all games are not created equal

It's been awhile... But I'm back...

So I've been playing both of these games after returning home from university, and both are no less than fantastic. Both games interpret the strategy gaming genre completely differently, and yet both succeed - although, Rome: Total War gives just that little more complexity that a rapacious RTS/TBS gamer like me needs.

'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes' seems to be one of those games that people can't remember, it got a 'great' review by IGN, but it lacked a good advertising campaign, and seemed to get lost in the bargain bins of my local GAME and Gamestation shops that frequent my humble coastal town. It plays like 'Dynasty Warriors', yet contains initially simple - but eventually complicated - strategies that give you more of an edge over the horde's of enemies you'll fight against. Whereas 'Dynasty Warriors' gives you a power-laden hero with which to plough through enemies, 'Kingdom Under Fire' gives you a more mediocre hero to entertain you in those long battles, rather than being an unstoppable machine, your controllable hero is simply an entertainment, but in the hands of an experienced player hero's can be channeled to take down enemy groups quickly and efficiently.

The game has great graphics for an old xbox game, with occasional pop-in and some bad environmental textures, but all of this doesn't matter when a massive scale battle is underway. the units you can control vary from your main hero's group to archers, infantry, knights, heavy infantry, spearmen, and ballista's to the more special units of the game, such as eagles and bomber wings, fire elementals to thunder rhino's.

I figured, when buying this game, that it would be oh so easy to play. But hell, I was so wrong. The learning curve is pretty steep, and with all the units having multiple abilities etc etc it can get rather complicated on the battlefield. You find yourself having to think really carefully about what troops to unpgrade, what to promote them too, and whether a Mortar unit would really be more useful than Longbowmen. If your really into the game, there's pages and pages of stat-screens showing troop weaknesses etc etc which I'm sure would satisfy any 'Final Fantasy' player, though, I've never been fond of maths or excel spreadsheets myself, and if your anything like me, just leave the stats alone.

Now, I think a good amount of PC players know of Rome: Total War. Remember that odd TV show? 'Time Commanders' 'nuff said. Basically, you have a good amount of Europe and some satellite countries to invade and conquer, to burn to the ground, enslave, or inhabit. You can play as various countries, getting various units and bonuses, and slowly rip apart the other countries ancient style.

I'm not going to go into depth explaining the mechanics of this game, its easy enough to find, but basically its all about the killing and not so much about micro-management. this is no 'Caesar', and you won't find yourself managing every part of every city. the options are more blunt, you choose somethng to construct, and some units to recruit, and you just have to keep your people happy and finances in the green... Sigh, I wish it was that easy...

The game is a challenge, I've played it loads and loads and loads... And it takes forever to finish a campaigns, but its one hell of alot of fun and is incredibly realistic when it comes down to the battles. You have to be quick on your feet because on the harder difficulties the AI becomes increasingly invasive and aggressive on the battlefield.

Both of these games are simply incredible, and some of the few games that I'll be playing long into the future when I'm bored of all this mainstream 360 junk they seem to want to feed me these days. If you like the more complicated RTS/TBS games then Rome: Total War is a damn good bet. Haven't got a good PC? Grab an old Xbox and get 'Kingdom Under Fire: Heroes', sure, its not as complex, but its a good challenge and is the most strategically focused game I've ever encountered on a console.

I've always enjoyed a good team game more than a single killing romp. Left 4 Dead is the saviour of online gaming for the 360. As more and more people get Xbox live, less people seem to talk and work as a team.

In most games, it's not much of a problem, unless you get stuck on the losing team, and no one will listen to your comments. In contrast, if you decide to go for a single player romp in Left 4 Dead, your screwed.

Its taken people awhile to work this out, and, granted, there are still alot of young kiddies grabbing the Xbox controller and trying in vain to run through a level by themselves, but alot of games that you get pulled into have some teamwork in one way or another.

Sure, Halo 3 was a great game, but no one talks on it anymore, and when they do, its insulting geek speak, and it becomes quite boring quite quickly when its like this - there is not much of a communicative community within the games.

On Left 4 Dead, its just far more fun, even though theres only a few levels, the game is just so hilarious, and brings people together over Live. Its a game that will never get old for me, whereas, Halo 3 did fast.

Another random comparison.

Metal Gear Solid was a feast for the eyes when it first came out on Playstation. The graphics were almost jaw dropping for a game on that console. The concept itself was also new, and had a distinct charm about it.

Silent Hill was also new; survival horror games had never really been explored other than by the makers of the Resident Evil games. Silent Hill in contrast was darker, disturbing, and psychologically twisted, contrasting greatly with Resident Evils gore shock and jump tactic. However, Silent Hill had sub-par graphics, and let itself down on minor game play issues.

Metal Gear Solid had smooth animations, the game constantly kept itself fresh by introducing honed down accessory game play mechanics such as new weapons, additional stealth accessories, and multiple, varying, boss battles.

In contrast, Silent Hill kept along its same twisted path; the school would be grey and foggy one minute, and rusted and black for the next half. After that? Jog down to the hospital, where it begins grey and foggy, and works its way into rusty and dark... There isn't a lot of variation in the gameplay.

Nevertheless, in conclusion, its difficult to say which game is better. Sure the graphics in Silent Hill are terrible, but the use of fogging enhances the scary experience. The gameplay is someewhat bad also: The protagonist has trouble aiming and shooting weapons, and the camera locks, jolts, and refuses to move at times. Yet again, the way the camera follows your character from behind a wheelchair, or from a jaunty corner, adds to the sense that your being watched, and enhances the experience. But Metal Gear Solid just beats it for me, theres not alot of trouble with the camera, or the weapons, and I couldnt really put the game down - with Silent Hill, I could do easily - due to either being totally scared, or because I had to trek all the way through the same building for the third time...

Oddworld: Strangers Wrath, is the single best game, I have ever played.

Unlike previous Oddworld games, Strangers wrath takes a dive from the traditional and combines FPS gameplay with adventure. Combining both first person and third person perspective, you take the role of Stranger, a Clint Eastwood style Wild West adventurer, taking down bandits for bounties for some operation.

Sounds like a plotless game, that'll throw you into numerous repetitive boss battles for you to snag more money, and achieve the operation, right?

Hell no. Hell hell hell no. Strangers Wrath pulls no punches; as the plot is uncovered, things start to twist, and suddenly the whole thing is switched on its head. The game becomes the most EPIC game ever, and although I'd love to continue, it will spoil the game for everyone.

I have no criticisms for this game, the plot is suitably paced, the game is suitably long, the use of live ammo (thats right people - live ammo) is well imagined and though out. The random towns scattered around the game world provides light relief, upgrades, and further missions. And the locals themselves? Possibly the most hilarious characters ever documented in a video game.

I compare this game to Half-Life 2, because Half-Life 2 is second on my list, and therefore, I think Strangers Wrath is possibly the BEST BEST game I have, and ever will play.

Oddworld: Strangers Wrath was the next gen game of the Xbox generation, and still is next gen in the modern gaming market.

This was a tough one... And i know a lot of people will disagree with me here!

'Oblivion' is a vast open world fantasy RPG that gives the player plenty of places to explore, items to pick up, as well as a vast array of weapons to hack the enemy to pieces with. Fallout offers the same, albeit in a post-nuclear world that is more realistic and sci-fi than fantasy.

'Fallout 3' is a great game. A really great game. Bethesda have expanded the game engine to bring greater details to the environment, the tunnels, forts, vaults, etc etc all vary in atmosphere and detail. The scope of the game itself is also incredible. However, the main issue is that the main quest is pretty short. Additionally, the main quest is possibly one of only a few quests that are interestingly put together - many of the other quests i found myself embarking on were, although not unimaginative, a little bland.

Quests such as Oasis were bold and striking in comparison to the Fallout environment, and were a pleasure to play, but these quests were few and far between. In Oblivion, it was the same, there were a few quests here and there that really opened up the environment and highlighted the imaginative ability of some members of the Bethesda team. Garridans Tears was eye opening, and The Dark Brotherhood plot line was eye opening and full of twists. Although both games seem to suffer from this, Fallout seems to suffer the worst: There seemed to be more small interesting quests in Oblivion that kept me playing than in Fallout.

Now, i understand that this next arguement is alittle unfair. SHIVERING ISLES! Now Shivering Isles, the expansion to Oblivion is the most honed, imaginative, addictive thing i have played by Bethesda. The added expansions to Oblivion like Shivering Isles opened up the game world; adding to its replayability. Shivering Isles is what i think every Bethesda game should be like. The Bethesda titles are great games, but seemed to get bogged down in the mundane, whereas some of the expansions they release would almost be great enough as stand alone products.

Nevertheless, Fallout 3 lacked enough uests to keep me interested, in Oblivion, a good amount of NPC's had some small quest to do, or something to tell you, whereas, in Fallout alot of the people seem vacant and useless. There is one major quest, and about 8 minor quests, and then a further 30 or so minor minor ones which simply involve you talking to people, finding people, or shooting things. In Oblivion, I felt that the quests were far more extensive..