Age of Empires III does a lot of things right. It looks wonderful, and the variety in environments all look fantastic - from artic tundra to barren desert. The units and buildings are detailed, and the effects used are even more so detailed. The campaign was interesting, and kept me captivated throughout. The units balance pretty nicely, and the battles look and play great. It offers a lot of interesting things to do on an average map - establish trade posts, open settlements at native camps, and collect treasures from around the map. Every skirmish map is randomly generated, but comes with plenty of factors to determine what sort of battle you would like. Game options are plentiful, and the game is more customizable than most RTS.

The most interesting feature in this game is it's new "card system". You get shipments every time you max out on exp which can be gathered from trade routes, battle experience, treasure gathering, and more. These shipments vary depending on the cards you have selected. And the more cards you unlock, the more cards you get access to. So the more you progress through the game, the more access you have to interesting cards. Some cards give you more settlers, some give you more resources, some give you huge factories, and more. There's tons of cards to choose from, and you can create some really unique strategies with them.

The gameplay is pretty solid, however there is some flaws. Maps have little in the way of bottlenecks, and generally turn into a heavy micro management battle, as enemies could arrive on your doorstep at any moment without warning. It turns into kind of a big "swish swash". I can't really find a better word, but because you generally have to start traveling far to get to resources in mid-round, you have to focus on defending your settlers, defending your trade posts, defending your base, and attacking enemy bases, all at the same time. This sort of huge micro management feast might be a welcome challenge to AOE fans, but for me I really wish at times it'd have taken some of the features from Rise of Nations. Admitted, though, I never was a big Age of Empires fan.

The lack of good online gameplay hurt. Though I haven't patched yet myself, I have heard lots of negative press about the patches that have come out. When it comes down to it, the gameplay is pretty much identical to what I was playing 5 years ago, and it's not really keeping my interest. Even what should be great just doesn't live up to my hopes. But still, it can be fun if you can get used to it's gameplay. It just didn't suit me as much as I would have liked. This game is good, but I think it could have been a lot better.

This game started receiving a lot of positive press from launch. Mainly, I just wrote off the impressions as avid D&D fans. But they kept on coming, so I figured the game must be doing something right. And, let me tell you, it was. It's hard to describe the attraction of Dragonshard. It's almost like an adventure game tied into RTS elementsIt encourage you to explore the world, battle for experience, and collect resources - all which is surprisingly easy and actually interesting to accomplish. You don't need special units for gathering resources or exploring (though some units are better than others) - so you entire army can move around together, grabbing when and want you can. .

Exploring the map is perhaps the most interesting part. Above ground, you mainly find Dragonshards, which are one of the 2 resources you need for units and buildings. They fall every so often, but the interesting thing is that they are collected by your army. There is no "economic" units, though some units get collection bonuses. However, what really shines is the Underworld. Mainly, you search and explore the Underworld for gold, experience, and special items. There is traps, locks, and enemies which all get in your way - but the gameplay differs slightly from above world battle, and it makes the game more interesting. You find gold, the second main resource, on felled enemies, in treasure chests, or just lying around.

However, there is a third resource - experience - which you must seek to gain just as much as Gold and Dragonshards, if not more. You can level up your units with experience, which gives them new powers such as healing abilities, attacks with area damage, heightened defenses and attacks, and more. However, more importantly, for the unit you just upgraded, then gain a single "soldier" for each level up. These soldiers act as the same unit - but each have their own health and damage inflicted on enemies. A large amount of soldiers accompanying the main units, "Captains", can really turn the tide of battle.

What Dragonshard does is have simple RTS elements, combined with some new ideas, that create a refreshing new gameplay experience that does not take as huge micro management tasks as you would in a game like Age of Empires III.

The first Dungeon Siege looked like a great game. It really did. One day I was at a friend's house, and watched him play it for about an hour. Everything looked great - nice effects, sweet loot, and battles that seemed pretty interesting. What I didn't know, is when I went out to buy the game myself, I pretty much was doing the exact same thing I was at my friend's house - watching. Everything in the game felt too automated, and I was never really doing much. I played for about 6 hours before giving in to boredom. The game offered nothing of interest.

That's why I was hesitant about Dungeon Siege II, but I was pleasantly surprised that the gameplay had taken huge steps over the original. Battles were once again more interesting, and a lot of tweaks helped. The easier to control "attack" controls, the lower party numbers, special attacks, and level ups that actually meant something. When it came down to it, it was the Special Attacks that really made things a bit more three dimension, which added a truly devastating attack, but took a lot of time to recharge. You had to know when and how to use the special attacks effectively.

But honestly, the gameplay itself could have been a step up, but the interface, leveling up, and general RPG-ness of Dungeon Siege is what killed it for me. Well, I was also surprised about the improvements made to that. General stats are still automatic - you gain levels in two different categories depending on what you are doing. Such as Strength and Melee, Dexterity and Ranged, Intelligence and either Combat or Nature Magic, all automated depending on what weapons/magic you were using. But it was the new "Skills" you assigned on each level up that kept me interested. I really liked what they did with Skills, and this ties in with Special Powers. Every Power has a different requirement to level up/unlock it, and that was done through skills. You could buff your character (get faster, get stronger, get more critical hits) through skills, but also unlock new powerful "Special Powers" to devastate your enemy with. This gimmick kept me interested in leveling up throughout the game.

Dungeon Siege II, however, is still RPG light. It doesn't offer a lot of customizations, the gameplay is still pretty straight forward, and it comes even repetitive at times. The variety of interesting loot - ranked from normal, Magic, Rare, Unique, and Set (if you get more than 1 piece in a set, you get special improvements) kept interest in collecting these rare treasures throughout the game. Add to that a half decent story, plenty of sub-quests, an interesting "chanting shrine" feature, some great graphics, and a lot of enemies to fight, you've got a pretty solid game, if you don't mind a dose of Action in your RPG.

I have never been a big simulation gamer. Most of the time they're too complex to get my teeth into, and while trying to adapt to the learning curve my interest in the game diminishes to the point where I've never played more than 5 hours of a single simulation game before. When I heard Silent Hunter III was going to be a great game - to both Sim beginners and Sim vets, it got my interest. When the reviews started coming in, and the impressions getting posted, this game really peaked my interest. I've always tried to play simulation games, but failed. But what if this one is different?

It was. This game offers a ton of customization built on it - and it can make the game relatively easy. You still have to play smart, but it has a lot of not-so-realistic features that really make this game more interesting for someone new to simulation, or someone not so new, but not willing to learn the complete ins and outs of the game just to get out of dock. Well, I was happy to be able to control this bad puppy, because for the first time in my life, I could. I was driving a sub. Yes!

Even though the most amazing part to me was how user friendly it was, the game itself was nothing short of brilliant. It had some fantastic graphics, even better sound effects, a solid UI, and it had a very authentic atmosphere. The gameplay itself was also great - you really were hunting down enemy ships, diving as soon as you see an aircraft, watching for enemy signals, running for enemy destroyers, and the like. Everything about the game made you feel you were in a sub - but far more cinematic than most simulations are. There is nothing as fun as your first kill in Silent Hunter III. An explosion of water and fire into the air, the ship slowly falling to two pieces, creaking as the metal ship collapsed on itself, and thud and it hits the depths of the seas. It sounds - and looks - so real, it's almost creepy.

Not only was this game easy to get addicted to - it was a really great game. It's pretty much the Civilization IV of Simulation games. Easy to get addicted to, but hard enough to keep you challenged for years.

I've never played a SWAT game before, though I have plenty of Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon experience, so tactical FPS gaming is no new thing to me. However, "tactical" in the SWAT 4 sense is a lot different than I expected. Your not just taking down enemies with ultra-effective weaponry from 100 meters away. Your up close, in their face, with no huge tactical advantage over them. But that's not what's tactical about SWAT 4, it's the fact that you act as a real SWAT team. You detain suspects, not kill them on sight. There is plenty of civilizations that need to be detained, evidence that needs secured, reports that need to be turned in, to take down enemies as non-lethally as possible, and generally become a member of the SWAT team. You act like Rambo in this bad boy, your going to lose quickly.

What separates SWAT 4 from most other tactical FPS games is that it has attention to detail. The maps are very well designed and extremely detailed. Civilians all act as such - most are scared and worried, on the border of panic; some resist being restrained. You can set breaching charges to open a locked door, or silently choose to lock pick it. There is a variety of maneuvers for opening doors, breaching through rooms, and such. The game is not as reliant on planning prior to the mission, such as Rainbow Six is. Mainly, you make up your decisions on the go, and this decision making is really important to the success of the mission. And that is part to what this game does right.

What makes SWAT 4 really unique is that you must always consider taking down enemies non-lethally. You can yell at enemies to drop their weapons, and sometimes it works. If you can get up close, a nice taser in the back always works. You can flash bang a room before entering, which helps to lower their resolve. You can choose to equip a non-lethal primary weapon if your up to the task. The options are there, and you can score more points if you use non-lethal techniques to secure a deadly situation. And that's really what sets SWAT 4 apart - your not just killing them, you're bringing order to a chaotic situation.

SWAT 4 is great because it makes you act like a SWAT member, and the gameplay is much deeper than your typical shooter, or even your typical "tactical" shooter, for that matter. You play this FPS with a different approach, one that doesn't apply "shoot first, ask questions later".

With all the press surrounding GTA: SA, a lot of people forget that it's a really good game. It offers a lot of gameplay that simply you can't find anywhere else. No game let's you play basketball, play pool (and bet), rob houses, race dirt bikes, ride BMX, explore on an ATV, go sailing, fly a plane, use a rocket pack, play in a casino, eat to get fat, exercise to stay fit, buy new outfits, own property, car jack, fly helicopters, play gang wars, and much, much more. This game simply offers so many different views to the game, that it makes it very interesting. If you get bored with one thing, you move on to the next.

The game's biggest drawback is it's outdated visuals. That being said, they're still pretty good, and a lot better than either Xbox or PS2 version. But the art direction is really fantastic in the game has well - it really does fit into the modern hip-hop scene well, and it's presentation is simply great. I'm not a hip-hop fan at well, but I can really appreciate this game on how well it does the part. But beyond that, the game is simply huge. You've got mountain ranges, 3 major cities, 3 huge airports, deserts, canyons, bays, lakes, malls, hotels, casinos, strip clubs, you name it. There is simply so much to see and do, it's crazy. Just trying to do everything once will take you hours and hours, days and days.

This game is proof that sometimes, more is better. The game doesn't really shine in any area. Gunfights aren't great, neither is driving, or biking, or flying, or any other core gameplay features. It'd be pretty boring if GTA were just a racing game, or a straight up shooting game, and it would be horrible if it were a flying game. But it's not - it has a lot of everything, and that's what makes it work. Not that any particular feature is great, but that it has so many features and they're all good enough.

This game had a great story, and it really kept me interested in the game throughout. Surprisingly enough, though, once the story ended, the open gameplay lost a lot of it's appeal. I just wasn't working towards anything, anymore. It was quite odd, to be honest. However, during the story, which lasts quite a long time, you explore a lot of the game, have a lot of very unique missions, and are very free to choose how to handle certain situations. Add that with some great presentation and voice action, and the storyline had to be one of the best in the past few years.

I played Call of Duty a lot. The campaign, while on rails, was very cinematic and I played through it very quickly, and enjoyed every minute. I even ended up replaying the campaign once, despite it's scripted behavior. Once United Offensive hit, I became hooked on multiplayer. The improvements it make to the multiplayer aspect really kept up the replay value for me. However, the campaign for UO didn't interest me nearly as much as Call of Duty did, for some reason, and never ended up playing it through.

When I heard about Call of Duty 2, I was really excited about playing multiplayer again. Then, when more news started leaking out, I got less and less excited about it. No sprint? No tanks? No epic maps? Mostly map remakes? Ugh. My interest dwindled until nearly nonexistent. Then, on the off chance that I still might like the multiplayer, I went out and picked it up. The multiplayer, simply, was very disappointing. I nearly returned it until I remembered how I enjoyed Call of Duty's campaign. So, I hoped that it was as good as the original.

Wow. I remember enjoying the original campaign, but Call of Duty 2 seemed to improve in every way possible. First off, the graphics and sound are simply fantastic. There is simply no better looking, better sounding, and more cinematic WWII shooter out there now. The presentation of the campaign is brilliant. Everything about it seems spot-on, your teammates shouting for cover, announcing enemy's locations, and more. You move forward slowly, then quickly, then slowly again. Yet the pace never misses a bit, and throughout the campaign you have an urgency to move forward, or to defend your position valiantly. Everything is just right.

One of the best improvements is that it's not so linear. It's "on rails", so to speak, and your constantly moving forward and through the maps. However, there's now a lot more decision making to be done. There is multiple paths throughout, plenty of situations where you can try to snipe, rush a position, or grenade enemies out of their cover. But more than that, for every objective, there's generally more than one way to get there. Some missions, your given multiple objectives, and your on a wide open battlefield, so you can accomplish them in the order and fashion you want. And that's really want makes this game better - you have a lot more decisions to make, all while under constant battle.

Call of Duty 2 simply hits the nail on the head. It has refined it's game to the point of their perfection. Though I had no love for multiplayer, the single player is a truly unique experience that cannot be rivaled. Nothing is as immersive or cinematic as the Call of Duty 2 campaign this year.

This game reminded me what gaming is all about. I can honestly say that this game is the "most fun" out of any of the choices this year. It was exactly the kind of game I enjoy, and I'm really happy with how that game turned out. Originally, this game wasn't even on my radar until about 2 weeks before it came out. I read about what it was offering, and it sounded great. I rarely pick up games on the day they come out, and even when I do I'm generally disappointed. But I decided to grab Mercenaries when it came out, and I've never regretted that decision once.

The game looks good for a console, but what's really amazing is the size. It looks much better than a GTA game, and yet it's just as massive in scale. The graphics really shine, though, when partial effects come into play. Namely, explosions. The air strikes and artillery are stunningly awesome, especially when you start taking out massive structures. What you see can, generally, be bombed and destroyed. I mean, their tag line is exactly the type of game it is: "Playground of Destruction". It's simply that. And nothing, to me, is more exciting than a huge area that's used for playing, with guns, tanks, explosives, air strikes, helicopters, and more.

The game is wicked fun as well, as it borrow's this directly from GTA: SA - everything can be hijacked. Even helicopters if they get low enough to grab on! And this really has to do with it's freeform attitude. You see a vehicle? You can grab it. You see a building? You can blow it up. You see a enemy? You can kill them. "Missions" are incredibly flexible, and you can accomplish them in so many ways, that replayability is a huge factor. Really, it comes down to flexible, non-linear gameplay, a huge assortment of offensive weaponry, the ability to get allies or enemies depending on your faction rating, the vast assortment of areas to visit, but all in a wide-open environment. It really has it all.

This is definitely one of my favorite console games of all time (I got the Xbox version). Few games wow me as much as this one did, much less a console shooter, which I generally do not like with the exception of a few gems like Halo. It combines the best elements of Grand Theft Auto and Battlefield 2, to make a truly awesome single player experience.

I picked up Civilization 3 Complete last year. For some reason, I was never completely impressed. I've never played more than a few TBS games, and rarely I'm ever fond of any (one that I did like was Space Empire IV). Civ 3 just took too long, and lacked interesting gameplay. I never found wars that exciting - and building up an empire just seemed tedious. I played a game and a half before it eventually hit the shelf, boredom just overtook me. Maybe the lack of TBS before playing Civ 3 is what hurt me, but for some reason Civ 3 just bored me.

However, Civilization IV changed that. I can't really put my finger on the differences, however everything seemed refreshed from Civ3. The graphics were smooth and pretty to look at, the interface was easy to handle and yet still robust, the information available wasn't over the top and I was able to understand everything easily. Suddenly, going to war wasn't boring, and building an empire couldn't be more exciting. Things just started to click, and thus began my addiction to Civ IV.

Twelve games later, Civilization IV easily earns my #2 spot, and it's easy to see why it got so many #1 positions on other GOTY lists. The game packs a ton of strategy into a package, yet makes everything a lot easier to manage, and make the game has a whole a lot less tedious. In fact, I haven't felt that Civilization IV was repetitive once yet, and on my second game of Civ 3 I just couldn't force myself to keep playing. Strategy games have to be replayable - it's pretty much part of the description. A non-replayable strategy game is probably a bad strategy game. Civ 4 is more than replayable - it's additively replayable. You just can't stop replaying it - if anything, it's too goddamn replayable. It offers a ton of configurations and setups so you can keep making new experiences, and with the easy-to-use scenario builder, you can already find tons of new scenarios for Civ IV available. And since every Single Player game is randomly generated, you aren't forced to learn the ins and outs of every map.

There is one word you can always expect to see when your describing Civilization IV, and that is "addictive". Because this game's mentality, "just one more turn," is exactly what what happens. The hardest part of this game is simply trying to stop.

I generally don't play online a lot, but when I do like to play a game online, I get really into it. Months before BF2 came out, I was hoping it'd be that game. I loved the premise of Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam, but I didn't find them that enjoyable online. They did have their moments, but they lacked immersion and a wide variety of effective assault options. Battlefield 2 really changed the feel from previous iterations, and the game just had a great atmosphere about it.

Very few online games can make these battles seem really epic, but Battlefield 2 does just that. The maps are large, but yet traveling doesn't take long at all. But it's the strong atmosphere of the game that makes the battles more epic. The roaring of a dive bombing jet sends chills down your spine, or the thunder of artillery when it comes crashing down, or the churning of a helicopter and it comes over the hill, or the sound of a tank when it comes rolling around the corner. The battle seems more realistic than most other online shooters, but yet it plays very much like a game. The learning curve is not that big, it's one of those "easy to learn, difficult to master" bits. The simple fact that you can drive anything from a buggy to a helicopter to a tank to a fighter jet, all with a single person, using generally nothing other than a keyboard and mouse, is great. The controls are solid for all the vehicles, and they're all effective.

What makes Battlefield good, however, is the balance. Everything is very well balanced in the game. Assault kits generally win infantry battles, snipers are effective but not overpowering, medics are constantly keeping their teams on tip top performance. Everyone has a role to keep in the battle, and Battlefield 2 is one of those games that people quickly do fall into their "roles" and become better at it. However, the balance would mean nothing if people don't have a well balanced team. And that's one of the biggest drawbacks of BF2 - it's not that coordinated. However, it's far more coordinated than any similar game, and the tools to help the coordinate are second to none. The squad interface, the commander assets, the VOIP, the team points, and many other tools give you many incentives to use your squad in BF2 and play smart, as a team. And most of the time, especially if you can find a good server, it works.

While Battlefield 2's gameplay is the perfect wide-open environments and varied gameplay I enjoy, there is plenty ugly left on this game. There is still plenty of bugs even after 3 patches, the in-game server browser is horrid, and there is still some balance issues, especially having to do with AA. However, most of the issues I have with the game is technical - such as the server browser. Put simply, it's worthless. There's bug after bug which make it completely unusable - from filtering results not working, to history not refreshing, to the game not doing a global refresh until you restart. This is incredibly irritating for an online game, and it's unforgettable to have left it unaddressed for this long by EA and Dice.

Still, despite my complaints with the game, I keep coming back for more. The better I get, the more fun I have working with new kits, trying vehicles I thought I did bad at, and basically learning more and more to the game as I continue to play. No other game has so many other dimensions, that plays so perfectly online. I could not find a better experience than getting into a good server, with a good squad, and using VOIP with my teammates until the night's end.