I wonder if they said the same thing about stocks taking a hit when the delay was announced.

And another title that can be grouped into the "Mentioned unnecessarily early" group.

As many issues as it had with Fallout 4, Bethesda did it right with their reveal timeline; revealed in June, released in November of the same year. Don't tell us about games in advance when you're not absolutely certain of when it will release - particularly if it'll be greater than half a year later.

I'm thoroughly enjoying Hitman, but I'm still wishing for a Freedom Fighters sequel.

@R4gn4r0k: I'm generally one that doesn't give Ubi the benefit of the doubt, but there are VAST differences between - say - Assassin's Creed, Rainbow Six, The Division, and Splinter Cell.

I'll totally agree that Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed play like slightly altered reskins for the most part, but many of their franchises stand apart from one another - for better or worse. Their issue, at least in my opinion, is when they focus on open worlds - they can create some awesome worlds, but instead of putting interesting content in them, they give you two dozen exploration spots (like AC, Far Cry, and Watch Dogs towers) and a hundred pointless collectibles that only serve to unlock an achievement.

Other than some more QA time to squash bugs, their lack of engaging content for open world is their main issue.

$40 for three MP maps seems really steep...

That being said, I do like Dead by Daylight and this definitely comes across as similar.

@silversix_: I see comments like this every time. In general, you're probably correct, but I've only ever played the Battlefield series and Team Fortress 2 with a controller and generally come somewhere in the top five of the game.

Twitch shooters like Overwatch, I could definitely see PC having the advantage, but in something like Gears where movement is much slower, I don't see kb+m having much of an advantage.

I have to wonder how the people that work with him feel. Like, really feel, not the "he's eccentric" or "he's passionate" BS.

I'd be very interested to see how many have been delivered on (wouldn't be difficult) or the general satisfaction people felt compared to what was described in the campaign (MUCH more difficult).

@Mogan: I'm quite aware of how distinct the factions are - and it's fantastic. I don't want to downplay that at all; each major faction (and a few of the DLC ones) feel drastically different than the rest.

But a huge part of the gameplay is also positioning. Chances are, after my second or third attempt as Empire, I know exactly who's going to side with me, who I can convince to join me, who I absolutely have to take down, etc. That's the issue - with more factions (even if they're less varied), I at least get to feel like I'm exploring and have new options that don't necessarily have to play out in almost the exact same fashion.

I've played since Rome: Total War, and Warhammer (despite it's vast differences in the few factions it offers) has the least amount of playtime for me specifically because I've seen all there is to see, because - while they nailed the depth for what they do have - they fell drastically short in the variety.

As for free stuff, there were 4-5 lords and Bretonnia. The first was negligible - one character in one army stack for each of them; the changes they provided were insignificant. Again, though, Bretonnia was well done, even if it did take them nine months for the one free faction.


I'll refrain from making any generalizations in my reply to you, though.

Four factions, again. Probably $60 again, too.

I've enjoyed the first, but there's just not enough base content and WAY too many paid DLCs. I'll likely grab this on a 50% sale and work on my backlog instead.