Recent reviews by [SC-BNB] Big Mitch

It's a very good game at present, but also buggy and incomplete. I think the $40 price point is appropriate, but I wouldn't recommend paying $80 for the Supporter Edition. There is still an infuriating bug where the model for traps' tripwires will not be visible when you peek a door or use the OptiWand to look under it. This in and of itself is bad, but the game also has performance issues on mid-end and older PCs. The AI (for all NPCs) can also be somewhat finicky, though this is a minor issue. These issues aside, Ready or Not is an enjoyable experience, especially with friends. It encourages forethought and precision when approaching uncleared areas, which is a trait often found lacking in many contemporary FPSs. TL;DR: Solid buy, but don't pay double for the Supporter Edition.

Great mechanics/gameplay. Difficult but satisfying bullet time shooter. My only criticism is that the enemies and weapons don't look unique. The weapons are mostly just modern firearms with glowing lights on them or something similar. The enemies also just look like generic goons and aren't quite as interesting as enemies from similar shooters (e.g. Replica soldiers form FEAR). The juggernaut enemy in particular is just a guy in an EOD suit, which is something that MW2 did long ago. The story elements are stylish but feel a bit too much like the scenes from Mirror's Edge. The arm cannon is also very fun to use, but again, is visually far too similar to Samus' arm cannon from the Metroid series. My overall point is that the game is a lot of fun and definitely worth buying, but that it is visually unoriginal (though it does look good).

A great game that builds on the original in fitting ways. The only issue I have with it are the invincible enemies that are added in the later levels. The point of SUPERHOT was always to kill the red people. The dog, samurai, and addict are red people who you can't kill. The pressure these enemies add to levels isn't enjoyable and I can't say they really raise the skill ceiling or anything. The powerups/hacks are interesting, but the repeating random levels can get boring, and make the difficulty vary unpredictably. I would recommend buying it if you enjoyed the first one. Dog bad.

This game sets out to accomplish one thing: provide an experience that emulates the "spies/thieves/other infiltrators versus guards" dynamic seen in many singleplayer games and other media, but in a multiplayer FPS package. It does this almost perfectly. The only issues attributable directly to the game that I have encountered are occasional glitches and a minor issue with the character balance system. The former largely consists of a set of bugs where you can get stuck in or forced through parts of the map either when spawning or in ragdoll mode. This type of bug is rare and I have not experienced it more than once in the same location, so it should not bother you too much. The other issue is that your character can occasionally slip and fall in situations that are very inconvenient or unbelievable (based on how well normal people are able to keep their balance). Aside from these two very minor issues, Intruder is exactly what it sets out to be. I haven't logged that many hours in it yet, but that will soon change. I only bought this a week ago and I'm already 16 hours deep. Just make sure to join the Discord and add some people from public servers. The game's playerbase is very small, so coordinating with other players to populate a server can be helpful.

If you have a good PC, Squad is definitely worth buying. However, optimization and performance issues persist even at lower settings, so don't expect to get much out of it unless you've already invested in a capable PC. This game will stress even relatively modern machines multiple times per match, and significant lag when joining a match is common. Performance issues aside, Squad provides the kind of team-based tactical gameplay one would want to experience in the ArmA franchise, but without the contractual obligation to forfeit your job and move into your parents' basement in order to understand the control scheme. Squad sacrifices the breadth of possibilities offered in ArmA in order to deliver an experience that is easily comprehensible to most players. This means that controls are intuitive for anyone who has played Battlefield or CoD, that movement and stances are simplified down to the essentials, and that vehicles have quasi-realistic damage models but are simple to operate. Squad's logistics system is also highly streamlined, and this is really only a good thing. Supplies are classified as munitions or construction materials, and vehicle operators can decide the relative allocation of both when getting into a logistics vehicle at spawn. Anything beyond that level of detail would be entirely superfluous towards a "realistic Battlefield" game experience. Squad has been sufficiently feature complete for years now. The newer factions (Canada, Discount Iran, and Australia and Discount China in future) add flavor but do not fundamentally alter the balance of the game. One last thing (and a problem unrelated to lag), visibility at longer ranges has been a persistent issue for me. There's a "focus" feature that zooms your view in more when ADSing, but this doesn't fully fix how difficult it can be to see and positively identify players at longer distances or against/inside of complex terrain that would, in real life or a photograph (or in a game without this issue, like ArmA), not create the same issues. Buy if you want a more realistically-themed version version of the "large player count, objective-based modern warfare" genre. When in doubt, just lower your damn settings.

Best FPS ever made, but Valve decided it wasn't worth investing in working anti-cheat systems and has gutted the F2P experience with nothing to show for it (I bought TF2 and have never been affected by this personally). You currently can't talk or use text chat as a F2P, and the game is overrun with cheating bots that destroy the game, with our without chat enabled. I have lost all confidence in Valve's will and ability to do even basic maintenance work. I'm not spending a penny on Steam until this is fixed. Sad to see a major player in the games industry bested by a handful of petty criminals with minimal resources.

Just got done playing a little bit of it, and am glad to be back after many hours on Xbox. As with most games, Halo: Reach is much more fun to play with a mouse and keyboard. Can solidly recommend for the multiplayer experience alone. The player character handling seems like a faithful, but platform-appropriate port to PC. Aiming is a little weird in a way I can't describe, but you'll definitely feel it, especially if you're coming from Source shooters like CS:GO or TF2, both of which are some of my most-played games. Changing sensitivity to match what you're familiar with should minimize this, but the aiming weirdness doesn't fully go away, and subtly reminds you that the game you're playing wasn't designed for PC. I do not mean to make too much of this, though. It's a very solid casual multiplayer experience, and if you have some hours in competitive FPS games, you'll find yourself near the top of the scoreboard within the first few rounds you play. Even the competitive modes feel "casual" in comparison to today's major e-sports shooters, so if you're looking for a "sweaty" game, Halo: Reach isn't for you (Halo 2 and Halo 5 fill this niche much better). The social playlist is the best fit for the core gameplay in my opinion, as it emphasizes the broad weapon/vehicle sandbox the game has, rather than focusing on a more focused and strictly goal-oriented experience, which the core movement and weapons mechanics do not well suit.

If you are coming back from Xbox Halo, as I am, buy Reach. It's well worth getting back into, and the community seems to be pretty mature compared to Xbox Live. If you're a newcomer to the series, it's also a solid buy. The price point is amazing for the quality of game you're getting, even given that it was a 2010 release. Being able to play on PC has made me enjoy Halo: Reach way more than I ever could have on Xbox, and I'm certain most people will see things the same way once they give Reach another try.

Let me start this off by saying I have plenty of experience with grand strategy games, and am pretty good with bad interfaces. I have played almost an hour of this game, and have unsuccessfully spent the hour trying to figure out how to use the interface. Superpower 2's interface? Clunky, but logical. Star Ruler? Pretty much the same. The issue with this interface is that it just doesn't make any sense. There are fewer buttons and areas to manage than the above two, at least on the surface, but the ways in which the buttons are organized make no sense. Things that look clickable aren't, features aren't where you'd think they would be, and there is no pattern for organization. While the game looks feature-rich and has plenty of interesting mechanics, the UI is too confusing to make it worth most people's time. It sure doesn't seem to be worth mine.

A great early access title:
IR is the kind of game you can really get into quickly and put time into without feeling like it's all for nought. The mining system gives you a reward for spending time on stations and ships, the editor allows you to plan your next big project, and the price is non-prohibitive. While many features are missing and the game is always changing, what exists is remarkably well-polished and immersive. I foresee having many more enjoyable hours in this exciting new space sim game. Good luck to the development team!

"The most innovative shooter in years."
10/10 would play again.
Seriously though, it's awesome and reasonably-priced. Pick it up ASAP.