Play online chess game

Chess game

CRYSTAL WARHEAD game

TOP NO:5 game of 2008

Not quite a full fledged sequel but never feeling like a tacked on expansion pack, Crysis Warhead finds the perfect balance for fans of the first installment all the while adding just enough new material to keep new recruits interested.

If you're a fan of the original or if you simply missed Crysis the first time around, Crysis Warhead is a prime example of an excellent, if relatively short, FPS experience.

PROS: Amazing graphics, fast-paced addictive gameplay

CONS: On the short side, story is lacking

FALL OUT 3 game

Fallout 3 isn't just a fitting tribute to that legacy, it's one of the most persistently absorbing role-playing worlds ever created. The first two Fallout titles are classics in their own right but Fallout 3 might just be the best one yet. Heck, it might just be the best console RPG of all time.

It's deep, complex and tremendously addictive. From the amazing character development system to the engaging and satisfying combat, Fallout 3 has everything you could want in an RPG experience. Play this game. Seriously. Do it.

PROS: Deep character development options; huge open world with tons of quests; satisfying combat; dangerously addictive.

CONS: Poor partner path-finding; many characters share the same voice; third-person view is useless; some perks of questionable value.

GEARS OF WAR 2 game

TOP NO:3 game of 2008

Gears of War 2 significantly improves upon the original game in every possible way, addressing several key shortcomings that kept its predecessor from being a bona-fide classic.

Gears of War 2 is a terrific action game that deservedly resides in the upper echelon of console shooters, and is the best shooter to hit the Xbox 360 so far this year. Action gamers, you've found your next obsession.

PROS: Massive battles, superior graphics and sound, smooth controls, and addictive multiplayer game types (especially Horde)

CONS: Loose plot threads, more unanswered questions, some scenarios don't quite pay off

DEAD SPACE game

TOP NO:1 game of 2008

Dead Space is a riveting survival horror game, unflinchingly violent from start to finish. Blindly unpredictable and incredibly intense, Dead Space keeps your heart pumping the entire game.

Dead Space is a showcase piece of dark-side entertainment that rivals the marvelous designs of such games as Gears of War and Resident Evil 4. But be advised that it is definitely not for the queasy or the faint of heart. Still, if you can stomach its horrors, you will be rewarded with one of the best survival horror experiences ever created.

PROS: Great graphics and sound; huge enemy variety; solid controls; awesome weapons.

CONS: No shortcut to increase your health

GRID game

Codemasters' GRID proved itself as the little racing title that could. Armed with amazing graphics, a huge selection of vehicles and three enormous continents to race across (you read that right), GRID took the speedster scene by surprise by cranking up the racing experience to eleven.

Gorgeous, innovative, in-depth, and just plain fun, GRID was an amazing foray into the world of racing and while it didn't share a familiar franchise title like the Midnight Clubs and the Need for Speeds of the world, GRID more than made its mark with simply astonishing gameplay that'll keep your foot on the pedal for hours on end.

PROS: Best-looking racing game on the market; tons of variety with different vehicle classes, events, and venues.

CONS: No vehicle tuning; basic single player structure, plain multiplayer.

All About The_Dark_Hart

You've all heard it and most of you have probably done it, I know I have. I've ranted on about innovation in MMOs, about how frustrated I am about it, you've heard it all before. But while our attention is focused on the MMO genre, are we letting FPS games get away with stagnant repetitive gameplay mechanics?I could rabble on forever about the little detailed parts of FPSs, but I won't. Yet. Let's start big, let's dive right in to the very core of the FPSs gameplay. It's always about killing. Haven't you ever noticed it? No matter how much they attempt to hide it with objectives, mini-games and what-not it's still just about you killing something. Now the only game recently that has challenged this is Portal, and yes it does have a sort of killing with the turrets, but that isn't the very core of the gameplay. The unfortunate truth is that Portal was original, not innovative. Originality is thinking outside the box, Innovating is making the box bigger.I'm going to give game developers a helping hand here, take a look at sports. They've survived for over a hundred years, some of them. And they have nothing to do with killing another player. Rugby for example, while it has the fun of violence it is purely objective based. Get the ball off the enemy team, score a try. That extremely simple gameplay mechanic has created a game in which millions have become avid fans. Why don't games do this? Some sort of ball game? Or something else entirely?The main reason I want objective based gameplay, is that it not only encourages team work, it requires it. If the core mechanic is simply fragging another player, then you'll always get that one guy who just runs off head shotting everyone and screaming "OWNED!!!" in a squeaky pre-puebescant voice. Whereas if you remove the killing mechanic, then that guy who runs off will suddenly find himself with nothing to do
Also I would love to see a FPS that did something original with play times. At the moment there are only two types; the short quick game like Halo or Call of Duty and the longer slightly more tactical game like Battlefield. The problem I have with these is that they end. What if there was an FPS in which the game never ended? It almost a little MMO. A persitant map, around the size of battlefield, with outposts being captured and lost. And with the outposts being captured, then the team would get better armor and weapons. This would then allow people to play for as long as though want, they could jump in for ten minutes just to have some fun, or play for 5 hours and really see the effect of their actions.Also, what happened to ammo types? In most FPSs the only difference between the guns is their range. I'd love to see the return of different types of ammo, it forces the player to think more and to attempt strategy. Or what if developers really cut down on ammo? At the moment most games have an abundance of ammo, meaning that everyone's trigger happy. What if you only gave a sniper 5 bullets? It would force him to take his shots carefully. Or give a rocket launcher one. Or give a rifle only one mag, then the player would have to loot the ammo of his fallen comrades and enemies. All this stuff appeared in Bioshock, but why hasn't anyone implemented this into multiplayer?
Now this last past is a direct stab at one game, and some of you may think I'm totally crazy. The game is Call of Duty 4. I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying it's un-original. The so called revolutionary upgrades system is simply a cheap knock off of Battlefield 2's upgrade system. The only difference is that Call of Duty 4's system is so easy and quick rank means nothing. Level 55 can be acquired by simply playing for about 15 hours. Whereas in Battlefield 2 the upgrades really meant something, it took a long time to get them, giving you a real sense of accomplishment when you earned one.
Basically I want someone to start doing some real innovation in the FPS genre, and i don't necessarily mean blurring the lines between FPS and MMO. I want game developers to start evolving the genre, and in some cases go back and evaluate the very roots of the genre.