It hasn't been better than I expected ( I expected it to be awesome and it is), but the game I've been playing the most lately has been Little Big Planet 2.

My favorite game to come out in the last 6 years or so.
I think the series is more unique than anything else out there released in that time period

yes it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOCF-WP20Uc

I didn't try them to be honest, it's a beat 'em up game for the most part and that just works better with a controller in my experience. Some people really liked Batman Arkham Asylum with KBM though, so I guess you never know. The rest of the port is so good it wouldn't surprise me if KBM support is just fine.

As for the game don't expect something amazing like Batman AA, but it was pretty good.

Yeah, I really liked Arkham with it...also Prince of Persia series and Darksiders and maybe others. It's usually possible to pull it off well if the developer puts the effort in. I generally prefer kb/mouse even for tradtionally console only titles...I'm used to it and it feels stupid sitting at my desk with a controller...I'd love to play with a controller and have my desktop hooked up to a big TV, but that's not possible at the moment.

Yeah, I've got an idea of the general reception...certainly not expecting Arkham...that was damn special. :)

It kind of depends on random things for me... I preferred Assassin's Creed with KBM for some reason for instance. Tomb Raider is better with KBM for me... Prince of Persia Sands of Time I needed a pad for though, mostly because of the camera control issues with the mouse.

Anyway, I still have Shattered Dimensions installed, I can try out the KBM controls for ya if you want.

Sure, that'd be nice. :)

King Arthur - The Roleplaying Wargame.

The reviews said it has a horrible interface and is ridiculously difficult.
Well, it is difficult, but the atmosphere and depth even surpass Empire: TW, at least for me. What a great game.

I've been playing the Rift beta, which is better than expected. It's an MMO, so that doesn't mean a lot, but I'm having some fun with it.

Although the game is, predictably and regrettably, very much like World of Warcraft, it's markedly better than WoW in enough ways to overcome that. The setting, lore and factions are much more credible and interesting than Blizzard's, the writing is more competent and enjoyable, and the presentation as a whole lacks the generally embarrassing tone that makes WoW so irritating to me. A few additional features like the rift events and multiclassing system, while not exactly awe-inspiring, do add some flair and interest to the game. The combat is a little spastic and is of the traditionally horrible screen-full-of-hotkeys variety, but you can't have everything, I suppose.

I don't see myself playing past beta, though. It's a p2p game, and I'm getting pretty tired of those. If I were going in with friends, it might be a different story, but I'm not.

I've been meaning to ask someone about this, and this seems like as good a time as any. I played Fallout 3, thought it was "OK" but definitely thought the "Oblivion with guns" moniker, as casually cynical as it was, perfectly summed it up. Glitchy, ugly NPCs who are completely forgettable, a plot that a half-asleep 10-year-old could come up with, in some god-forsaken middle-ground between FPS and RPG that ends up being a shitty FPS and a shitty RPG. The whole game quickly crumbled into sleepwalking around repetitive, dull areas and jumping through hoops for ugly fleshbeasts that are meant to represent people (and I'm not talking about the ghouls or mutants).

It was vaguely enjoyable in the way that most sandbox games tend to be - for a while. But after about 13 hours I just felt like I'd had enough Fallout 3 for a lifetime. So along comes New Vegas! Apparently it remedies the shortcomings of F3 - apart from the god-awful engine that they can't really do anything about. But honestly, so far, apart from the different coloured HUD and the fact that things tend to be orange rather than grey/green, I wouldn't be able to tell I wasn't playing Fallout 3. About 15 hours in, incidentally.

I don't think all the people, yourself being one of them, that say NV is a big improvement over F3 are just talking out of their asses or are under some sort of illusion, but I really can't see any improvement in any aspect. I still can't remember a single character or place name. It's all totally vapid to me, just like F3. I'm earnestly asking someone to explain this to me because I do want to enjoy NV somehow. I mean, some examples or characters or subplots that are this much-vaunted "good writing" would be welcome - it may just be that I've got to get to a certain point where it all picks up.

Planet Alcatraz - I suspected bad Fallout clone (Metalheart or shadow Vault) but I've got scifi flavoured Fallout with russians.

Even on easy that game is hard, Im still trying to decide whether I like it or not.

Yeah, I'm also struggling with the difficulty, but the whole atomsphere is just amazing. I love the whole King Arthur - mystical britain lore. Makes me comfy. :)

It's more of an RPG, basically.

1) Better writing... some of the dialogue and characters in New Vegas stands with the best in the medium.

2) Factions you can annoy or please, mutually exclusive toward the end, causes real choice and consequence when doing missions.

3) More limited perks and stat improvements mean a more defined character.

4) A more "real" place, rather than a theme park. You feel like you are in an area where many factions are on the brink of war and you can decide the outcome. In Fallout 3 you were gonna fight the Enclave and side with the Brotherhood in every way that mattered because the game forced you to.

5) Hardcore mode offers even more RPG feel.

There are other reasons, but those are the core ones for me. I started RPGing with the original Fallout and other mid-to-late 90's RPGs that emphasized freedom, choice and consequence. New Vegas lives up to that tradition in a way Fallout 3 never even tried and that pleases me. If you don't notice the difference though perhaps you're just not into the same RPG elements I am.

Well so far it may be because I've spent a lot of time just doing sidequests. I've met Caesar's Legion once and met the NCR in that city south of the starting village and at that outpost with the large statues. There hasn't really been any sort of faction vs faction decisions apart from when you could choose whether to help the NCR become the law enforcers in that city or make the robot the sheriff.

With the quests I've done and the conversations I've had so far, I'm still getting the feeling, the very Fallout 3 feeling, that your choices only affect the one NPC that gave you the choice, or at best, the one small, forgettable town that you'll never go to again. Also, they're never that dramatic or interesting, like in Torment. They're just "I want some water" or "I want you to kill scorpions". I'm still not getting the feeling that "this is a person" rather than "this is a (comically bad) polygon model that gives me a task to do".

That said - and maybe I should have said this earlier - but I haven't even got into the strip yet. I've probably done every sidequest along the way, but still not in there yet. Maybe that's when it gets better. Thanks for at explaining your feelings on it, though. It gives me something to think about when playing it next.

Enslaved: Odyssey to the West was way better than I'd ever hoped. Caveat: the story is only 8 hours or so, but you can often find it on sale for under 30 dollars, given its quality that's more than fair, imo.

Castlevania Lords of Shadow was also really good, if you don't like the idea of a God of War type game that is actually hard, skip it, if you do, you'll squee like a twelve year old girl buying her first makeup.