I'm thinking of buying it. I already got an answer, but I really need more than one opinion to be satisfied.

I dunno, I never really found any major problems with it. Maybe I was just lucky, but the one I got was perfectly fine... I played through it without any major problems at all. For those that do have problems with it, there's a fairly decent amount of patches that have come out for it, official and otherwise, that fix everything, so I'm told. As for the incomplete quests and areas... What do you mean? Everywhere I saw was fairly complete, and I don't remember getting any quests I couldn't finish... Maybe that goes hand in hand with my lack of bugs, I don't know.

Maybe I'm unlucky, but I'd heard about it being buggy so the first thing I did was seek out patches, including unofficial. I've done three playthroughs, but I've only beaten it with one, because the other two ran into gamebreaking glitches. Not a good ratio. Incomplete areas are smoothed over, of course; you simply don't have the option to go there, you're not wandering into any half-made sets. The almost-a-place Santa Monica waterfront, the Tikal Jungle, which is mentioned on TV and has an unused music track in the game files. Patches restore some stuff, but there are a lot of unused "junk" files in the game's resources. Many things don't have enough leftovers for a patch to try and rebuild them, and instead only give indications of extra content that was planned but never completed.

I'm not recommending against the game, mind. I'm planning a fourth playthrough soon, and considering the fate of the last two, that's a strong endorsemant. But 3rd-party patches don't have access to hardcoding or the modelers and voice actors and programmers who created content, and are limited in how much they can fix or restore.

Is Red Orchestra Ostfront any good? Worth these 10$? I've not played many shooters, but I like when a game is realistic.

It depends on what you are looking for in a game, if you are looking for something open ended with replayability I think that you should look elsewhere.

TBH it is a very well done game, though. I have not seen the level of detail or atmosphere that they have created in this game anywhere else. If you're able to crank out the graphical details, the game looks absolutely amazing. They have brought together several elements very well such as stealth and the FPS aspect though some of it is a bit off, combat seems to have it's varying issues such as enemies taking waaay too much damage to put them down or stealth kills going very awry and the ammo hoarding can be a [censored] pain but it has come together very nicely.

Bottom line, if you want and awesome FPS that has plenty of variety and an awesome atmosphere, this is the game for you but if you want anything else such as replayability, I'd look elsewhere.

Anyone know if Arx Fatalis is any good? It seems to have an interesting setting, and I'm willing to look past the graphics (At least I can run it )

How long dose one playthrough take ? And my main concern is that its repetative, I mean it just sounds like a tunnel with mutants/soldiers then I just kill them and move on to the next, I hear its not like fallout 3s metro and it dosent feel copy and pasted but I have my doubts as there is not much they can change.
I like the stealth gameply though, is this game petty much bioshock ? Detailed atmosphere, fun gameplay, but little replay value.

It's not entirely tunnels, you go topside too. From what I played (didn't get the chance to play it all the way through) 95% of the tunnels I went through were unique. Be it enemies, objectives, or atmosphere.

I tried it but couldn't get into it. I'll mention a few features:
- 1st person perspective
- limited character customization (3 face choices)
- XP based level up
- limited crafting abilities (mostly food preparation and alchemy)
- spellcasting is done by "drawing" runes with your mouse. Which sounds pretty cool until you try to string together three runes in a hurry.
- dialog is 3rd person cut-scene, no dialog options/trees.
- disastrously free-roam: it is possible to go places you technically really shouldn't go to quite yet (and which require prerequisites)
- items (weapons, armor) deteriorate
- combat can be tedious, but it is typically 1-on-1
- NPCs have schedules (sort of) that are unpredictable/wildly inconvenient (such as trying to sell your stuff but the merchant is AWOL for a week).
- uninspired musical score (that is to say, not really any music)

If you can get it cheap, give it a whirl. Too bad the devs never put out a construction set. Retail versions, last I checked, have been excluded from the most recent patch(es) applied to Steam and GOG versions.

If you can rent it for the Xbox, try doing that to see if you'll like it.

The game has a lot of potential that was not expanded upon. Stealth is not very powerful, and ranged combat is pretty useless. The lore is interesting, but mostly confined to a few in-game books. There aren't too many interesting characters to talk to. I found the gameplay to be repetitive, and the plot is paper-thin. I didn't like how my character acted like a jerk, and I was continually bummed at how superficial many things were. The city of Arx, for instance, is about the size of Pelagiad. It's easy to get lost, to miss plot-critical items (pixel hunting! Aarg!) but continue with a quest (and not realize you've effed up).

However, when you consider this is a contemporary of TESIII, it is interesting to note the similarities and differences in gameplay, and how advanced some aspects of Arx Fatalis are compared with TESIII.

If you don't mind a dungeon romp, paper-thing plots, and linear gameplay, then give the game a try. I know, I'm probably being very harsh on this game, but it simply did not live up to the expectations I had that were based on all the praise I'd read for it.

Is Crysis really a good game behind all the flashy graphics?

Most reviews I can find praise it as amazing,but since they all start out with a paragraph about the incredible graphics I can't help but think the game play may be getting overshadowed by the flashy visuals.

I just want to know if it's an enjoyable FPS,a quick summary of the length/overall enjoyability of the game would be awesome.


Also,assuming a good system that can handle it,does it run well?

If it's one of those games that no matter how good your system is it's a bit laggy(I'm looking at you,Oblivion!) I'd like to know.

I'd buy it just for the awesome mods that they have for the game. I've heard about some really awesome ones

I've never played it myself, but I watched a friend play it. It looked really cool. Great physics, man. Just wayyyy toooooo uncanny.

I'm looking at Galactic Civilisation II, Hearts of Iron 3. Are they any good?

Stonekeep is an...interesting game. There is a lot of fighting, some puzzles; one of the flaws that I saw was that at the beginning it can be really difficult to kill things without throwing an arrow repeatedly at a creature. (Yes, throwing it). Later on there is a certain speed spell which can about break the game because it's as if your bow has been turned into a machine-gun. The only downside is picking all those arrows back up.
The graphics aren't bad, but the voice acting can be. It's not the worst I've heard, though, by any means.

Some people like it, some people hate it.


This game is difficult for a beginner to just jump into; if you decide to play it, I recommend looking up some helpful strategies on character development(there are still some active forums for this game out there). Also, some quests shouldn't precede others...iirc...it has something to do with the guilds. In the time I played it, it was quite entertaining, although I wasn't efficiently building my characters(it began to show after a while). I liked how the system worked to talk to NPCs. The environments were interesting as well.
There are a few bugs in the game, but I didn't notice them so bad while playing. Just try to get the latest patch and everything should be alright.
The only bug I did run into had to do with pooling gold in the tavern. It might have been fixed by now, but it's easy enough to avoid.


Very entertaining game, I really liked it, except that I only got to play it for about 2 hours. A game-breaking bug caused the dwarf not to show up and so I couldn't continue. This was with the latest patch.


One of my favorite games. Probably in the top 3.
Most likely difficult for a beginner, so you should look for helpful tips or ask for advice (I would be willing to answer any questions).
There's two joinable opposing factions, a huge tree city (Trynton), an interesting storyline, and...a lot of fights! The fighting is tactical and turn-based, and you *can avoid* fights unlike in previous Wizardry games. The chameleon spell will make it harder for enemies to notice you. Being in search-for-items mode makes it easier for them to notice you.
You can set up how your party is positioned. Obvious: place the mages in the back rows and fighters in the front, with bards and such in the middle. To cover up the back row of the party, you actually *should* back yourself into a corner so the enemies cannot reach those characters (unless your front lines are killed).
The music is nice, and the environments...well, they're efficient enough. Definitely not as pretty as today's game, but don't need to be. There's humor and darkness. A few easter egg NPC comments (since you can type in words to say). Also, some easter egg retro-dungeons!
Skills go up as you use them, so bards should use any and all excuses to use their music, gadgeteers their gadgets, and etc.
The voice acting is excellent! Especially one of the chaotic male voices who got some really good lines - "Paralyzed...what am I supposed to do? BLINK people to death?!"

The only problem with it is that it's hard to get the game CDs. They're rare, and cost what a new just-released game today ($50-90) would cost.

I thought it was a very solid shooter with a relatively lengthy campaign and plenty of variety. I'd recommend it.

How does inFAMOUS fare?

Alright then.

Looks like I will be DL'ing to tonight.

What are people's thoughts on F.E.A.R. 2?

I'm playing through F.E.A.R. right now for the first time, and I've been thoroughly enjoying it. The sequel's $20 on Steam, and it's tempting me, but I seem to recall the general response to it being "meh." So, thoughts?

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THIS GAME! But one rule~ Leave the agency missions 'til last!

I had fun with it(Xbox version),decent single player(whacky ending,though) and acceptable multiplayer.

I admit I only got about a week out of it,but it was worth the $40 I spent,I'd say $20 sounds fair,probably what it's worth to be honest.


It falls away from the creepyness of F.E.A.R though,it honestly was not scary at all,and I don't think it even tried to be.

Hey, what's the DRM on The Witcher? I might trade for it on Switchgames, and I want to make sure I'm not going to get screwed royally because it is pre-owned/used.

From what i've read, the newest patch (1.5) removes copy protection form game and you no longer need the disc in drive.

Awesome, thanks! Kudos to the developers for doing that, too.

I'm not too sure how long a play through is, I don't play games much since I'm pretty busy ATM but Steam tells me that I've played it for 7 hours and I feel that I'm about half way through.

I haven't found it to be repetitive at all, I think that there is a nice variety between 'missions' that you do and there are a lot of interesting people that you meet that keep the action pretty mixed. Then of course there is the mix of stealth elements and such.

The game is like Bioshock, very detailed environments which aren't repetitive at all, very fun gameplay and well, the replay value is something that I'll let you decide on but I think it's well worth a purchase.

[censored] stupid forum.

As above. Also, what about Grand Theft Auto for the PC? Currently I'm looking at a deal on Steam for all Grand Theft Autos up to SA for ?16.99

I know that they were pretty good for the consoles, but were they ported over well, or not?