@Macutchi: Yeah, i can see that. Don't think they can afford to rinse, repeat many more times with Far Cry. Would be good to see it changed up like you suggested. I was happy enough with the Far Cry formula one more time though

@alim298: I believe he/she was last seen giving us abuse on our Bayonetta 2 review

@xtreamgamer100: Glad I could be of service! A

This is a tough one.

DayZ is a lot of fun, and if you have friends you can get online with for some team play then you can't go far wrong. On the other hand it is still constantly changing with new features being added, and you are right when you say that it's buggy still and that can be very frustrating at times. If you are going to buy it, buy it now, because it's about to jump in price I've heard.

The great thing about getting Arma 3 is that there are so many mods and maps for it either out now, or in the pipeline. But there is nothing that currently matches DayZ, some people will suggest that Breaking Point does, but I would disagree (plus there is a lot of controversy within the community about much of this mod was borrowed without giving credit - That's a pretty big deal to modders) . You do have Epoch, Battle Royale , and plenty of other addons you can find at Armaholic and if you were a fan of the 2017 mod for DayZmod (I'm working on the 2017 team), that is also in the works for Arma 3 plus a shed load of other great mods.

I don't really have one to suggest over the other, but the basic points are that DayZ will lock you in for the foreseeable future (though modding support will eventually come, don't expect it soon), while Arma 3 will give you the option to modify as you please. It all depends what it is you want.

Hope that helps!

A

Came out on PC and XboxOne a couple of weeks ago. The Ps4 one was delayed until just a few days ago. It was the Ps4 one I played pre release before the patch that delayed the release.

Yeah, Vietnam for me. Or Maybe something Gulf War related. Thought AW was a lot of fun, but getting bored of PMCs and mech suits

I think a lot of it comes down to actually reading the review as opposed to looking at a score. Kevin Van Ord's review of Far Cry 4, for example. I was pretty disappointed when I saw the score, but after reading the review I recognised that the reasons he had for not loving it were not something that would concern me (i dont play a Far Cry game for the Bergmanesque story). It's fine for reviewers to express their reasons for disliking a game. If those reasons dont concern you, it's easy to make a judgement

I read reviews because i want the personal opinion of the person reviewing it. If a reviewer thinks a game is sexist, then that's cool - i may not agree, but i want to hear their reasoning for the claim. For the most part, the reviewer should remove themselves from the review, but when i read a review I read it because I want to hear the opinion of a specific journalist.

Yeah, gonna get both. Love the world of Borderlands so it will be fun being back there. Game of Thrones should be interesting. Any idea on the rating for it? Age-wise

I am really enjoying Far Cry 4. I have sunk a lot of hours in to it and I am not even half way with the campaign missions . I have just been enjoying the stuff you can do around the world.

What makes a brilliant open world game is the depth of feeling the fictional world evokes in me. I really liked Infamous: Second Son, but it didnt quite scratch that itch. The world looked good, but too much of it seemed closed off. It may also have something to do with the fact that you can essentially fly everywhere and don't get a full sense of the atmosphere on the ground.

Opposite to that you have the new DA game. Everything seems alive and open and doesnt seem to care that you are there. People are just going about with their lives and this really pulls you in to the game.

I think an awesome open world game needs to a) make you believe in the fictional world and b) be entertaining.

Good read, chief