Of course there will be mods. Every consumer knows Bethesda is incapable of releasing a complete game, and that mods are required to "finish" the package. Even Bethesda knows this. Without mods, Bethesda games wouldn't be nearly as successful.
Even if most of the mods end up being trampy outfits and awkward sex animations.
Sorry, but Batman and Uncharted aren't even in the running.
Dark Souls, people: Dark Souls.
Or a Dexter's Lab game.
A game based on the HBO series would be all kinds of awful.
I may get it if Steam puts it on sale.
$15 seems pretty steep for a single mission/quest tree.
Yeah, Uncharted is a TPS, too, but it's also a platformer--hence the "action-platformer" moniker. Infamous (and to a greater degree Infamous 2) are also shooters.
And "Western" refers to Western civilization in general, not the United States or North American in particular. Basically, it includes all of the former territories of the Western Roman Empire--so pretty much all of Europe aside from Eastern Europe, Russia and Greece. Plus all of the heavily ...
Stagnation.
If you look at Western developers, virtually all of the big-games are shooters--either first or third person. The only reason the market isn't completely homogenous is A) Eastern developers still exist, and lack the whole 'cult of the gun' thing that makes shooters so overwhelmingly popular in the West and B) the rise of 3rd-person "action-platformers" --the new "climbing" genre into which games like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed ...
By all accounts, this DLC can be completed in 3-4 hours. It's priced at $10. That's roughly $3 per hour of "entertainment."
The full game was $60 for about 30 hours of entertainment--and virtually everyone who bought DA2 at release left thinking themselves ripped off--and that was only $2 per hour of entertainment.
So how the hell can ~anyone~ justify charging $10 for short DLC to a painfully mediocre game?
I think it was the very first Battlefield game (on PC). I know a lot of people don't notice (or don't care) about floaty controls (where there's a delay between the input and action on screen) but they're a big turn-off for me. I like everything crisp and direct.
I also didn't have much fun with the multiplayer--it was too chaotic for team-based combat. But, like I said, that was a while back. Personally, I think that for games like these to work well, the...
That almost makes me want to give the series another shot. Tried some of the earlier games, but felt they were clunky as hell. Tried the demo for that LoTR clone a year or two back, controls felt just as bad.
This is the stupidest thing I've seen all week.
My PS3 is Bricked!
In the cellar, next to the Amontiago.
aND i PERSONALLY HOPE YOU LEARN HOW TO USE THAT SHIFT KEY.
Seriously, though, what if you could control the alternate forms... but just not right away?
Day 1: you fight and kill a wolf. No big deal, you kill a bunch of other stuff. Keep playing. Soon you forget the whole encounter.
Day 14: It's a full moon. You go to sleep, same as normal. Only when you wake up, your somewhere else, surrounded by corpses.
You'd have t...
Making a game without a level designer is like making a game without hiring a beta-tester.
Ooh! I know what Bethesda needs to do next!
Or, rather, there is no "wrong" way to play, because Bethesda's grand philosophy is that every player should be able to do everything and anything, without consequence.
For good or ill.
But that's the thing--how many manuals offer ANYTHING unique these days? It's pretty goddamned rare. Big RPGs that used to generate the best manuals in the past, what are they like now? They've got nothing. Unique art for the cover is hardly adequate justification--particularly when most of the "artsy" games end up with the same half-assed manuals, and end up coming bundled with special "art books."
You can disagree all you like, but answer me ...
Manuals haven't existed for years and years. These days, you're lucky if the manual even contains copy-pasted character/setting info from the first few minutes of the game itself.
These manuals are utterly worthless. Everyone would be much better off if they were replaced with, say, digital copies ala Sony's PS1/PS2 classics and digital PSP titles.
What a completely stupid rating scale.
"0.1 - 1.9 = Avoid
2.5 - 2.9 = Average
3.5 - 3.9 = Good
4.5 - 4.9 = Must Buy
2.0 - 2.4 = Poor
3.0 - 3.4 = Fair
4.0 - 4.4 = Great
5.0 = The Best"
I'd wonder what they were thinking, but it's pretty clear: nothing at all.
Indeed. A great game.
I wouldn't bother commenting if the review actually contained any valid criticisms, but it really doesn't. Just a whole lot of empty nonsense.
Or you could patch it when you feel like it, and simply sign out of the network to play w/out patching.
A Bethesda game that feels like a "virtual world with a living pulse?"
I'll believe it when I see it, though I wouldn't count on it.