All Big Releases these Months are Failures

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Whoa whoa whoa, you say that Assassin's creed 3 is a failure, even though you haven't played it yet? That's not exactly an informed opinion. Games have a certain feel that you can only get from playing them, and 3 has a very different feel from the other games. Also no innovation? Two words, naval combat.

Also you completely ignored XCOM.

Dishonored was almost exactly the game that was advertised, just with a couple downgrades in features, and that was most likely for balance.

Assassin's Creed 3, despite much naysaying, had a good ending and a good story, but otherwise was so badly put together it's appalling.

Shooters are next to impossible to make good, unless you dont have money, it seems.

But yeah, this year SUCKED for gaming. As mentioned in another thread, this was the year I almost quit the hobby. The only new game this year that didnt disappoint me was Dishonored, and the BEST games I got this year were ancient pickups or remakes.

Danyal:
...

You do make some valid points about the Assassin's Creed series. The moral ambiguity was more or less dealt away with and replaced with a much more clear-cut between the Templars being 'bad' and the Assassin's being 'good'. The focus of the series seemed to change slightly between the first and second instalment, but I don't remember much of the first game myself so I can't say much else about that at the moment. The first Assassin's Creed was thematically more relevant while the later instalments seem to have been more character driven.

In Assassin's Creed II we get to experience a much more personal story through Ezio than we did through Altaļr during the course of the first game. In the first game you felt like you were but a small part of much grander things in the midst of history, whereas in ACII it was largely about a personal vendetta and discovering more about these mysterical organizations.
I do remember finding the constant plotting of consecutive assassinations to be midly tedious in the first game. The idea behind it was still quite brilliant but the execution was lacking. In this ACII did improve upon by providing a more entertaining story and way to present its themes, though sometimes a bit too simplisticly.

The gameplay aspect of the Assassin's Creed games hasn't changed all that much since ACII. With every new game there has been a few minor tweaks here and there but nothing too significant. I don't really have a problem with this as I am of the opinion th
at a heavily story driven series should typically have the same core gameplay throughout.

There are no major innovations in ACIII in terms of gameplay but the game still ever so slightly improves upon the previous instalments. The armor system has been replaced with a set of outfits that only differentiate in aesthetic design and nothing else. And while I did like always buying the new armor pieces in previous games the bulky armor never made sense to me for an assassin to wear. This also means there are no health cubes anymore and they are replaced with your typical health bar that fills over time. However this actually made the game ever so slightly harder and was implemented well enough. Now you can actually die during fights if you for some reason miss a counter a few times or do something else wrong.

Naval missions where a great addition and I enjoyed them greatly. If anything there could have been more of them if the missions where also given a bit more meaning from a story perspective. The quick travel system has been reworked so that you have to find the quick travel points throughout the cities yourself by searching through a quite vast network of underground tunnels. I was especially delighted to see how well the forest areas where designed. The trees often weren't placed in such a way that would seem too artificial, but cities are still a bit too intentional in their design. Controlling the character is also slightly easier than before.

One thing especially I though worth noting was that the speeches after assasinating a major target where often presented in a more critical way towards the Assassins and their ways. The 'rightness' of both the Templars and the Assassins was questioned more frequently during the course of the game than before, though still not always evenly so.

Iunno man, I've bought most big releases this month and I've been pretty taken aback to how entertaining they all were. Dishonored was kinda disappointing, but it was still fucking great.

Just played a bit of Halo 4 and let me tell you folks...it is fucking FUN.

You didn't like Dishonored because you were expecting a Hitman game from it? What?

When was Dishonored ever describe as a Hitman game? It was from the makers of Dark Messiah Of Might and Magic, it has more in common with that game than a Hitman title.

You gotta love the mentality of some people.

>Hasn't played 3 of the games listed.
>Dismisses them as failures.

image

Daystar Clarion:
Yeah, Dishonoured and AC3 are failures ¬_¬

Maybe you should look up that word before you start throwing it around, eh?

Dishonoured is atmospheric as hell. The combat is satisfying and it's fun to figure out different ways of approaching any given situation.

Granted, I haven't played much of AC3, so it may get worse, but what I've played so far has been great. I love the new setting.

This.

And about AC3: It gets better... and then after that, the rest is up for discussion :P

Cyrus Hanley:
>Hasn't played 3 of the games listed.
>Dismisses them as failures.

image

phew.

Sir, I do believe that will win you an internet today.
Congradulations.

I must be one of the few people who thought AC 1 was better than AC 2(and subsequent sequels)

Sure, there were a lot of problems in AC 1, but what made it great were the assassinations... You actually felt like an assassin... Having to find out the information of the target before the actual mission WAS a good concept, if only more than three mini-games were involved...

And Ezio wasn't anything of a character... He was an italian rich-boy who was double-crossed by the pope (or I can't remember after so many games) and then suddenly discovered that he was an assassin by genetics... So he suddenly realised that he had super climbing powers and the ability to wield a sword/daggers/knives/bow/pistol/anything!

Whereas Altair was actually TRAINED for decades to be an assassin... He seemed to have a lot more depth than Ezio as a character... Sure he was about as dumb as a box of hammers, but at least he learnt his mistake(s) by the end...

*sigh*

As for what's actually on topic:

Dishonoured: While a bit iffy at times, I enjoyed playing the game... There was nothing overly wrong with it except really stupid AI and over-powered super powers... (hence why they're called super)

Hitman: I agree with you enough on this I'm not really looking forward to it... Because it took the formula that worked so well and, effectively, butchered it... I'm not sure whether to be excited or afraid of this title.

CoD Blops2: yeah, I agree... Same title as the previous years... nothing has changed... ra ra ra... not that it really effects me because I won't buy it and I could care less about the people who play it...

It's difficult to judge, considering it hasn't been released yet, but Hitman: Absolution - from everything I've seen - looks to be the best game in the series so far. I'm actually somewhat interested in what the story will be, the levels I've seen are both the largest and most detailed I've seen in the series, the AI is vastly improved, the soundtrack is epic, animations and textures look nicer... I'm not seeing any evidence of any of the flaws you claim it has. I could prove to be completely wrong, seeing how I haven't played it yet, but I'm pretty certain it will not only be a fantastic game, but a fantastic HITMAN game.

What about Resident Evil 6? I'm very happy with that.

Also X-Com is meant to be good (and I'll be picking it up when it's a bit cheaper).

My opinion

Assassin's Creed 3 -- I didn't care for the last two entries and it doesn't seem like the game has really changed enough to warrant a purchase. Plus they're still going on and on about that ridiculous conspiracy angle that makes the whole damn thing come off like a bad Dan Brown novel...which are bad to begin with.

If naval battles and running through fields is enough to secure your purchase then...well...

Borderlands 2 -- *yaaaaaaaawwn* I don't get what everyone says is so amazing about these games, I really don't. I played the first during the free weekend on steam and wasn't able to make it twenty minutes. If your premise can't hook me and your introduction can't either then you failed in your goal of securing me as a customer, simple as that.

And no, I haven't played Borderlands 2 and I'm still content with calling it crap.

Guild Wars 2 -- Well, I actually like this one and disagree that there hasn't been any noticeable change or innovation since the first. Good thing too since it's the only MMO I've enjoyed since LOTRO.

Hitman Absolution -- Initially I was going to buy this expecting precisely what I did from the previous entries. Sure, the marketing was awful (PVC-Latex clad nuns) and a measly free "sniper challenge" failed to convince me to preorder, but it's Hitman! After hearing that they're doing away with open levels and going for linearity I'm going to save my dollars.

Halo 4 -- LOL, no

Call of Honor: Blackfighter -- Frankly, I'm insulted that these games are still things. And that they actually have fans! It's EA Sports all over again.

Resident Evil 6 -- Basically a combination of the all the above things I hated, but worse and a more stretched out release schedule. Just add terrible dialogue and melodrama.

Dishonored -- I'm going to rent this eventually, I swear, I just need to get over my crippling certainty that it's going to be a decent game I'll enjoy that will be too short and leave me with a bittersweet aftertaste.

Politeia:
My opinion

Assassin's Creed 3 -- I didn't care for the last two entries and it doesn't seem like the game has really changed enough to warrant a purchase. Plus they're still going on and on about that ridiculous conspiracy angle that makes the whole damn thing come off like a bad Dan Brown novel...which are bad to begin with.

If naval battles and running through fields is enough to secure your purchase then...well...

Eh...you're being a tad bit insulting towards people that enjoy the game there.

Danyal:

1. Dishonored

And then some snippage

Unrealistic expectations does not a bad game make. I knew it wouldn't be some free-roaming quasi-sandbox experience, and I feel the various paths in every pocket of the world were very well fleshed out. Sure, it was short, I'll give you that, but for once (maybe for the only time) do I feel a game being short actually working in it's favor. This is a game that should be replayed. There's just so many different ways to do things.

In summary, you are selling it well short due to your unrealistic expectations. In reality, it's a very strong contender if not a foregone conclusion to many game of the year awards. It may very well be in the top 10 games of the decade.

Mangles69:

I am truly baffled how people can be interested in shit like Football Manager and Farming Simulator...I mean what the actual fuck? Just reading the names of those games out loud I know they're terrible and boring. Who in their right mind would play them over games such as Borderlands 2, Half Life etc, Dishonored, AC3 etc etc.. Mind = Blown.

Well, considering that the Football Manager (nee Championship Manager) series is fantastic, and Borderlands 2 is just okay, I'm pleased to know that more people in Europe bought it than BL2.

erttheking:
Two words, naval combat.

I wish there were more missions with the Aquila. Those were some of the best game scenarios that I can recall for a number of years. MORE NAVEL COMBAT!!!!!!!!!

Monsterfurby:
It's your opinion, and you definitely have the right to have it. Nothing will sway you off it and I don't really see a point in trying. It's your loss, really, for being too cynical for your own good, for not allowing yourself to enjoy something that is partially flawed but may be fun in other ways.

On risk of sounding like a really old person: it's a bit of a problem lately, people barring themselves from enjoying a game simply because they find some nitpick about it that bugs the hell out of them. People get really emotional about these games too, and allow no opinion other than their own (be it positive or negative).

There used to be a time, way before the internet was in as widespread use as it is today, when developers could hand you lemons and players would make lemonade. Remember Ultima IX? Yeah, it was horrible - but that didn't keep people from stacking buggy items and making bridges to otherwise unreachable places. Believe it or not: people had FUN with that.

So yeah, more lemonade, less public complaining would be high up on my christmas list. But I suppose that's the Internet for you.

Enjoy your quest for a game you believe you will enjoy.

Seriously, I thought I was the only one who does that.

I love trying to glitch out of levels when I bored of a game. I did it with Metroid Prime a lot, and it felt fun trying to achieve it. Not to say Metroid Prime was a bad game or anything, it was just fun to glitch out of.

I also made my own fun in other games like in Skyrim when I was playing William Tell with the NPC's. That was indeed quite hilarious. I haven't played Dishonored yet, but i'm sure there are plenty of imaginative ways to kill an enemy, or to mess with them.

Games are a blank canvas for imagination, and I wish the more players realized this. Like you said, you can even find fun in technically bad games this way.

If it makes you feel better the new Need for Speed Most Wanted ruined my childhood memories of the original Most Wanted in 20mins of playing it.

@OP

I am not entirely sure on what you attempting to gain with this thread. It seems you are discounting games based on either reviews of others (which should be taken with a grain of salt) and or pre-determined dislike of the series.

Dishonored is what it said it would be, a steam/cyber punk assassination style game with choice on how you progress through the story. Hitman is a game about Assassination, which means each step is as important as the last.

The lack of interest in (what I assume) is Halo 4, Borderlands 2, Black Ops 2 and Medal of Honor: Warfighter, is your entire "modern black warface fighter shooter" comment. Even though only 1 of those is modern, 1 of them is a Warfighter. Understandable if you aren't into the Modern FPS genre, so a moot point to contest.

So if you are asking are we looking forward to the games coming out based on news/videos/demo's/on hands game play....?

My answer is yes, I am looking forward to all the games that are currently coming out (as I have AC3, Dishonored and Borderlands 2 already).

Danyal:

Shadowstar38:
I'd say AC3 is far better than 1 and maybe 2 in every way.

Better than 1 is not hard. 2 is already better than 1. The fact that it's maybe better than 2 is what bothers me. It's the fifth main game in the series, not counting all the 'portable games'.

I'll go out of my way here and say I hated AC1 but I adore Ac2 for all the improvements it made, the AC2 follow-ups are decent enough games if a bit short lived and have too much faffing about.

AC3. Now, I dunno about you, but I play AC to assassinate people in fancy and sneaky ways. Ac3 I'm a good 9 hours in and I've completed one mission that felt like an assassination, and all that was was an american revolution variant of "don't let the hostages get shot!". The faffing about is now on an extreme scale and while that's great for some I feel that AC is continually drawing farther and farther from what made it both unique and special, the combat is better in 3, that's true, but it's also less methodical and far easier to just rip 20 guards apart in a few seconds than it has been previously. Combat is so easy and guards so numerous and so aware that it's often much easier to simply walk up to them, plant a tomahawk in the first face, a bullet in the second, counter the third then mash attack and the stick until everything is dead from the chain kill, than it is to sneak around and be wary of combat in return for that stylish and ultimately satisfying kill.

So much of 3 just feels dull, tired and even like a chore. Or pointless, a fair bit of it feels pointless.

AC3 isn't a bad game. It's very good and there's a lot to do. But it's not a great one like AC2. It certainly isn't as important or memorable as 1 (as much as 1 pissed me off!).

Edit: As for shooters: Warfighter was just so bland and tasteless that I only played the campaign for an hour, multiplayer is pretty fun but ultimately feels unfinished and the menu interface is completely unacceptable. I have an icon telling me I have 5 weapon unlocks, I can't for the life of me FIND those unlocks.

Black Ops 2 seems to be doing a fair few new and interesting things, I recommend actually looking into it a bit and considering a rental. There's a lot of ideas going into single player, a lot of new stuff for zombies and the wildcard thing in multiplayer is interesting and fun to play around with, I'd give it a look here [http://callofduty.4players.de/index.php?page=Custom&pageID=157], it's cool that I can not use the crap I don't want anymore and just pack my assault rifle kitted out with what it needs and otherwise travel light and efficient. I'll be picking it up but that's because I'm rolling in cash and can't get Halo 4 because it's not on PC.

Dishonoured looks okay, might pick it up some time.

Haven't played Hitman yet.

I have yet to play anything on this list you've made up but, I haven't really heard anything bad about any of them save some linearity issues with Dishonoured.
Yeah, that's a problem but Deus Ex 3 was touted as a big open world that the player has complete control of in terms of choices and how one handles missions but it was extremely linear and offered very little in the way of choice.

Yet many named that their Game of the Year.

Also, you seemed to have missed Borderlands 2 and Sleeping Dogs, both of which are fantastic.

So, no these months are not failures. Maybe disappointments but not failures.
A failure would be something like... Final Fantasy XIII

Cyrus Hanley:
>Hasn't played 3 of the games listed.
>Dismisses them as failures.

image

Not to mention the fact that the encompassing "shooter" complaining includes a few games that aren't even out yet, yet alone played by the OP.

Metalhandkerchief:

Danyal:

1. Dishonored

And then some snippage

Unrealistic expectations does not a bad game make. I knew it wouldn't be some free-roaming quasi-sandbox experience, and I feel the various paths in every pocket of the world were very well fleshed out. Sure, it was short, I'll give you that, but for once (maybe for the only time) do I feel a game being short actually working in it's favor. This is a game that should be replayed. There's just so many different ways to do things.

In summary, you are selling it well short due to your unrealistic expectations. In reality, it's a very strong contender if not a foregone conclusion to many game of the year awards. It may very well be in the top 10 games of the decade.

Out of curiosity how long is it in terms of hourage? Is it woefully (4 hours) short or is it average (8-10)?

Mangles69:

Doom-Slayer:

Danyal:
You can spend as much time with it as you like, but the singleplayer is not long.

The 45 hours constitutes all 3 of my playthroughs to get each ending and on the way to go through different playstyles. First playthrough for casual do as I please mode. Second playthrough was for no kill, no detection. 3rd playthrough was the "mostly flesh and steel" achievement, so no buying any powers and no upgrading blink. Granted the game wasnt hugely long, but the replay value made up for it I believe.

I think that's it. I expected Hitman and it was certainly not that.

The game felt more akin to Thief blended with Bioshocks powers.

19?!?! I did not know that, and that makes it more impressive.

Only 19 haha image

As far as Im aware that is their entire dev team haha. I too was a bit dissapointed after I finished the game, but on reflection and after finishing it twice more to see the other endings, and see all the details littered through the game, its just amazing a game like this even exists. In the current climate of unchanging sequels and modern shooters and stapled on multiplayer content, seeing a 19 person team put together a stealth orientated FPS with multiple endings and with the amount of choices and options you had for any given situation, simply incredible.

I really hope they make another game in the Dishonored universe, maybe take us to Tivia or Pandissia. Would be amazing.

Danyal:

I'm sorry, but that's the very definition of failure.

Was it perfect? No. Could it have been better? Absolutely. But I still think it was a success purely because of what it represents in the current market. The way I look at it, is the gaming community better for it to exist than to not? If so, then Id call it a success.

Pandyssia*. It is also

Danyal:
image

Football manager. Farming simulator. Medal of Warface. The Sims 3. WoW. The Sims 3. Need for Speed. Euro Truck Simulator.

Definitely, great games have been released the last couple of weeks/months.

I am truly baffled how people can be interested in shit like Football Manager and Farming Simulator...I mean what the actual fuck? Just reading the names of those games out loud I know they're terrible and boring. Who in their right mind would play them over games such as Borderlands 2, Half Life etc, Dishonored, AC3 etc etc.. Mind = Blown.

On the other hand;

1. Dishonored
2. XCOM: Enemy Unknown
3. World of Warcraft: Fog of Koalaland
4. Guild Wars 2
5. The Sims 3
6. The Sims 3: Some Manner Of Expansion Pack
7. Borderlands 2
8. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
9. Diablo III
10. Command & Conquer: Ultimate Collection

(Mid October sales charts)

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/15/uk-charts-dishonored-2-xcom-7-scunthorpe-united-0/

It's worth pointing out that the image linked earlier is probably retail, boxed copies only which are hardly representative of the behemoth that is PC digital sales.

SkarKrow:

Cyrus Hanley:
>Hasn't played 3 of the games listed.
>Dismisses them as failures.

image

Not to mention the fact that the encompassing "shooter" complaining includes a few games that aren't even out yet, yet alone played by the OP.

Yep. No effort whatsoever to even explain why they have "no innovation whatsoever", just a pathetic ham-handed strawman.

Cyrus Hanley:

SkarKrow:

Cyrus Hanley:
>Hasn't played 3 of the games listed.
>Dismisses them as failures.

image

Not to mention the fact that the encompassing "shooter" complaining includes a few games that aren't even out yet, yet alone played by the OP.

Yep. No effort whatsoever to even explain why they have "no innovation whatsoever", just a pathetic ham-handed strawman.

It's just lazy. Especially since some stuff is kind of innovating, I mean CoD is still CoD but Treyarch have been creative from the looks of, I know I keep dragging it up the past week or so but Blops 2 looks genuinely creative for what it is.

I personally criticise after I've done the game, or a large portion of it.

Hence my criticisms of AC3 elsewhere.

Daystar Clarion:
Granted, I haven't played much of AC3, so it may get worse, but what I've played so far has been great. I love the new setting.

So you enjoy killing your fellow countrymen is that it :P?

OT:Know what you're right all those hours I poured into Dishonored, Borderlands 2, and AC3 where in hindsight terrible and I shouldn't have had that much fun. I'm ashamed of my self. Allow me to repent.

OH LORD PLEASE FORGIVE MY SINS!!!!

Danyal:

2. Moral ambiguity. In ACI, Assassins fought for freedom, while Templars wanted peace and order. That's a difficult dilemma. In ACII, Assassins are the good guys, and Templars are evil people who are corrupt, greedy and violent. They randomly poison others.

Are you saying that the Templars in ACI don't do that stuff? Because...

Danyal:
The doctor who breaks the legs of the patient. Sybrand who stabbed the monk. The fat merchant-dude who poisoned and shot all his guests.

It seems to me they're rather into their violence and random poisonings.

I agree with you that ACI was a better game in many ways than it's sucessors. I liked the setting more, it was more difficult (if still not exactly challenging) and I liked the way that you slowly built up a picture of your target as you tracked them down, and how you could plan your entrance and escape with the information, maps etc you obtained during your investigations.

Despite this, it was repetitive, filled with needless padding (traipsing back and forth through the Kingdom, returning to Masyaf after every mission etc) and frequently a massive pain in the arse. The sequels, while being lesser in some aspects, are simply more fun to play.

Danyal:
There does not seem to be any real form of innovation. It might be a fun game, but it's more ACII. It's not innovative.

Disclaimer: I haven't played it, but I have watched many trailers and videos from the developers. If they did add real new features, they would probably have mentioned it.

Dunno about the rest, but you dropped the ball here.

AC3 has lots of little tweaks that make the game better.
Connor's bow is not broken like the crossbow was. It balances the game MASSIVELY.
Connor's moves in a fight allow for great variation.

New Stuff:
-Enemies with guns that rank up to shoot you down while you're fighting in melee, and you can grab a nearby enemy and use him as a body shield.

-Connor, as a Native American, learned to free-run through trees and climb rock formations that baffle all other assassin's before him.

-Rope Darts that allow you to grab enemies at range and GET OVER HERE!!!/Scorpion
Or when in a tree above them you can spear them with a rope dart and hang them in the tree, all Batman style.

-Connor retains access to Ezio's trip bomb.

-Naval warfare. HOLY SHIT naval warfare is fun! I want a whole multiplayer game based on the AC3 naval warfare, set in Warhammer Fantasy's "Dreadfleet" sub-setting. That would be ridiculously cool.

They certainly didn't reinvent everything. It's still Assassin's Creed, but Connor's unique twists on the classic set of assassin skills and the skills he has that Ezio doesn't, and vice versa, makes him feel very different.

Okay OP, you like to throw the definition of failure around, how about the definition of "game": activity engaged in for diversion or amusement. So a game that can be described as a failure would be a game that did not provide diversion or amusement.

According to you, you enjoyed Dishonored while playing it, but when it suddenly ended you were disappointed (Post 8, as I don't want to quote it and edit that huge post). But you ENJOYED it while playing. While PLAYING the GAME, you ENJOYED it. How can this be called a failue, by your definition? Basically, you wanted more, there's nothing wrong with that. I think everyone here has played a game and was sad or disappointed once it was done as they wanted more. But no one is going to call the game they were playing a failure. Well, except for you, I guess.

Then to just throw games that you have not even played into your list of "failed games" is ludicrous. You are entitled to your opinion, you are welcome to say that you have no interest in these games, and bring up what you have seen or read about them, but to say they "failed" because they do not live up to your expectations (which you can't even be sure about since you have not played them) is just wrong. How do you know if they are fun or not when you have not played them? All you can say is that you expect they are going to be bad and choose not to play them. You cannot justifiably say that they are failures though. All you have been saying is that the games are failing TO MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS. Stop expecting stuff from the games and just have fun!

I do like some of the points you made regarding the Assassin's Creed series. I enjoyed both environments, but the missions of the first game were more more like assassinations than any of the missions in the second game. You had to do (sadly repetitive) mini-missions to get intel to plan your route to get at your target, then get out again. It was always an awesome experience. The second, while improved greatly overall, sacrificed this build-up and planning for assassination missons to make things more personal for the character. At least, that is how it feels to me.

I have not yet started playing as Connor in AC3, but I have really enjoyed what I have experienced of the newest game so far. The map truly is open world more so than the previous games, I am enjoying unlocking the fast-travel points in Underground Boston (much better than just paying to renovate a monument), and so far the story is making sense. They have changed up the control scheme a bit in order to simplify things, and the addition of the L1 aiming is great with the amount of ranged weaponry in the game. I even like the bit of realism invovled in needing to reload your firearms and it taking a good amount of time. So far, I'm considering AC3 to be a very solid game. I am definitely looking forward to the naval sections after hearing other people's comments. Multiplayer has been modified a bit as well, adding modes where you only know if you are near your target by a heartbeat sound, and if the person after you is near by whispers.

Be honest Danyal: are these games failures because they don't involve bestiality?

1. I don't see why a (arguably) "bad ending" would discourage you from creative murder-it certainly doesn't stop me! Surely it would be best to be a machine of death in Dunwall, stabbing, slashing and ratting to your heart's content and then do a second playthrough with a nonlethal focus? Plus the game wasn't short, it lasted me a fair few days.

2. I can't really comment on this one, having only dipped my toes into the series and I've not been keeping upto date with Absolution-would like to play it though.

3. I'll give you the moral shift between Assassins and Templars in this one-the game lore does try to explain that the Templars in 16th century Italy simply went power-mad and the order looks down on that period with shame but I agree with you, the Templars were changed into cartoon villians, much like what happened to the Helghast in Killzone 3. As for the rest of your anti-Assassin argument though.....

-Are you trying to say all the AC1 assassinations were unique and special because of the little stories that happened in each one (the poisoned feast for instance) or because each demanded a different approach? Because each one was done by killing/running past the guards and stabbing the target.

-Of course Conner is going to be great at free-running: it's an Assassins Creed sequel! He's not going to be reduced to a plodding walk for the sake of true innovation. That'd be like making Red Orchestra 3 set in 40K (which I now demand).....

-Colonial Boston and the American frontier are a lot bigger and more vibrant then Venice and Rome, it really is amazing how adding small animals brings a place to life, not to mention bigger and more varied crowds with NPCs doing more things then wearing pantaloons and playing the lute.

4. I can see why people think this and to be brutally honest, it would be hard to prove them wrong. Still, BLOPs 2 is taking a nice fresh futuristic setting for the series and Warfighter looks good, even if for some bizarre reason the online mode pits mostly Western special forces against each other instead of the more rational special forces vs ethnic minority of the day.

5. Red Orchestra 2 is epic but I like how you complain about AC not adding new things when RO2 actually loses most of the vehicles, tanks and huge maps from the first game.....

6. Not fussed about this one UNLESS it's like World in Conflict.

In conclusion, I fundementally disagree with you and am having tons of fun with the brand new big releases I've got!

JEBWrench:

Mangles69:

I am truly baffled how people can be interested in shit like Football Manager and Farming Simulator...I mean what the actual fuck? Just reading the names of those games out loud I know they're terrible and boring. Who in their right mind would play them over games such as Borderlands 2, Half Life etc, Dishonored, AC3 etc etc.. Mind = Blown.

Well, considering that the Football Manager (nee Championship Manager) series is fantastic, and Borderlands 2 is just okay, I'm pleased to know that more people in Europe bought it than BL2.

Exactly. The Football Manager (formerly Championship Manager) franchise is the only sports game on the planet with actual birthright, where actual aspects of the game legitimately change from year to year. Mangles has no idea what he's talking about.

SkarKrow:

Metalhandkerchief:

Danyal:

1. Dishonored

And then some snippage

Unrealistic expectations does not a bad game make. I knew it wouldn't be some free-roaming quasi-sandbox experience, and I feel the various paths in every pocket of the world were very well fleshed out. Sure, it was short, I'll give you that, but for once (maybe for the only time) do I feel a game being short actually working in it's favor. This is a game that should be replayed. There's just so many different ways to do things.

In summary, you are selling it well short due to your unrealistic expectations. In reality, it's a very strong contender if not a foregone conclusion to many game of the year awards. It may very well be in the top 10 games of the decade.

Out of curiosity how long is it in terms of hourage? Is it woefully (4 hours) short or is it average (8-10)?

It's like 8-10.

I feel as though Hitman Absolution is not being fairly represented here. First off the only way that the levels are more "linear" are so that it is the story gets pushed forward. But really even then I don't feel the levels are linear. Lets look at the Library from the Run For Your Life play through. In the story you are trying to get past them and get to the exit, the way in which you approach that is up to you. So while that may be considered "linear" I don't feel very disappointed with that. Again the reason that it is broken up into check points is because the graphics in this game (Amazing) are held back by old hardware such as the xbox. Again even the reviewer from that article said that it has the biggest levels to date, but that they are simply split up into checkpoints.

Also you make it sound like they are getting rid of all the "free levels". If you look at the King of China Town gameplay or Streets of Hope gameplay I saw fantastic levels. And the game hasn't even been released.

Even on these "small" levels that are detailed and fun then "large" empty levels.
A New Life is one of my favorite levels, and it's pretty small.

Lastly Contracts mode is one of the best "multiplayer" additions that I've ever seen in a stealth game. Easily is going to add a large amount of time.

Well i Disagree completely with Assassins Creed III - the game is extremely well put together and thought out

and for your 'Generic' shooters, Halo 4 is an awesome game albeit a little on the short side, and Black Ops 2 is gearing up to be fun as all hell.

Wait, did you try to quantify failure of quality through comparison to an inferior game AND through negative interpretation of press?

Yeah, that ain't gonna cause a shitstorm at all.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked