It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Haven't tried the single player yet but the multiplayer is a laughable joke. Sadly yet another sequel that bungles everything the initial instllment got right. Absolutely astounding, how few developers there are anymore that I wholeheartedly trust.
Come 2018, my gaming purchases will be incredibly few and far between.
My only pleasure has been seeing the fallout of EA's loot box screw-up and how other devs/publishing teams are now avoiding using those kinds of systems in their games because of the bad word of mouth attached to the practice. Hopefully this only heats up and we as consumers can keep the temperature up to ward off more anti-consumer ridiculousness. If they game makers want to have a game roll out with full-price AND have the loot box system attached, seeing the shelf price go down at least $10 would go a long way toward being consumer friendly again. But we know most don't care about the consumer if that means less $$$.
CD Projekt Red won my heart with how they handled The Witcher 3 but with rumblings of a micro-transaction system in Cyberpunk I hope they don't go back on their good graces and become like everyone else. How they make games and treat consumers makes them refreshing (that's depressing to say) and I hope that doesn't change.
NaughtyDog would be last on my list, but like Rockstar they're flirting with danger. Uncharted 4 has what is basically a loot box system and though it's probably the most pro-consumer I've seen in a multiplayer game the tactics are still the same and you wonder how much further TLOU2 multiplayer will take it. Their online component for U4 was one of the biggest missed opportunities I've seen and it's a shame they really let it drop off to such a disappointing state, but I guess the market share of competition is expanding and they didn't feel the need to support something anymore in the age of Overwatch, EA and Activision manning the e-sports scene.
Nothing pay to win, no microtransactions, no loot boxes, nothing. It's because they make games for the fans and let the product speak for itself; not making games for the most amount of $$$ as humanly possible.
More people buy GTA for single player too, but that doesn't change the money that these devs get from their micro-transactions that in some cases make up more of their yearly sales than any of their shelf releases.
As for the micro-transactions in Cyberpunk, I just did a search (haven't followed it for the past week) and they seem to be quelling fears about a system like that appearing in the game after one of their representatives made a comment that didn't help in denying a presence of a system of that kind. Happy to hear it and I hope that they keep steering clear of that as I'll support them simply for who they are and how they treat consumers beyond their ability to make great games.
I know that concerns were raised when one of the heads of the dev made comments during an interview about making the game more commercially significant on release which, when made in the aftermath of EA's loot box nonsense, caused some to worry that the game would be from that same model.
@Creasy47, oddly I feel more at ease regarding RDR 2 than I have about GTA Online, simply because Rockstar can't do the same things they did in the former as they have in the latter. One of the biggest issues with GTA Online is the cost of the weapons, cars, apartments and other gameplay elements, much of which were very modern tools like missiles, tanks, weaponized vehicles and more that they grinded the game around for a price. With RDR 2 set in the old west, they can't rely on manipulating people into paying to win to get a jet, or a tank or anything else that is militaristic and powerful as in GTA Online simply because of the time period. The lack of weapons in that day and age, with the most powerful being maybe dynamite for explosives and a sniper rifle for guns means that the gameplay should be far more focused and more fair because there won't be a bunch of over-powered weapons to rely on to kill other players. In GTA Online you can fly around in a jet and just constantly kill people on spawn, but in RDR 2 that kind of thing can't occur.
In that way I can see RDR 2's online being more refreshing, simply because you've just got guns and minor explosives to defend yourself and there will be less room for Rockstar to screw around with micro-transactions. I'm sure there will be a Shark Card variant in the game, like Horse Cards or something stupid like that, but I think the decreased impact of paying to win in the game will help make it more fair and balanced since all there can be are guns, knives, etc to kill people. I can see Rockstar giving you the ability to buy property and things like that, but that doesn't have an effect on player performance. At most I could see them releasing DLC like bulletproof/armored carriages to go on killing sprees but beyond that I think they have little room to manipulate players.
I encountered a glitch that soured my enjoyment of the game. I was forced to restart the game, but I couldn't relax and enjoy it, because I was expecting the glitch to occur again.
Same thing with me and Dead Island. Lost my save around 65% of the way through the game, and it took me weeks to return and start again because I was worried the same thing would happen once again in the same spot.
I finally got around to getting a copy (bought it in the black Friday deals in Argos for £12.99, along with a game called The Raid: WW2. I would have bought The Lost Legacy, but it was out of stock). So far, it has been classic Uncharted. I have reached the graveyard, in the Scottish Abbey. That isn't the last we see of Sully, is it?
I wouldn't rush it, either. I played a couple hours or a chapter or two a day just to savor it, as I knew I wouldn't be able to play a new Uncharted again for a long time, if ever again.
It's very hard to do a story in the AC series I've found, as time is constantly jumping around and that can be both confusing and jarring at times because the characters rarely visibly age. Either way, a timeline that plays out over the course of just one game popping in and out of many years of a character's life can often result in some pacing issues where certain sections of their story are sped through while being juxtaposed by parts that are slower to progress. I've heard specific complaints about that with Origins, not only for what is said to be a strange and confusing start, but also for the pacing of the overall story.
I'll probably play the game sometime in the next year to see what it's all about, and that will give me a lot of time to go back to Black Flag and replay that simply because I've missed it. Because it's my favorite, I'll also have it clearly in my mind whenever I then move on to Origins to see what that same team did on the current consoles.
Incredible game and one of my proudest Platinum Trophies on the PS4. Scarcely have I seen a game handle higher difficulties so expertly without having to resort to cheap tactics. The pants/soiling fear I would have inching my way through a dark hallway simply knowing the Xenomorph was prowling, possibly on the other side of the wall from me, was nightmarish.
As for me recently, been more Overwatch (hit fourth prestige the other night) and attempting to get some Battlefront 2 trophies. Got 33% so far, will be fine with 70% or so. Hoping to return to The Witcher 3 real soon, as well.
My goodness, what an awfully generic and forgettable single player that was. I'd sooner have no single player than one that is THAT dull and artifically lengthened (you're given at least two sections per mission where you're forced to walk at a snail's pace to your next objective, or flying through space idly doing nothing). If you've played one DICE title, you've definitely played them all and this isn't any different. After this and BF1, DICE went from one of my most trusted developers to one I won't be purchasing products from any more. Their glory days are gone, in my opinion.
It's hard to tell who made some of the decisions with the game, DICE or EA. While DICE certainly must be held responsible for how the game plays, which I've heard complaints about, EA are the head honcho and I think most of the criticism lands with them. I've heard conflicting reports about whose idea the loot boxes were, with some blaming DICE, but for me it has EA's stink all over it because it's the same greedy and manipulative system they've put into other games not developed by DICE.
I must say it's been so validating to watch EA's sales and stock value plummet in the wake of this catastrophic release because it shows the power of the consumer when you vote with your wallet and speak up against practices that are slimy and greedily implemented.
Because of the reaction to SWBF2 devs and publishers are put on notice and will be taking higher risks by implementing similar systems in their coming games that could send consumers against them, and I've heard reports of many big name devs and publishers taking meetings recently (like Take Two and Rockstar) to discuss the effect EA's business model has had on their profits and reputation. Hopefully this will lead to more pro consumer models down the line in the industry that don't try to manipulate us or feed us lies about how games are too expensive to make and that's why micro-transactions are needed.
I'm also not one for complaining about games being too hard, but I picked the easiest difficulty (which alludes to it being so easy that you can just enjoy the sights and sounds and not worry about having your ass handed to you), but damn did I have issues with some of the checkpoints simply due to the piss poor spawning of the enemies, their dead-on aim, and the lack of cover.
Not sure what type of changes DICE has undergone at a management/employee level in the last few years, but Battlefield 4 was their last proper game. Everything else has stunk of unoriginality, littered with loot boxes and cheap mechanics to boot.
DICE has fooled me enough, and I'll only give them more of my money if they ever take the Battlefield series back to its proper roots, which, given the state of games today, I don't see happening. Even if they do, there's no telling that it won't be another glitchy mess.
I'm sort of blown away by the fact that there seems to be some bugs and whatnot that stretch across ALL DICE titles. The last three Battlefield titles and these two Star Wars titles have an issue where, if you quit after a match ends, it'll take you to an infinitely loading black screen, forcing you to dashboard and restart the game. Why does it exist in every game? Why has it never been patched? What on Earth are you doing that causes consistency in bugs and glitches? No excuse. Or these end games screens - they'll showcase a set amount of challenges that you gained progress on...but instead of showing particular challenges that I 100% progressed on during the match, it'll showcase challenges that don't REMOTELY pertain to the game mode in question! How has this been bungled since the earlier Battlefield titles? Just...how?
I know most of it is down to what EA has chosen, but there's still some glaring gameplay inclusions and decisions made on DICE's end that astound me (the biggest one is this injection of Heroes - makes sense for this game, but the fact they put near-invincible cavalry soldiers as a playable selection in Battlefield 1 immediately started to kill that whole experience for me, on top of really bad hit detection).
EA deserves any and all negativity and heavy loss of funds. They've only themselves to blame.
EDIT: Whew, end rant! The state of games just has me in such a constant negative mood regarding them anymore, had to ramble and complain for a bit. Pay to win games shouldn't exist outside of app stores for the price of $0.
Damn game still makes me jump!
Seeing how disappointing SW:BF2's campaign was, I had to remind that singleplayer campaigns from EA could actually be good.
As the cop and robbers type of shows / movies fan , I appreciate the effort. It feels like an interactive copshow.