I love lists and so does a vast portion of the interweb. So here is a list of 6 epic next gen titles to fill your epic needs for today.
6. Portal
The reason this is on the list is for the sheer fact that the ending is 100% pure epic. The gameplay is also pretty challenging…but the ending + the credits song has the gameplay beat by a long shot.
5. Call of Duty 4
COD4 has the most badass ending to any modern combat game I have ever seen. Not to mention the entire storyline keeps you on the edge of your seat more than a Battlestar Galactica end of season episode…ok maybe not that much.
4. Half Life 2 + episodes
If you have played any of the episodes than you know exactly why this game is on the list. It seems like the epic endings never end with this game. All I can say is keep’em comin!
3. Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Why so epic? Well it’s Star Wars, you are annihilating jedi, you are Darth Vader’s apprentice, and you battle both Vader and the emperor at the end. This is by far the most epic Star Wars game yet. Oh and let’s not forget that force lighting is more powerful in this game than a lightsaber. Pretty epic if you ask me.
2. Fallout 3
The entire game is epic! The start, the middle, and the end. Epic, epic, epic. Basically when you take Oblivion and add guns you can’t do anything else but be epic.
1. Metal Gear Solid 4
I have never played a game with this much epiciness. The gameplay, the storyline, the cut scenes, the ending…all of it just stressed me out it was so epic. Over the top you might ask? Maybe, but what MGS isn’t? If you haven’t played this…do it now. I bought my PS3 for this game and never looked back…until Little Big Planet came out. Then I looked back at my purchase and said “damn, good job Tyler.”
I just got the Canon PowerShot SD790 IS ELPH and I just want to tell everyone how amazing this camera is.
My first digital camera I ever bought was a 4mp Kodak EasyShare POS camera (in this case the POS stands for piece of shit). It was bulky, had NO manual settings, and it only lasted about an hour on two AA’s before I had to change them out.
So the SD790 is a giant step up from what I have been used to. In fact, I hated taking pictures with my digital just because the camera was so shitty. I much preferred taking pictures with my 35mm and getting them on a disc at trashy Walgreens.
With that said, this camera is outstanding. It is tiny, it is solid, it has a beautiful giant LCD screen, and it is easy to use. But best of all, you can change almost EVERY option on the camera and even some you didn’t know existed.
One of the main reasons I bought this camera was because of all the manual options it gives you. Usually you need to buy an expensive SLR digital if you are going to be snapping manual shots to get photos to look just the way you want. The SD790 takes that theory and pisses on it. For 215 bucks you can have a tiny little camera that can do just about anything you can think of.
You want to take night photography of the stars to impress a lady friend you later hope to sleep with? The SD790 has got you covered. You work for a website that needs detailed 3648 × 2736 shots of microprocessors? The 790 can also do that in 10mp digital macro style. How about taking 360, panoramic, or beautiful portrait shots? Yes, absolutely, and you bet.
Canon, known for manual options, does more than deliver in this camera. Set your ISO, set your shutter speed, set your exposure time, and even set sensitive color variants. The SD790 does it all!
As far as battery life goes, this camera also has that covered. Charge the battery for about 2 hours and then enjoy taking hundreds and hundreds of photos before you need another charge.
My only beef with this camera is how big the screen is. I love it and I hate it. Frankly I am just waiting to scratch the hell out of it. A screen protector is my next investment for this thing. Also, on a side note, there is no view finder and it saves images as .JPG and not .jpg (which is a huge pain in the ass being a web developer).
Seriously people, if you are in the market for a small digital point and shoot camera that does far more than ‘point and shoot’…the Canon PowerShot SD790 is for you.
Call of Duty: World at War is nothing that we haven’t already played before. It is WW2, it is the COD4 engine, and it is an action packed FPS.
When I started the game, I hated it. The beginning of the game has very little emotion or eventfulness to it honestly. I just really got bored. It was the same shit that I have played 100 times before in every other COD game. Frankly, it reminded me of a certain Medal of Honor game where you wake up on a beach and start shootin japs. I guess I could relate it to a toothbrush the dentist gives you. It IS a toothbrush, but it is frankly a piece of plastic shit. Both you and the dentist know you are going to get a cavity if that’s the brush you choose to brush your teeth with.
I also didn’t like the stylized cut scenes / loading screens in between the action. Made it feel like a cartoon I guess.
I gave up soon after firing the game up and playing through some of the marine campaign in the pacific. I was so disappointed (being a huge COD fan) and cursed Treyarch for ruining another COD title.
I wondered around my house, picked my nose, and then decided that I had nothing else to do but boot the game back up. I then began to power through what I had hated in the beginning.
Then something amazing happened. Something that rarely ever happens: the game started to pick up and be pretty fun. I don’t know if my boredom helped, but I soon started enjoying the hell out of this semi-eventful WW2 pacific campaign.
What I think really turned it around for me was the flamethrower that I picked up. Just something so satisfying about frying bonzi soldiers to a crisp.
Then I got to the Russian campaign. Holy god. I don’t think any COD game has pulled off a Russian campaign quite like WaW. Though they copied Enemy at the Gates for the tenth time, it was still amazing.
This COD has everything COD2 should have had. Tanks you can drive, walls you can shoot through, a variety of weapons, a great story line, firing gun turrets from planes and sprint. Basically what United Offensive did for Call of Duty 1.
I first told everyone to not buy this game, but I have changed my mind. Buy this game if you want an amazing Russian campaign, 4 player COD Co-op, and Nazi zombie annihilation. Other than that, it’s COD2. Play the demo or get a copy from a friend if you are apathetic. That is just as good.
Good: Great user interface, beautiful design, character creation, character classes, towns and outposts.
Bad: Too much grinding, RvR was limited, scenario queue wait times, similar to WoW in almost every aspect, $15/mo fee.
Score: 4.0 / 5
Final Thoughts:
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning has been hyped constantly as the MMORPG of the next generation. The game, already beating records in its class for the amount of subscribers over a short period of time, has caught the attention of average gamers all over the world. Given the reviews for its amazing gameplay, easy user interface, and most of all: its unbelievable PvP, made me hesitant to purchase the full game upon release. Not to mention the pathetic $15/mo fee, which seems to be a rather stupid trend amongst RPG publishers. However, I took the risk and over a month and a half of playing, I’m able to make a decision as of whether or not it becomes my primary MMO.
To start off, there are 6 classes split in two under the factions of Order and Destruction. There are the familiar dwarves, greenskins, etc. However, the “Chaos” and “Empire” caught my attention just by the fierce aesthetics of the characters themselves. The level cap is 40, so it’s not much of a quest to cap your character.
Now, I managed to play each class over a 6 week period of time getting to understand the overall gameplay.
Let’s start off with the PvE. The Player Vs Environment aspect of the game was much too similar as of what I experienced with World of Warcraft. It was the same grinding your way to level, and the features were almost identical with WoW. However, I liked how many of the more fun aspects of the game were allowed at lower levels which made things a lot more enjoyable to play, such as mounts. The towns and outposts seemed very friendly and interactive to a decent extent with the NPC’s. However, there was too much simplicity making me desperately want to go grind some more in PvP.
The PvP aspect of the game has gotten much attention since it’s based around Realm Vs Realm, which Mythic was able to introduce with the previous MMO, “Dark Age of Camelot”. It’s fun, and I’m able to join a queue at any time for my convenience when I’m questing. They brought some variety with RvR such as “capture the flag” scenarios, or caping different areas. RvR is by far the easiest way to earn XP, however the waiting times can be a pain. I wish Mythic was able to expand PvP, so I’m just not stuck to grinding my way once again, as I have with almost every MMO.
In the end, WAR wasn’t able to live up to its hype in my opinion. Unfortunately, it’s rather almost identical to World of Warcraft, which is definitely not my game of choice in an MMO. WAR was able to please mostly everyone including myself with its great design and gameplay. In the end however, it’s not something I would pay $15 a month for. I suggest saving the money for Fallout3 instead
Something I have been noticing with all game reviews is that there is a problem. Either there is too much information in the review or there is not enough.
Why do we read reviews? Some of us are in the market and want to see if we should spend our hard earned cash on a certain title, while others are wanting to see if a reviewer shared in our views of a game. Either way, game reviews are getting read and sites are making a lot of money off writing them. But I want to break this system down and build it back up. So let’s start with Ars Technica.
Ars Technica is of the “journalistic” breed of writing a review. All of their reviews are multiple pages and written like magazine articles or columns in a newspaper. While they have some talented writers, the problem with this is that it gets very boring very quickly. If I am reading a review of a game that I have been playing I don’t need a synopsis of the story line or the game mechanics.
The idea behind a long winded review I can understand. Some people are reading this review and debating whether or not to buy the game. I mean Ars practically tells you that’s why they are writing reviews that way by ending their articles with a “buy verdict”. But hats off to Ars. They write damn good reviews and fill the long review niche better than any other site I have seen in the past decade.
The next end of the our gaming review spectrum is someone like gamespot. While they try and provide in-depth reviews, they fall short by posting the (paid off) score they gave the game at the top of the review. I go there, I look at the score, and I assume what the entire review has to say based on that. Let’s face it, we are a “need it now” kind of society when it comes to anything and especially games.
I personally don’t like either method. I don’t want to read a giant three page article on a game I am thinking about buying or have already purchased. I also don’t want a paid off biased score like gamespot gives. But what or where is the middle ground? Sadly, I don’t think there is one. You would think smaller independent review sites, like this one, would be able to give an unbiased and “down to earth” review of games. The fact of the matter is that sites like us don’t have the time, people, or money to accomplish such a task. There is also a lack of motivation among all gamers, and myself, to keep providing articles and new ways of reviewing that don’t get noticed or lost in the vastness of the cluttered internet.
So what do we do? I am not sure how to answer this question, but I think I am going to start by changing the site’s format…yet again.
The perfect review system that I so desperately want to find doesn’t exist. In fact, I don’t think it ever could. I, personally, don’t like reviews. Games are a lot like opinions and assholes. Everyone has them and they come in all different shapes, sizes, and colors.
Review sites should be about community. The 'reviewers' don’t need to be holding consumers hands and telling them what to buy. They should be sharing experiences with people and then letting people decide on their own…much like the social responsibility theory (google it or go to college if you don’t know what I am talking about). I apologize for us doing this on LGR Nexus.
Here is what I am going to do, and if you are still reading I am surprised you actually give a shit. I am going to share my gaming experiences with you. I think you all are big enough to do a little research on your own and not wait for some site to tell you whether or not to buy a game. Have an opinion people! And with that said, I am think I am done for now. Good day and thanks for reading.
