KiDisaster Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Finding out R6 Seige is multiplayer only was disappointing. I'm not much of a multiplayer guy but I love the R6 games. But since they wanted to make a multiplayer focused title I'm glad they didn't waste time tacking on a crappy campaign a la COD. Won't be getting it myself though. Frankly I wish more games would adopt that model. Just focus on making the mode people actually care about as polished as possible. Maybe drop the price a little though. Same goes for single player games with crappy, tacked on multiplayer modes that no one is going to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Ah, I don't know. I'm not sure that breaking up a jrpg into more manageable chunks is inherently terrible. What was bad about it in FFIV?To be clear it wasn't FFIV but it's sequel The After Years. Firstly maybe I'm impatient but I just don't like waiting for the next release in episodic games. I only play the telltale games once an entire season is out. But especially with an RPG I find it annoying. If I stop playing an RPG for more than a few days I'll normally never go back to it, or start a new save when I finally do. Secondly there was the pricing. I don't remember the specifics but I do remember that the whole package ended up costing more than it should have (especially considering the 95% of the games maps and sprites were recycled from an SNES game) because I bought it in chunks. It was a fairly short download only 2D game that cost over $50. They never would have gotten away with charging that much for the full product in one shot. Now I think you can get it bundled with FFIV for a reasonable price, but when it first came out you couldn't. And finally they attempted to keep you busy between releases by suggesting you grind the last episode for incredibly rare drops that would eventually get you end game gear. It was like the developers knew it was boring and tedious, but also that you had time to kill before the next episode dropped. I'd be curious to know if anyone who bought the game all at once ever bothered with any of that grinding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted December 7, 2015 Author Share Posted December 7, 2015 Did you play R6: Siege yet? I've heard it's entirely multiplayer and while that's fine for me since I'd only really play multiplayer, it does feel like $60 is ridiculously expensive for a game with so little content. I do want it since R6 was my jam 15 years ago and I love shooters that rely on teamwork/no respawn but feels like it's so much money for so little.I put in some time on it, yeah. Interesting that your concern is a lack of content/multiplayer only because Saturday night I was droning on about how Battlefront was the same way, but Rainbow had about 6 times as much content with maps 1/8th the size. I think it's pretty cool, and as someone pointed out above once you get into a groove with an operator you're fond of it gets really technical. When you start working as a team to defend or plan multiple breaches it just becomes pure enjoyment. There are a couple of different game modes though. There's the 5-on-5 which is standard. There's a single player mode that's basically clearing out a building at speed. And there's a mode for up to 5 (you can play it alone) where you try to complete an objective from the 5-on-5 list but there's a couple dozen AI's running around. Also similar to Battlefront is that you'll start off a generic 'recruit' and have to play to unlock things with in-game currency. But unlike Battlefront it doesn't take fucking forever, I didn't hate playing the game, and there's a lot of payoff for getting what you had your eye on. There's about (off the top of my head) 7 or 8 maps, but since you're switching from defender to attacker and in a different location in each every time it does not get repetitive because there's a lot of incentive to approach each scenario differently if you don't want the enemy to just murder the fuck out of you. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I like the number of maps available for now because the real fun starts once you get familiar with a map so you know how to plan your attack. They're also really detailed. Biggest complaint is shitty Ubisoft servers and that you can't breach through the roof. Corvinus-Totally forgot you in my Rainbow 6 dissertation. I would have loved a Medieval III, but I'm holding out hope for an Empire II or (god willing) a... wait, I think that's about all we can expect. I suppose a 19th-20th century setting isn't out of the picture, but I'm pretty sure they won't do another B.C.E. game so soon after Rome II and after the fall of the Empire up to gunpowder there's not a whole lot of variation from what would basically be a Medieval game. I'm disheartened to hear that their fantasy game isn't out yet. I don't think their studio is large enough that they'd have two titles in development (not really counting DLC) at the same time, so that means the next real game is even further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecan Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Finding out R6 Seige is multiplayer only was disappointing. I'm not much of a multiplayer guy but I love the R6 games. But since they wanted to make a multiplayer focused title I'm glad they didn't waste time tacking on a crappy campaign a la COD. Won't be getting it myself though. Frankly I wish more games would adopt that model. Just focus on making the mode people actually care about as polished as possible. Maybe drop the price a little though. Same goes for single player games with crappy, tacked on multiplayer modes that no one is going to play. I agree with this. Make the game as strong as possible for your target market. For games like CoD, the single-player campaigns may be well done, but when you can fly through a campaign like Ghosts in 6 hours or so, that's obviously not where the developer sees you spending your time. And for players like me that would rather do single-player, a trifling little single player campaign like that isn't going to draw my attention and dollars when there are games like Far Cry 4 and Fallout 4 available. If I ever buy Black Ops 3, it'll probably be 2 years from now when I can get it for $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I would have loved a Medieval III, but I'm holding out hope for an Empire II or (god willing) a... wait, I think that's about all we can expect. I suppose a 19th-20th century setting isn't out of the picture, but I'm pretty sure they won't do another B.C.E. game so soon after Rome II and after the fall of the Empire up to gunpowder there's not a whole lot of variation from what would basically be a Medieval game. I'm disheartened to hear that their fantasy game isn't out yet. I don't think their studio is large enough that they'd have two titles in development (not really counting DLC) at the same time, so that means the next real game is even further away. You mean to tell me you're not to going care much for Warhammer. Come on, Jace, Warhammer is one those franchises built for Total War gaming. I'm actually slightly worried, because the game is set to come in April, but only now we got our first Alpha footage of the campaign. Sure, some developers work faster than others, but remembering Rome II or Empire's release doesn't give me much confidence.Speaking of Empire, it's one that I played very little, not because the game is bad, but I never cared for the method of warfare people utilized in those centuries. But now and then, I read something about the truly massive scales of those conflicts, and think that maybe I should give Empire another try. I haven't even touched Napoleon TW.So yeah, I'm hoping for Medieval III after Warhammer. But I still maintain that CA could do an awesome World War II game if they put their mind to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pecan Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I'm playing Watch Dogs right now. I'm a bit more than halfway through. I'm wondering what people around here think about the game. My take is that it's flawed in some very real ways, but they got enough right to make the game very enjoyable. One thing I hate is when I'm about to start a mission, an alert comes up telling me I'm being invaded, and so then I have to spend the next 3 minutes running around like a madman trying to find the hacker. That's probably my biggest gripe with the game. The campaign missions are just okay. Not great. Combat in TPP is awkward, but luckily that isn't the biggest part of the game. I'm having all sorts of fun with the side missions, especially some of the fixer contracts. That seems like a real strong suit. The graphics are great on PS4 and really support the sense of immersion, so that's another positive. The hacking/augmented reality concept seems to really work. I'd like to see those ideas brought into other games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Jace how does Rainbow have six times the content of Battlefront (I realize you are being slightly facetious)? It's got maybe two or three more maps, but fewer game modes. I would argue the range of blasters and star cards come close to equaling the 20 operators available. To me it seems like both games are incredibly similar in the amount of content available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I'm playing Watch Dogs right now. I'm a bit more than halfway through. I'm wondering what people around here think about the game.I played it, thought it was shit and one of the worst products of the industry hype machine. It felt like I was doing office work, rather than having fun playing a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I found Watch Dogs to be incredibly boring. Gave up on it after about three or four hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Good news.Head developer on Overwatch confirms that post-launch heroes and maps will be added to the game at no extra cost. He also addresses some other common community concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted December 7, 2015 Author Share Posted December 7, 2015 You mean to tell me you're not to going care much for Warhammer. Come on, Jace, Warhammer is one those franchises built for Total War gaming. I'm actually slightly worried, because the game is set to come in April, but only now we got our first Alpha footage of the campaign. Sure, some developers work faster than others, but remembering Rome II or Empire's release doesn't give me much confidence.Speaking of Empire, it's one that I played very little, not because the game is bad, but I never cared for the method of warfare people utilized in those centuries. But now and then, I read something about the truly massive scales of those conflicts, and think that maybe I should give Empire another try. I haven't even touched Napoleon TW.So yeah, I'm hoping for Medieval III after Warhammer. But I still maintain that CA could do an awesome World War II game if they put their mind to it. Zero interest in warhammer. I had a friend who was into that kinda stuff and we swung by the store or whatever that he played at so he could buy a new card, and I witnessed the most horrifyingly stereotypical nerdism I've ever fucking seen. There were these two unsightly creatures squealing about their Ugio cards in the front and in the back there were two disturbingly shaped men and a girl with the most annoying voice I've ever heard in my life screaming at each other about how their toy was totally in range to shoot the other toy. The sad looking man behind the counter told me that they were playing warhammer. Needless to say, I frown at such annoyances. On Empire, though. I like the setting of it a lot. To be honest, Expeditionary Forces are like my favorite thing ever in TW games and strategy games in general. There's just something oddly satisfying about making Prussia a colonial force and stomping a bunch of dead eyed Krauts through Latin America. .The gameplay and diplomacy is incredibly shit though and you can feel every day of the seven years since it released. Prussia is also annoyingly the only faction I seem to be able to enjoy, all the other ones are either too easy or too French. Jace how does Rainbow have six times the content of Battlefront (I realize you are being slightly facetious)? It's got maybe two or three more maps, but fewer game modes. I would argue the range of blasters and star cards come close to equaling the 20 operators available. To me it seems like both games are incredibly similar in the amount of content available. I chose '6' because I called it 'Rainbow' two words earlier. Get it? I could have chosen my words more carefully, it feels like it has a shitload more content than Battlefront. Because nobody wants to play any game mode on Battlefront besides Walker Assault or Supremacy, and no two matches of Rainbow play the same. You can use the same tactics, but the shrunken sizes of teams actually makes the game infinitely variable when compared to Battlefront's 'run towards battle. Shoot until you die. Run back towards battle. Pick up shitty perk that isn't gonna be a hero or orbital strike because those are the only ones that you want' slog. Add in that Rainbow's gameplay is actually... y'know, fun. And you've got a solid game right there. Also, blasters and star cards are bullshit and not even on the same level of diverse gameplay as operators. So I should not have said that it has that much more content, I should have said the content is that much more engaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Zero interest in warhammer. I had a friend who was into that kinda stuff and we swung by the store or whatever that he played at so he could buy a new card, and I witnessed the most horrifyingly stereotypical nerdism I've ever fucking seen. There were these two unsightly creatures squealing about their Ugio cards in the front and in the back there were two disturbingly shaped men and a girl with the most annoying voice I've ever heard in my life screaming at each other about how their toy was totally in range to shoot the other toy. The sad looking man behind the counter told me that they were playing warhammer. Needless to say, I frown at such annoyances. On Empire, though. I like the setting of it a lot. To be honest, Expeditionary Forces are like my favorite thing ever in TW games and strategy games in general. There's just something oddly satisfying about making Prussia a colonial force and stomping a bunch of dead eyed Krauts through Latin America. .The gameplay and diplomacy is incredibly shit though and you can feel every day of the seven years since it released. Prussia is also annoyingly the only faction I seem to be able to enjoy, all the other ones are either too easy or too French. I chose '6' because I called it 'Rainbow' two words earlier. Get it? I could have chosen my words more carefully, it feels like it has a shitload more content than Battlefront. Because nobody wants to play any game mode on Battlefront besides Walker Assault or Supremacy, and no two matches of Rainbow play the same. You can use the same tactics, but the shrunken sizes of teams actually makes the game infinitely variable when compared to Battlefront's 'run towards battle. Shoot until you die. Run back towards battle. Pick up shitty perk that isn't gonna be a hero or orbital strike because those are the only ones that you want' slog. Add in that Rainbow's gameplay is actually... y'know, fun. And you've got a solid game right there. Also, blasters and star cards are bullshit and not even on the same level of diverse gameplay as operators. So I should not have said that it has that much more content, I should have said the content is that much more engaging. Thanks for the clarification Jace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 This is a great idea, just sell the shit you`re no longer necessarily fond of.I'm a hoarder at heart... Won't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 I want to play Bloodborne pretty badly but I just don't think I can justify buying a PS4 for it 2016 might have a bit more content to help justify buying PS4 so it's not just for one game. But indeed if your primary interest is in games that are on PC and you have a decent gaming PC then PS and XB consoles are a hard sell.Yeah, it's still tough to justify a console if you have a well specced PC. At this point you're only a couple months away from Dark Souls 3 anyway. The faster paced combat is a lot of fun though, and the art direction is really neat. I was able to raise most of the money for my PS4 by selling my PS3, 3DS, and associated games.I think if you like the games there is almost no problem at all justifying a Nintendo console. The scope of games you can only play on Nintendo is vast, unlike the mere handful of games you can only play on PS or Xb.Sony appears to be actively putting PC gamers off buying PS4 with it doing deals that puts a game on PC at the same time as PS4. Most notably being Street Fighter 5, in which Sony apparently invested quite a bit, but didn't force it to be PS4 only for a time. Microsoft is being a bit more stingy with some games even though PC is technically their platform. Either Sony is confident that its first party line up will be enough to entice people, or they see PC gamers as a market that is too hard to draw over to consoles, so why bother? If you don't go for full exclusivity on 3rd party games then you pay a bit less but still keep content off your primary competitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I wonder if anyone here has put more hours into Dragon Age Inquisition than me? I've done 4 complete plays through (that's the correct phrasing right?) averaging over 100 hrs per play through (my first couple clocked in a a very high number of hours as I pissed about a lot and did a large proportion of side missions, not to mention the shards ans Astrariums). I plan a fifth (sword and shield warrior which is the last class variant for my Inquisitor) but I will be taking a break for a while. I also haven't yet played Trespasser. I would quite like to play through more race/gender/class variants but I can't see how I could prioritise DA;I over other games to the degree necessary.This is somewhat related to my recent commencement of The Witcher 3. I am warming to it, but I cannot see investing anything like that number of hours into the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alcibiades Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Just watched the Dark Souls 3 trailer from Playstation experience. I try to avoid pre release hype, but gosh does it look rad.ETA: I can't believe I'm a dark souls person now. It looked so weird to me when I first watched a friend trying to run across this castle wall while a dragon breathed fire at him in Demons Souls. I was like "this looks like zero fun." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiDisaster Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Only casuals play games for fun (Kidding)But seriously though I'm really looking forward to Dark Souls 3 myself. I had a similar experience with Dark Souls when it first came out. I rented it for PS3 and it just didn't grab me at all. Then I tried it again for some reason when it came out for PC like a year or so later and I was hooked. I lost track of how many times I played through that game in a row, which was the first time that happened since the first Mass Effect. Dark Souls now owns the number two spot on my favorite games of all time. So glad I gave it another chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon AS Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I wonder if anyone here has put more hours into Dragon Age Inquisition than me? I've done 4 complete plays through (that's the correct phrasing right?) averaging over 100 hrs per play through (my first couple clocked in a a very high number of hours as I pissed about a lot and did a large proportion of side missions, not to mention the shards ans Astrariums). I plan a fifth (sword and shield warrior which is the last class variant for my Inquisitor) but I will be taking a break for a while. I also haven't yet played Trespasser. I would quite like to play through more race/gender/class variants but I can't see how I could prioritise DA;I over other games to the degree necessary.Can't remember how many playthroughs I finished, but I still have 3 characters that I want to reach the end with. Not sure that'll work out, but I did pick up The Descent, the last of the DLC I was missing, and was surprised by how enjoyable that was (kind of a theme with this game's DLCs, I guess). Obviously it's the best looking incarnation of the Deep Roads so far, the supporting characters are good and there's plenty new background information (also a running theme: the ancient elves fucked things up for everyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I'm pretty happy with R6: Siege. It moves a little faster than the old R6 games by necessity, but it still feels much more careful and tactical than most MP shooters. Pretty fun and I'm not finding the unlocks a problem so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 I'm pretty happy with R6: Siege. It moves a little faster than the old R6 games by necessity, but it still feels much more careful and tactical than most MP shooters. Pretty fun and I'm not finding the unlocks a problem so far.I think I'll end up getting it tonight. I need a multiplayer shooter to add to the few games I have and this brings back some nostalgic moments to when I used to have clan wars during the original R6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.