Pretty much And frankly, their newest attempt to appeal to a larger market through mobile gaming just reinforces certain perceptions surrounding Nintendo.
I hope so. So far, my Xbox One hasn't even seen a fraction of the use that my PS4 has, so it'll be nice to finally have some games that I can play on it. Personally, I can't wait for Quantum Break, Tomb Raider, and Halo. I doubt we'll see a new Gears of War this year, and after the disaster with the MCC, I doubt we'll see another remastered collection anytime soon.
This isn't a surprise at all, really. I've noticed that the more hyped a game is, the lower score it gets. Having played many of these games myself, I can more or less pick out in reviews how they tend to misrepresent a given title.
According to the article above, The Order took 7 to 8 hours on Easy, not Normal. That's why I made the comparison in the first place. So it's likely to take 9 to 10 on Normal, and probably 11 to 12 on Hard.
And $60 for 10 hours of entertainment is entirely reasonable. You're roughly paying $6 per hour. And that's assuming you only do a single playthrough. A trip to the movies will run you around 10 to 12 dollars just for the ticket, and you're lucky if the...
On Hard, maybe. I finished my first playthrough of The Last of Us in roughly 14 hours on Hard. Normal took me around 11. And Easy took me about 8 hours.
Well, this is amusing. Since when is a game that is 7 to 8 hours on -easy- short? The Last of Us can be completed in a similar amount of time on it's lowest difficulty, yet no one complained about it's length. People are even complaining about the amount of cut scenes, but again, TLOU was chock full of them too.
Depends on who you walk to me. On most online forums nowadays, if a game isn't 20+ hours long or more, it's 'not worth the money' to a lot of people. TLOU falls well short of that with it's campaign, considering most can finish it in around 10 hours or so.
'Complete Experience'
Yes. Because alternate skins and such that do absolutely nothing in terms of gameplay are totally necessary to get the 'full experience'.
'Tried'? Everyone knew what it was. Evovle merely caters to the growing crowd who could care less about a Single-Player campaign.
....What? You do realize when you adjust for inflation, you are paying the same amount of money for a game today that you were 20 years ago? 60$ today is equivalent to 40$ 20 years ago. Meanwhile, games cost more than ever to make.
Polished? Warframe? Yeah, no. I played it on my PS4, but I couldn't stand it. Combat is clunky, the missions and environments are terribly repetitive, even more so than the most 'repetitive' AAA games like Destiny.
Or...We could talk about the glitches. You know, the weird static lines that like to pop up during cut scenes, the horrendous number of pop-ins where textures, characters etc. appear from out of nowhere etc. It's got more problems than Unity did, yet somehow no one mentions it.
One can hope. I really don't care about Fallout all that much. I'm hoping that the next Elder Scrolls game involves the Empire's next war with the dominion. Maybe set it in the Summerset Isles.
I don't dislike Indies per se, but when I purchase a 400$ gaming console I don't do it to play games that could've been made 20 years ago from a technical standpoint. So I've gotten annoyed when Sony has pumped up hype before major gaming events like E3, only to show a bunch of Indies as if that's what we bought a PS4 for.
...Very few? You're joking, right? Skyrim had a lot more problems than that. It had massive frame rate issues, extreme pop in problems, quests that glitched so they couldn't be completed, save issues, and the game even damaged some people's consoles on PS3.
It's neither good nor bad. It's a simple fact. My point is that it makes game scores irrelevant. Personally, I didn't care for TLOU. The gameplay was boring, the narrative was totally uninteresting...
I really couldn't care less about review scores. Unity is a perfect example. It received low scores because of it's technical issues on some platforms, despite the fact that it was easily the best AC game I've played in terms of gameplay and story. People so easily forget that Skyrim, which was GOTY for many people when it came out, had just as many problems as Unity did, if not more.
But that's the thing about review standards. They change. For example,it see...
Yeah, right. And that's why the Wii U is well on it's way to falling into third place.
Meh. I really couldn't care less what he thinks. Nintendo has 'innovated' itself into irrelevancy.
You're one of the lucky ones then. Most people on PS3 had massive amounts of lag, along with tons of glitches that regularly caused the game to freeze up during certain quests. Even on the 360, I've never had a game that froze up so often, and that was after the patches that fixed most of the major issues.
...This made me laugh. Dark Souls is far from the best game ever. In fact, it was one of the worst I've ever played, personally. People talk about how 'difficult' and 'challenging' it is, but a game isn't challenging because it's controls take hours upon hours to adapt to because of how crappy they are, and a game isn't difficult because of random traps and hidden enemies who kill you out of nowhere and force you back to the very beginning of a level.