Absolute trash. No research, nothing but conjection and dumb opinions. I guess that is what is to be expected when GR is involved.
Objectively untrue. Both destiny 1 and 2 sold record breaking numbers. Destiny 1 was consistently one of the most played multiplayer games on console.
I am sure the game was not to your liking, but both games have been very succesful and very popular. So your opinion is clearly not that of a majority.
They cant really do that though. Activision blizzard is the name they chose when vivendi and Activision merged. It is only a holding Company. Activision the publisher and blizzard the developer are both business units the Company owns. They are separate entities.
Maybe.. But that is kind of my point. People are trying to hold this game to some kind of standard it was never meant to fulfill.
While at the same time pointing a finger on the more critical issues with the game. Or rather that they are not being talked about. Like how the flow of gameplay feels crude and outdated. Or how a game that requires you to fire a gin 90% of the time has lackluster Gun mechanics. I. E. Places said resources would be much better spent.
I see a lot of people that would rather see bioware use a lot of resources on a system with almost no effect on the game than actually making a compelling game.
You cant even see your character.. Why on earth would they spend resources on a more robust character creation system when it wont affect your experience at all. Priorities people.
The Witcher universe would be considered low fantasy or dark fantasy or something along those lines, not high fantasy. It does have magic, but most of the world is rooted in realism.
They also instantly shut down LucasArts after aquiring it with the rest of LucasFilm.
Pretty much. While never really a powerhouse, LucasArts was a legendary developer and publisher. So many great moments. Its closure was by far the saddest consequence of the aquisition.
Sure, the game is probably a lot further along. Usually demo builds are put together from older builds. The main point of beta's is to test server performance, not game performance. This is the industry standard.
As Anthem is a game that is designed as a GAAS servers are very important for the enjoyment of the game. Having a preorder test and an open test is clealry an attempt to stress the server set up.
Subpar performance in what is basically akin to a beta test is to be expected. I am not sure I agree that the graphics are that great though.
However I am more much worried that it seems to lack identity. The game does not play as a shooter and not as an rpg. More like a super hero beat em up, with guns. And when the gunplay is as poor as it is in Anthem and as integral to the core experience... Well I don't feel like it's one of those greater than the sum of it...
Valve is not charging 30% for digital publishing. They are charging 30% for selling the game in their store. Most stores take a much bigger pie than that, and that is just to stay afloat.
When you buy a physical game, it is likely that 30-50% of the money you pay is going to the store. Most storefront businesses have percentage based rent contracts and it is likely that 10% of what you are paying goes directly to the owner of the property. Then comes a whole plethora of ru...
People that are complaining that a 30% take is too much have no idea about how the world works.
Most stores usually operate with a 30-50% take. And they have to do that to not go bankrupt. It is not greed, it is just the way the world works.
A business has to produce revenue to stay afloat. When you run a storefront you have to cover the cost of running said store. Cost that includes rent, salary, and a whole plethora of other running costs.
...
Indeed
If we were to look only on the games open world/emergent elements the there are both positives and negatives.
F. Ex. The ammount of variety in animals was surprising and could set a new precedent in open world gaming, but the wild-life A. I. Left a lot to be desired. Horizon had a more advanced wild-life A. I. Which had a much bigger focus on creating something resembling an ECO-system.
The emergent event system (stranger encounters) also felt equivalent ...
Sure. That quote seems to try to argue the value of recognizing something to be objectively good.
Despite that very notion being paradoxical in itself. I still think it is a worthwhile practice.
I. E. If i can make an objective argument about some designs value then I should be able to recognize said value despite my own feelings on the issue.
Like I said it is kind of an impossible task, but I still think the practice is potentially v...
That is a logical fallacy. One could argue that the majority of single player gamers play on ps4 with that premise, but not that the majority of playstation gamers only play single player games. Especially since that can be proven to be factually untrue.
Fortnite, cod, battlefield and destiny all have more players on playstation.
For one it is a non sequitor and secondly it would be a compositional fallacy.
I agree the pricing scheme has always seemed off in destiny expansions and MTs both. I do however think a lot of those complaints come from people that want Destiny to be something other than what it is. That being a loot grinder.
The main problem with this argument is that Destiny 2 already have a very fair MT-system. Which has been unfairly mischaracterized and blown out of porportion by the knee jerk reaction to anything MT-related.
I question the credentials of anyone that uses the term "3d sprite" as that in of itself would be paradoxical. In that a sprite is a term used to describe a 2d bitmap that is part of a larger scene.
I agree the 3d is what makes ff7 age badly. However you have come with contradicting statements on this issue and I no longer have any idea what your stance is. Which is why I said you were moving goalposts.
If what you describe requires a separate ...
You mean no point at all?