less, you only got 3 saves, the enemies soak in the plasma shots you give them and there is so much insta kill monster stuff that if I ever have to do this again. I will rage to the point of smashing a damn house in on itself ala it's mad mad mad mad mad world! It becomes so hard by the end game to where it is perfectly okay to cry about how many damn enemies there are and how few of bullets you have. Thank goodness I have the 360 edition though, you see that there is SINGLE checkpoint throughout this game, and that is by switching the game to disk two, so if you die on disk 2, you start at the beginning of disk 2. With this help, and the javilins gun being cheap end game. I won the damn game, my hands sweaty, and tired from concentrating so damn hard, I deserve a ****ing medal!

What are your most frustrating moments in video games?

There are certain truths that cannot be argued. The sun, for example, rises in the east and sets in the west; men cannot give birth; there are too many Need For Speed games... these are facts that cannot be disputed by even the bravest of trolls. Want to know another truth? A mouse and keyboard allows for a complexity of control that a console controller cannot match.

(I can hear the console trolls crawling out from beneath their PS3s and 360s, ready to descend upon my blog space...)

I know what you are thinking, but this isn't an anti-console blog or a snobby 'PC-is-superior-to-all'blog. I will simply be speaking the truth. So what is this blog about?Diablo 3, of course, a game that enters my mind about as often as sex. 1UPrecently reportedthat Blizzard has invested heavily towards bringingDiablo 3to consoles. The article cites several hurdles Blizzard is attempting to overcome, including gathering a development team, and deciding if they wouldrelease a simple port of the PC game or develop something from the ground-up. But the article only hints at Blizzard's real obstacle: consoles don't use a mouse and keyboard.

There are certain genre's of games that play better with a controller in your hand. Like3rd-person action games, sports games, fighting games, and racing games. Other genres work better with a mouse and keyboard, like RTS games, top-down RPGs, and turn-based strategy games. Some games work equally well on both platforms, like shooters. Diablo doesn't fit into any of these categories, as it belongs to a genre Blizzard made famous (ifthey didn't invent it) known as the 'point-&-click hack-n-slash' genre. The latter part of that genre is no problem for consoles; it's the point-&-click part that gives console developers fits.

Using a stick or the D-pad on a contoller toguide a cursor around your television screen does not give you the degree of precision a mouse can, which is whyfew console games use a cursor as a means of inputing commands. But it's that exact control scheme that has made the Diablo franchise as beloved as it is; the simple act of ponting, clicking, and killing. So what does this mean? It means if Blizzard is going to developDiablo 3for consoles it won't play like it does on PC, and that's a problem for them. Blizzard takes pride in their games, they don't release **** to please a suit and tie. They only release games that are the best-of-the-best and only when they're ready. They won't allow an inferior port ofDiablo 3to make it to consoles, like they did with the originalDiablo(ported to the PS1).

Listen, just becauseDiablo 3uses a control scheme that is less than ideal for consoles doesn't mean I think consoles are inferior to PCs, it simply meansDiablo 3might not be a good fit on your X-box 360. I don't want to playStarcraft 2on a console either, just like I don't want to playSaint's Row: the Thirdon PC. Certain games belong on certain platforms.

n addition to the pointing and clicking, Diablo requires an array of hotkeys.Diablo 2required about 12-15 hotkeys to truly master its gameplay, which simply isn't possible to duplicate on a console controller. Lately, the fashionablework-around for hotkeys on console versions of games (likeDragon Age Origins) has been the pause-wheel; the player pauses the game, which brings up a 'wheel' of spells/abilities/whatever. The appropriate action is selected on the wheel, which assigns it to a controller button, and the player unpauses the game and returns to the action. Something like this is unacceptable to Diablo. Part of that franchise's charm is the frantic non-stop hacking and slashing and casting. There is no pausing inDiablo 2, there is only kill or be killed, so you have to be fast with your hotkeys. I know it doesn't seem like pausing the game to select a spell/abilityis a big deal, but it is. Go masterDiablo 2and then tell me that adding a pause wouldn't ruin half the fun.

Am I sayingDiablo 3can't work on console? No, I'm not. But I am saying that a console version's gameplay would drastically differ from the gameplay experience on PC, and that's not something Blizzard wants to explore very far. Messing with a ****c best-selling formula is not a good idea, and if Blizzard doesn't like it they are not the kind of publisher that will throw a game out there just to make a fast buck.

I love my 360, I really do. I play on it all the time. I'm more of a console gamer these days than a PC gamer. But I absolutely do not ever want to play Diablo with a controller in my hand unless it is a custom game (outside the numbered PC games) specifically developed for consoles.

5. Demon's Souls: Released in 2009 for the PlayStation 3, Demon's Souls is a third person hack and slash role playing game of the sword and sorcery **** While the creepy atmosphere and ugly creatures make the game a bit unsettling, its not the graphics or sound that make Demon's Souls scary; it's the difficulty.

Demon's Souls' notoriously brutal difficulty transforms every combat encounter into a jaw-clenching, palm-sweating experience that leaves the player's pulse pounding and nerves raw. Players gain strength by killing demon's to release their souls, which they then invest into stats like health, stamina, etc. The catch is that if the player dies, all souls are lost. Unlike most games in which death is little more than a brief impedance that send the player back to a checkpoint, Demon's Souls sends you back to the beginning of a level with weakened armor and a depleted stock of health items, with nothing to show for the effort.

Scary Moment: Every boss battle is a harrowing trial of nerves and skill. The fear comes not from the bosses themselves, but for the time invested into getting to the boss. Bosses are only found at the end of the levels, and by the time the boss is reached, a player will have several levels worth of souls. To be killed by a boss is to lose all of the time it took to get there, plus the levels of souls already attained, making every encounter an exercise in fear control.

4. Bioshock: Bioshock is a first person shooter with RPG elements released in 2007 for Xbox 360 and PC and in 2008 for PlayStation 3. The cerebral storyline is told primarily through the art direction in the dystopian undersea city of Rapture. Rapture's tortured past is brought to light when protagonist Jack stumbles upon a bathysphere that takes him to the ravaged city where he must battle the deformed inhabitants in order to escape. Bioshock is both dark and colorful, and the undersea setting really helps to establish a quiet, unsettling mood.

Scary Moment: Very early in the game, Jack happens upon a hideously deformed woman babbling a disturbing lullaby into a baby carriage. The woman turns and attacks Jack, leaving him no choice but to kill her. When Jack looks into the carriage, he sees that the insane woman was actually singing to a revolver.

3. Resident Evil 2: While the first Resident Evil spawned the sequel, the sequel spawned the franchise that is still popular today in games and movies. RE 2 was released in 1998 for the PlayStation, and became the defining title for survival horror games of the time. RE 2 featured the series' staples of limited ammo and health items, weird, unnecessary puzzles, and lots and lots of zombies.

Scary Moment: Survival horror games of the PlayStation era employed the "creature jumps out from nowhere at you" event to great effect. Possibly the most memorable instance of this occurs in Resident Evil 2 when protagonist Leon Kennedy walks past a window in a quiet room and a Licker jumps through it at him. The Licker is one of RE 2's most difficult and terrifying enemies. With it's fast, jittery animation, exposed brain, huge claws, and long deadly tongue, the Licker is capable of killing a player in seconds, and any encounter with one, especially an unexpected one, is a terror inducing event.

2. Dead Space: Dead Space is a third person survival horror shooter released in 2008 for consoles and PC. Its sci-fi story unfolds aboard a mining spacecraft a la Alien, and it follows mining engineer Isaac Clarke as he battles an infestation of Necromorphs, human corpses that have been transformed into terrifying, The Thing-like creatures by a strange alien virus.

Dead Space is unique among many horror games in that it is a competent shooter at heart. Unlike the slow tank controls that are employed by games like Resident Evil, Dead Space controls much more like Gears of War, except the slow pacing is much more appropriate for the scary atmosphere. Despite the heightened controls, the player will guide Isaac to death after gory death because of the relentless, hard-to-kill nature of the unpredictable Necromorphs.

Isaac has his mining tools at his disposal instead of traditional sci-fi weapons. This is fortunate, because the cutting tools are far more effective at dismembering the undead creatures than, say, a plasma rifle might be. In fact, cutting off two or more limbs is the only way to incapacitate the crawling horrors, as a headshot will most likely just make them angry.

Scary Moment: After getting the hang of shooting the limbs off of the implacable Necromorphs, the player is lulled into a sense of false confidence. That is, until Isaac faces the Hunter. The Hunter regenerates lost limbs in seconds, meaning that all Isaac can do is delay the unstoppable creature temporarily as it stalks him throughout the ship. The Hunter turns the player's confidence into a sense of complete helplessness and sheer terror.

1. Silent Hill: Playing the original Silent Hill for the first time is the creepiest experience that I have ever had. The psychological effects of nail-biting apprehension, battle induced adrenaline, and abject terror that this game was able to invoke in me was only bearable for around an hour or so, after which I would have to turn it off and do something else to calm down.

Silent Hill is a third person survival horror game that was released in 1999 for the original PlayStation. The ****is in the vein of its main rival, Resident Evil, and focuses on protagonist Harry Mason as he searches for his missing daughter in the eponymous town. Harry must face the abominations that inhabit the alternate dimension of Silent Hill, the Otherworld, in his quest to find his daughter.

Looking back, all of the features that made Silent Hill scary were mere programming tricks that served to mitigate the hardware limitations of the first PlayStation. Ubiquitous fog, darkness, and low textures produced a claustrophobic, gritty, dirty feel to the game. The intentionally poor controls actually enhanced the fear-factor because it made combat that much more challenging and the enemies more deadly. In house Konami developers Team Silent crafted a moment-to-moment experience whose overall effect belied its limitations.

Scary Moment: Within the first ten minutes of the game, Harry Mason finds himself trapped in a blood-slick, dark, chain link fence maze with only a butane lighter as a source of illumination. He is then set upon and ostensibly killed by a swarm of small, gory, skinless, knife-wielding baby mutants.

Skyrimis unlike any of the other anticipated games I've seen this year. When you scrolled through comments, whether YouTube or your favorite game news media site,Skyrim's fans were more than happy to remind us thatSkyrimwas coming, either through a simple reminder or a more brazen, "Skyrim!" scrawled across their post in all caps.

And why not?The Elder Scrolls: Oblivionwas widely loved for its humongous fantasy world which offers a plethora of things to do in any fashion you see fit. While you could still playOblivionnow and enjoy it, it certainly shows its age, especially when juxtaposed to it's new sibling,Skyrim. EverythingObliviondoes,Skyrimdoes better. I certainly enjoyedOblivionbut there are some things inSkyrimthat, when encountered, make me think, "Man, Bethesda really made it better!"

1) Magic– The one thing that feels infinitely better compared toOblivionis the magic system as a whole. Magic inOblivionfelt generic in some aspects; a simple series of effects or consequences that are the result of a specific rule or action. If I wanted to generalizeOblivion's magic, you can cast an effect that either damages the enemy or changes their behavior. This magic could be cast either to be on touch, as a projectile, or on yourself. Magic was more about the parts that made up spells rather than the spell itself.

This time, magic is much more vibrant. There are only a set number of spells but they become progressively stronger as you use them. InOblivion, you'd have to buy a newer, stronger fireball spell to keep up, but inSkyrim, your fireball spell grows stronger as you use it.

Also, the ability to craft unique spells doesn't return fromOblivion, so you can no longer strip apart spells to see them as they really are and mix up new spells. You also can no longer make crazy, game-breaking spells such as a 100 damage to health spell over a period of one second. Spells like that inOblivionlet you plow through the opposition like it was nothing.

2) Enchanting– Enchanting jumps off the same general idea as magicSkyrimoffers new ideas that just make sense when you think about it. InOblivion, simply knowing the specific spell effect allowed you to enchant an item with a similar effect. If you knew how to use a flame spell for example, you could enchant a sword to apply fire damage on hit. InSkyrim, you must instead break apart existing enchanted items to learn how the enchantment works. So in order to make a fire sword, you must find an existing weapon that applies fire damage (even a dagger works), break it apart to learn the enchantment, and only then will you be able to apply the fire effect to weapons.

The new process just makes more sense as enchanting a weapon and casting a spell must be two entirely different things; the process of learning is much more involving. It makes the revelation of receiving magic equipment much more thrilling as you decide to whether to keep magic items or break them apart to learn their secrets.

3) Leveling– If there's one thing I didn't like about leveling up inOblivion, it's that I had to go to sleep to feel the affects of leveling up. I could slay a hundred monsters, walk a thousand miles, and cast a million fire spells, but would still remain at level one because I didn't get a good night's rest.

But in order to level up, you had to train the major skills you chose at the start. This was how you'd create your themed character. If you wanted to be a badass knight for example, you would be inclined to make blade weapons one of your major skills, as the more you use a major skill (blade weapons in this case), the more you'd level up and become stronger.

But inSkyrim, you aren't pigeonholed into specific roles. None of the traditional values such as strength or agility exist inSkyrim. Everything is decided by how well trained your existing skills are. So if you play as a mage for a few hours, your skill in destruction magic will obviously increase as you use offensive magic a lot. But if you start sneaking around and stabbing people in the back like a thief, you can get better at that as well. The only limitation are the perks you earn every time you level up, which are dependent on your individual skills.

The new system of leveling up encourages you to explore new options, while at the same time not empowering you to spread yourself thin. You can gain perks in magic to reduce the amount of magic you use to cast a spell, but still train your proficiency in other areas like smithing and daggers. The perks you choose are limited to your level and help define your character, but if you simply keep using that dagger, you'll still be good with it. You just won't swing it absurdly faster or gain special abilities with it unless you invest in the perks associated with that discipline.

Focus your selection and your character will be good in some areas while still capable in others. Spread yourself out and you'll be able to do a a little bit of it all but not as great. Just like the huge map and questsSkyrimpresents, how you create your character is truly up to you.

4) The Outdoors– When it came toOblivion, fast traveling was the way to go. While the forests ofOblivion's Cyrodill were indeed impressive, they seem downright dead compared to what's to be had in the land ofSkyrim.

The landscape ofSkyrimseems much more vibrant with traveling caravans, roaming parties of giants and their pet mammoths, vicious wildlife, and the occasional bandit or two. DespiteSkyrimbeing a land dominated by mountains and snow, you'd be surprised at the amount of diversity you can find from running rivers, somber marshes, and eerie wastelands.

But of course, the stars of the show are the much anticipated dragons. In addition to exploring the land forElder Scroll's patented dungeons and landmarks, every now and then the ground will shake at the roar and presence of an incoming dragon. Imagine exploring the local area for new alchemy ingredients when all of the sudden, your screen shakes and you hear the unmistakeable roar of a dragon just before it flies overhead in an attempt to roast you with its fire breath. All alone in the wilderness, you're forced to make a fight or flight decision: will you stand your ground and defend yourself, or will you run in order to find some signs of civilization to help you? Because whatever you do, the ire of a dragon will never fade, and it will chase you so long as you stay outside. Running from a dragon only to find a guard post to assist you in slaying it can be a truly gratifying moment of immersion.

5) Dual-Wielding– While dual-wielding wasn't actually inOblivion, it is a major factor as to why combat feels much more fleshed out and flexible inSkyrim. Dual-wielding is also a major reason why magic is much more enjoyable now as you can supplement anything in any way thanks to it. Do you want a shield to block as you cast spells? How about freezing foes to a crawl as you go in with a sword? Perhaps two axes at once for a quick flurry of edged justice? Dual-wielding lets you do it so long as you're not interested in two-handed weaponry.

Pure magic characters can even supplement other spells this way. Cast fear on approaching wolves and shock them with lightning as they flee. Or even turn a normal flame spell into a powerful flamethrower by using the flame spell in both hands. You can hold a dagger in one hand for sneak attacks and resort to your trusty fireball spell when things don't go well, or even heal yourself with the healing spell as you create a magical shield to protect yourself.

Combat inOblivioncould sometimes be a slog but the amount of variety you can create with the new dual-wield mechanic makes skirmishes less of a battle of attrition and more of a fun experiment as to how you'll mangle your foes.

Bethesda'sElder Scrollsgames have always been highly anticipated and well remembered. People still remember and enjoyMorrowindto this day andOblivioncontinued the expansiveness of theElder Scrollsgames. Throughout the previews ofSkyrim, it promised to show a whole new side to theElder Scrollsseries andSkyrimcertainly delivered with these changes.

Hey Guys Posted a review of COD:MW3 , here's the linkCall Of Duty MW3

Give it a thumbs up if you like it :)

*REVIEW*

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is a game mired in controversy, its reputation tainted by questionable business ethics and internet flame wars. Look past the lawsuits, corporate mud slinging, and accusations of stagnation from a restless fanbase, however, and you'll see that Modern Warfare 3 is possibly the strongest of the Call of Duty games and a great shooter in its own right. Is it as shockingly innovative as the original Modern Warfare was in 2007? Absolutely not, but with mechanics this refined and gameplay this well balanced, it hardly needs to be.

As with past entries, action in Modern Warfare 3 is split into three segments; there's a traditional campaign, the competitive multiplayer, and the cooperative Spec Ops mode. It's predictable stuff to be sure, but it's comfortingly familiar in the same way as a late night junk food run, and the sheer amount of content contained within these modes is hard to deny.

The campaign is the mode that's seen the least change. That's not to say that it's lacking in any way, however, as this is one of the most intense and memorable campaigns I've played all year. Whether you're shooting terrorists in zero-g or battling your way through a blinding sandstorm, you'll be surprised by just how much mileage Infinity Ward (and the numerous other studios involved with the project) wring out of the tried and true Call of Duty gameplay. Variety and spectacle are key here, and this big budget shooter delivers on both in ways that its competitors can only dream of.

If story closure is what you're looking for, this latest entry delivers on that front as well. I've never found the stories in Call of Duty games to be particularly meaningful or even coherent, but I recognize that there's a significant fanbase out there waiting with bated breath to see what happens to Soap and Price. Although pre-release footage didn't focus much on these series stalwarts, rest assured they're the focal point of this globe-spanning story. I still found certain plot points a little hard to contextualize, but the story as a whole felt much better thought out than that of Modern Warfare 2, which didn't so much have plot holes as it had gaping craters. When all was said and done, a nice sense of closure fell over the Modern Warfare series. I wouldn't be surprised if we continued to see games brandishing the Modern Warfare name, but these characters and stories have been told to their fullest extent here. In a year where seemingly every game is setting itself up for a sequel, it's nice to not feel blueballed by an ending for once.

Immediately upon finishing the campaign, you'll be thrust into the game's cooperative Spec Ops missions. Many of these are in the same vein as the missions from Modern Warfare 2, in which two players are given an objective and ranked on how efficiently they can complete it. They're fun, but lack the "just one more round" mentality of Treyarch's Zombies mode. Luckily, the new Survival mode is there to scratch that itch. This is a fairly basic Horde-**** mode in which several players must band together to survive as many enemy onslaughts as possible. While it lacks the depth found in Gears of War 3's tower defense mechanics, it's still satisfying to rack up cash with every kill. This cash can be used to purchase new weapons, grenades, perks, and even killstreaks which can be used against the enemies. Survival matches Zombies in terms of pure addictive power; it's the reason this review hasn't gone up earlier, in fact.

Then there's the competitive multiplayer. A ton of new maps and modes have been added and killstreaks have been tweaked a bit, but as far as significant changes go that's about it. As has been the norm for a few years now, new content is continuously opening up to you as you play in the form of new levels, perks, weapons, and attachments. The carrot on a stick approach is certainly the standard now, but it still works well enough. What doesn't work are the archaic spawn points, which are completely predictable and easily abused, and which often spawn you right where you last died to meet an instant death.

Multiplayer gameplay still feels more fair and balanced than in any of the recent Call of Duty games, though, thanks to the previously mentioned killstreak changes. Now there are multiple types of streaks, each with different functions. The Assault package plays exactly as you'd expect; you wrack up four kills, you call in the UAV, etc. The Support package places the emphasis on helping out your teammates and completing objectives, with capturing flags, planting and defusing bombs, and the like gaining you a killstreak. These points also carry over after death, making the Support package the way to go for those who are new to the game or those who can never seem to stay alive long enough to call in that chopper. Unfortunately, the rewards for the Support package are a little less rewarding, with ballistic vests for your whole team and a SAM turret being a few of the rare highlights. Finally, there's the Specialist package, which doesn't give out any killstreaks at all. Instead, it awards players a new perk for each kill after their fourth. It's a risky proposition to play as the Specialist, and as a result the game locks it away until you reach a decent enough level.

Although leveling up is still a big deal, it's no longer the only carrot being dangled on the end of that stick. Now guns level up separately from your core level, and doing so is the only way to get new sights, camo and the like for your gun. It doesn't make as huge a difference to the core experience as you might think, though, and I really didn't notice the gun leveling up until a few matches in. Like me, you'll probably be focused too much on the action to even notice all the different meters going up.

A few new modes round out the multiplayer nicely, with Kill Confirmed being my favorite. This mode plays similarly to Team Deathmatch with the goal being to score as many kills as possible for your team. The only difference is that this time players drop a dog tag after dying that must be collected for the kill to count towards your team. It's also possible to collect dog tags of downed teammates before an enemy can grab it, thus denying them the points and scoring yourself some in the process. This opens up some great strategies. If a teammate dies, you can leave his dog tag untouched in hopes of baiting out an unsuspecting enemy trying to play hero. Alternately, if you get in the seat of a chopper gunner, you might be able to mow down a lot of enemies but you won't be there to collect their dog tags when they go down.

It might be cool to hate on Modern Warfare 3 right now, but that hatred is misguided. Yes, Activision engages in some shady business practices. Yes, this game is a bit of a Frankenstein creation, a whole cobbled together by a myriad of studios. This in no way detracts from the consistently exceptional quality of every bit of content in the game. The single player campaign is one of the most thrilling I've played in a long time, and serves to remind that when it comes to rollercoaster-**** games, nobody can touch Activision's internal studios. The Spec Ops modes, especially the new Survival mode, are a blast to play with friends. Finally, the multiplayer, while dated, still has legs, and anyone who's enjoyed this ****of game in the past should get at least a marginal level of satisfaction out of spending a few hours online. When coupled together, these elements make for a hell of a package. If hating on Call of Duty is cool, I don't want to be cool. I want one of the year's best shooters, and Activision's army of studios have delivered.