COD has the exact same design problems with its mission design as RDR2 does. Although I'd argue RDR2 is worse.
Man what I would do for a Killzone 2 remaster with no input lag...
And on my end I didn't run into failstates since I did what the game wanted and enjoyed it that way, maybe you and I just play games differently. If you think that there is a way to make mission more interesting then I would love to hear your suggestions, if they are too rigid give some examples of how they should make it better in the next game, would also be great if you could point out a mission that was frustrating to you.
Even if the majority of the game is about shootouts it's always a unique fight that can go in some unexpected ways, this and this are both what you describe but they are not as boring as you make them out to be, no two missions are alike.
Exactly this. I loved the story, and kept it for a couple months before trading in - after eventually deciding that I couldn't bring myself to go back to it. It was truly brilliant, but as a contained experience in my eyes.
They are doing it to hide spoilers.
Why? They can just say it this way. Just putting a spoiler will hint there is a twist coming.
Because now looks like the journalist didn't paid attention.Not if you spoiler tag the entire paragraph,and come on,a 60h campaign and not expecting a twist?And for who played the first game this was clearly and expect since the reveal.The most predicted twist and ending of all time for me,but well executed.
Thank you.
A huge black box in an article? It would look stupid for anybody reading the article. They wanted to showcase a point instead of hiding it behind a black box.
Yes, no reviewer whatsoever thinked it's a good game. This game breaks this forum man.
Besides technical aspects, what are these objective measures of quality?
I don't think was the best,they could have said "one mission in the game you are building a house",it is not uncommon to a journalist make mistakes like that.
True they could have done so but even then they wanted to emphasize on the character building it through the mini game. If they just say the main character or a character while you are pressing X it would start to be suspicious.
It's funny you say that as I agree that both of those games absolutely match those descriptions. They were clearly designed to achieve that, and acting they weren't is a discredit to the devs. Whether you like it or not is a different story.
What are these "certain components" that can be objectively better? Of course, more pixels on a screen is "more pixels" but even that isn't objectively -better- in any meaningful sense.
The people who think it's terrible are talking about the gameplay and typically favours gameplay and engagement over cinematics and story. People who love the game don't mind the obtuse gameplay. If you notice, the people who love the game aren't praising its defining gameplay systems and sublime buttons and control mechanics. Because, honestly, they are shit. And frankly I expect better from a company with millions on the project.
And even if you put a spoiler tag, you tell your readers there is a twist or something big at that moment. Kinda of spoiling it without spoiling it.
Yup and the only thing that really matter to me in games is how they play. If I think they play like shit, then it's a bad game to me regardless of what others think.
Who would've known 30% of the posts discussing the article would completely ignore the point, not only of the article, but even of that specific part about the house - and focus on a typo/whatever instead.
