@Twignberries
No it really wasn't. Open World means you can traverse the entire game world without any restriction. You couldn't travel from later maps back to where you started.
What Crysis 1 did was give you very large linear levels. It feels very "open" but its not, and Crytek has even said as much.
I'm not hating on Crysis 1, its one of my all time favorites, an honor I don't bestow lightly.
I do agree that commenting on something you haven't experienced isn't right.
However, based on the reaction to it, you could hardly call the ending a resounding success.
No. Gunning down children takes a special kind of f'ed up. (This is just my response to the title and not the article.)
I suspect FOX will actually go after games in this case. They'll do anything to keep this from being about gun control.
Technically Crysis wasn't open-world. It just didn't hold your hand.
Ohh the sub-plots in ME3 were extremely well done. Its the main plot that is a complete mess.
From a creative writing standpoint it was terrible, but there was no excuse for that final cinematic. It was lazy and didn't even make any sense. That it was placed at the end of the trilogy made even less sense than the ending it self.
Good graphics won't make up for a game that won't let me decide what to do.
The thing I hated most about Crysis 2 was the very existence of the binoculars that showed your options. Crysis dropped you on an island(literally), gave you 4 suit powers, and let you figure out what to do. It also didn't have someone constantly screaming in your ear either.
It could be the best looking game ever, I still have zero interest in it at all.
1. Study creative writing.
To be clear, I was saying that when the new, shiny, consoles are release most gamers and journalists(I use that term loosely) will forget all about the PC. And then you have exclusivity wars on AAA titles.
The PC will, of course, always be around no matter what happens.
Misleading title, no surprise there.
They don't mean porn, for those that will comment before reading the article.
So, what you are saying is that FC3 looks terrible? What about the visuals is bad? And please define "90% port". Make your case.
That said, comparing Far Cry 3 to Crysis is stupid since they don't even use the same engine.
My opinion, PC gaming will slide back into a state of "perceived obscurity" when the new consoles are released. At least in regards to multi-plat AAA titles. I also see some of the devs that recently embraced the PC running back to consoles next gen.
However I think PC gaming will end up focusing more on independently developed games and AA titles.
On the PC, publishers aren't really needed, IMO. And with today's tech you can do a lot more ...
Don't entirly agree with Sleeping Dogs. It was kinda disappointing because it was pretty lite on content, but made up for it because the PC version was pretty solid, IMO.
Well, I have no idea what the hell is going on. Couple of questions.
1. GSC still around or not? I know devs left, But I thought the company went under.
2. STALKER 2 has been completely cancelled, yes?
I want STALKER to continue. I dig Russian sci-fi.
I'm disappointed that BioWare can fart out a nonsense ending to ME3 and still get nominated for GOTY.
I really can't see what FC2 did that FC3 didn't. I liked both but you couldn't travel more than 20 feet without having to get into a gun battle (with enemies you couldn't hide from) in FC2. FC3 has the same thing except you can take cover and make areas not hostile.
Storywise, FC3 was pretty bad. But as an open world shooter it was great. Superior to FC2.
The sense I get is the author is upset that the game wasn't made just for him. That...
What you said was "your" interpretation of what you read. That SD didn't meet overly high expectations doesn't mean it flopped.
Most games don't have CoD's sales figures.
Well if you can ignore the abysmal writing of the ending which stands in stark contrast to the beautifully written sub-plots you will like it. If you are the type that picks up on inconsistencies in storytelling then you might take issue.
Just to be clear it was NOT a small number of people that had an issue with the ending. If it had, BioWare wouldn't have released the extended cut. Unless a case can be made that a small group of people can threaten long-term sales.
Or they could have gone with an ME2 style ending where your performance in the final mission determines the ending you get. Get killed right when the door drops, Reapers win and you get a cinematic showing how badly you f'ed up. Make all the right choices and survive and you get to do what you set out to do in the first place, defeat the Reapers.
By the time you get to the end of ME3 there aren't many choices that matter. Mainly it comes down to who is there to help. ...
No.
"Bioware attempted something thought provoking and different and got hounded for it."
They got hounded for piss poor writing. The original ending had no resolution at all. It was a short confusing cinematic in 3 different colors. Hardly something you end a TRILOGY with.
There was also the entirely contrived plot. Introducing the primary antagonist in the final 5 minutes with no foreshadowing at all. Not holding to a proper dramatic arc. Then there&#...