The free-running would be a little redundant if players didn't have an incentive to stay out of reach or run away.
Warner Bros. and DC clearly have a lot of (well-deserved) confidence in Rocksteady to allow them to do this.
They were also leads on Uncharted 2, and of course we all know that game was horrible. :/
Uncharted 3 was a product of rushed development with too much ambition, very evident by how fragmented it felt. It doesn't change that these are talented people who were great assets for Naughty Dog.
I'm really disliking how these Kickstarters end up under publishers and corporate ownership. Isn't the point of crowd-funding to avoid resorting to them in the first place?
So valid criticism is vague, uncited claims and childish name-calling?
I've learned to stop caring about the opinions of others. If I enjoy something, why should I care if they didn't? If I don't, why should I care if other people do? It's entertainment, not politics.
It seems to be just a bad view of angle and lighting, on top of the image quality not being that great (especially the smaller screens). The raw detail is definitely there.
I do want to go back and try DS1. I don't think I was being fair to it when I tried it a year or two ago.
The game is often tough but is far from pegging you down at every turn. As long as you have caution and explore, you will not die often and will find yourself with plenty of resources. I've gone 30 hours with and I've constantly held onto around 12 human effigies with a ring that limits the amount of max health I lose when I die. As a battlemage (Cleric), I've only died a handful of times outside of a few particularly dangerous sections of the game.
I also find th...
Almost everyone is going to say Uncharted 2. It's easily the best-designed game in the series, overall.
UC1 was a bit rough around the edges, with less fluid gameplay, less features, and more annoying and repetitive encounter design than its successors. Part of what made 2 so enjoyable was just the sheer improvement over it.
UC3 felt rushed and poorly stitched together in several places. It was disappointing in a few ways, but it still had most of UC2'...
Double Post -_-
I just want to point out, the lighting is still an obvious improvement over DS1. And it plays an important gameplay role in a few areas with your torches. And the game look fine overall, graphically and maintains a good framerate on my 360 version.
This is insincere and they shouldn't have shown the game the way they did, but since the game is great anyway (I'm 20 hours in) it's not a deal-breaker. It doesn't excuse it, but a good game is a good game at the en...
"It was not original by the simple rule that it was #3."
That's ridiculous. Persona 3 is very, very different from 1 and 2. It follows none of the story threads from either of those games and is massive change in direction on all gameplay fronts from them. P3 could be argued to be an outright reboot of the franchise.
"But I can come up with a bunch of specifics on any game to make them not comparable to anything. If you do that, you will ne...
We need a new 2D Metroid. It has been literally dozen years since Fusion and a decade since Zero Mission.
He calls it a generic, formulaic JRPG. Persona 3 was definitely an innovative title in 2006. How many RPGs had combined social simulation, calendar management, monster collecting and customizing, and turn-based combat and dungeon-crawling before then?
He says that fans are wrong to call the game good and then uses his own personal enjoyment to asess quality. That's fallicious right there. He doesn't support many of his points with any examples (especially where the st...
Once again, I see people care far too much about number scores. They're redundant and too debatable.
The morality system is par for the course, and disliking Delsin based on his character being that of an immature delinquuent is subjective. Considering those are the only two points the reviewer apparently thought were worth mentioning at the end, compared to all the praise to the left? Sounds good to me.
I'm kind of concerned about the "death of the third act" bit in the article. Shouldn't developers and publishers operate under the assumption that their games are worth playing through to the end? It's no excuse not to put effort into the latter parts of the game, or to shorten the game length.
In a healthy creative industry, games should be trying to many different things that are created by many different people, for many different kinds of people. Don't like games with plot? There's plenty of 90's titles, platformers, RPG's, and indie games to keep you occupied. Like games with a narrative backbone? Play Xenogears, Portal, or The Last of Us. It's a variety and there's plenty for everyone.
I'm getting really sick of pretentious quasi-bl...
Fully appretiating a game is a lot more difficult when we already have high expectations set, because we then take the good for granted, as standard, and focus primarily on the bad.
I honestly enjoy games I don't hype far more than those I do because then every feature and surprise feels much more fresh, and thus much more fun to experience.
Of course they don't mean 40 entirely unique endings. I suspect it's something like Origins.