Some people will argue that the major shining gems of the last console generation were MGS3, Shadow of the Colossus, Knights of the Old Republic and Beyond Good and Evil.  However, to me, there was a single game that, at the time, seemed to get completely overlooked: Indigo Prophecy.

Acting more as an “interactive movie” than a game, it was a great thriller.  It told the tale of Lucas Kane -- who killed a man while possessed by a Mayan searching for what amounted to the savior of all mankind -- as he searches for answers. Think about how insane that concept is, and then realize that people didn’t think that part was as insane as much as the introduction of computers trying to take over the world, Skynet-style, and the fact that the protagonist died and was brought back to life by the same machines.

Much of the game’s action takes place in the form of quick-time events.  By “much,” I basically mean that almost everything you did was controlled by a QTE. Want to go to the bathroom? Want to eat a Chili-dog?  Want to drop kick angels that are attacking you in a church?  All of it was done with quick-time events.

So when Quantic Dream, the developers of Indigo Prophecy, announced Heavy Rain, naturally I was excited.  The first “Casting” trailer showed off a great level of polish, even for the game being extremely early in production.  Eventually, we learned that Quantic Dream was shaping the game around player choices and that the story would change depending on whether or not they failed.

Now that the game has launched, can it be anywhere nearly as good as the hype surrounding it?

Hold L1, circle and X, then release them to hit the jump for the full review.

This may come as a shock to some reading this, but in my opinion, originality is a bit overrated in games.  I use this in regard to gameplay itself.  It’s always nice to see new series emerge.  However, gameplay can be completely derivative and it can still be a good game.  In many ways, games that refine tried and true gameplay techniques are the ones that stand out of the crowd.

Enter Darksiders from THQ and Vigil Games.  It’s hard to deny that nearly all of the gameplay elements come from other, better known games in the action genre.  Even in my brief time playing the game at PAX, it seemed to be a simple God of War clone.

Now the game has been unleashed upon the world.  Can it stand up to its predecessors?

It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine after the jump.

The original Assassin’s Creed was a game that sharply divided gamers.  There was one group who found that the game was needlessly repetitive and, for all intents and purposes, unplayable for that reason.  There were only a few different types of side missions and you were required to complete a certain number of them before you could advance.  It kept the game moving at a snail’s pace.  For some, the automatic nature of the movement in the game also kept things repetitive.

However, there was another group who was able to look past that and found a fairly fun title.  The free-running system kept you constantly moving and climbing buildings and the game was gorgeous.  The story was compelling and interesting, even if the protagonist, Altair, was a bit simplistic and not well developed.  Plus, there was just something incredibly fun about running up on an enemy, jumping on them and shoving your hidden blade into their skull.

While I fell into the category of the latter, I could easily understand why people may not have liked the original game.  From the second I started the game, I had a gut feeling that something was vastly different with this game, but the question remained: was this for the better or for the worse?

Free run to the jump, then shank two guards in the back of the head for the full review.

As of this writing, there’s a pretty good chance that most of you have picked up Modern Warfare 2.  With the biggest day-one launch of all time, you’ve probably already made up your mind on this game.  Heck, I’m beginning to wonder exactly why I’m writing it myself.

Obviously, the original game was a nearly perfect mix of multiplayer and single-player goodness.  So naturally, people flocked to it.  In between Modern Warfare and MW2, we’ve also had Call of Duty: World at War, yet Treyarch Studios (the studio behind Call of Duty 3) was not quite able to capture the finesse of the previous title in the Call of Duty series.

I’ll admit I’m not a huge multiplayer fan.  Yet despite this, I still enjoyed the original Modern Warfare for its well-crafted story, and the multiplayer was extremely fun and addicting.  Even for someone as antisocial as myself, I had a huge amount of enjoyment playing online.  Now, two years after its release, Modern Warfare 2 has taken the world by storm.  Does it hold up to its big brother?

Drive a snowmobile over the jump.

There has been a major debate raging within the gaming community as to whether or not games should have a heavy emphasis on storytelling.  It’s rare to see subtly in stories in video games.  While games like Metal Gear Solid 4 have, what some would argue is, too much story, there are plenty of games that lack a certain cohesion to their story.  Simply put, within the world of gaming, hardly anyone seems to be able to develop a story that doesn’t rely heavily on cutscenes.

This was probably the main reason I was incredibly excited to play Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.  Without a doubt, the original Uncharted was one of my favorite experiences in storytelling in games.  It featured great characters, all of whom were well voiced.  However, the gameplay was far from perfect.  It was clear that Naughty Dog had a great concept, but had some problems in execution.

So, with the launch of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, and with some time to reflect on it, the question stands: Has Naughty Dog upgraded its formula from the original, or is it simply a case of “New Skin, Same Game”?

Hit the jump for the details.