@CastorT @gilaliz Don't participate. Wait for a sale down the line. Make it cost them money. The game's not going anywhere.
I want the game badly too. But just waiting a few months won't kill me.
I loved Metro 2033, and I've been crazy for Last Light. But I've decided to not pre-purchase because they've literally locked out a difficulty mode to force people to pre-purchase. I'm waiting until it goes on sale later, with the difficulty mode included as it should be.
And there's plenty of games to play in the meantime. There are more and more games every day. Too many to even find time to play. Use that against publishers who pull this crap, and de-prioritize their games.
My top three games on time spent with them: 124 hours of FTL. 204 hours on Payday. 113 hours on Terraria.
I've been playing a lot of XCOM lately.
My new favorite game I'm just getting into: Sang-Froid Tales of Werewolves.
All of those games feature gameplay first and foremost. And though all have accomplished and well realized visual designs, none possess advanced graphics (arguably only XCOM comes close, and it's turn-based).
And I think all those games are proving to be profitable for their devs.
I saw everything I needed to see from Crysis 3 from others' vids. It's pretty, but looks boring as hell.
The strongest part of the Crysis series was the first 2/3 of the first game. Before they introduced the lame squid aliens. When you running around these huge, open-world landscapes in your nano-suit, approaching you objectives how you wanted, the game shined.
I'd happily play more games like the first part of the first Crysis, even with weaker graphics. It's the only part of the series that was really compelling.
Making the game more pretty didn't make the game more fun. Which is why I didn't bother with Crysis 3.
Guerrilla remains one of my favorite games of all time.
The sheer chaos possible, of destruction and physics, remains unparalleled. The subversive theme and storyline were great. The open-world was an enormous strength, allowing players to approach how they wanted to destroy something as they wished. You could get creative with your destruction.
The difficulty was old-school. EVen on the easier settings it could spike. Which was GREAT. I loved that you couldn't sleepwalk through the game. Try to do a perma-death playthrough on the hardest setting, and you'll be forced to really play as a guerilla. Using hit-and-run tactics to whittle down the enemy bases and installations.
I didn't mind that the mission-types repeated, because I enjoyed all of them. And they were set in different locations with different layouts, so even though the mission-type repeated, how you approached it differed.
The driving around could be a little boring, and hunting the crystals definitely got repetitive.
Some said the look was "bland". But it's a being-terraformed Mars, so they didn't have a whole lot to work with as far as variety goes. A sequel could of easily countered this with a more-terraformed Mars, providing more variety of landscapes.
Armageddon on the other hand, was terrible. Abandoning the open-world removed one of Guerilla's strongest aspects, the open-world chaos you could create. Aliens? Red Faction was never about fighting aliens. It's about fighting back against corporate totalitarianism.
Even that tool that rebuilt things made the game feel empty at its core. What you destroyed didn't stay destroyed. It didn't seem to matter when it could be reconstructed in a moment. It was a mechanic they probably developed because the game was basically a corridor shooter where you could destroy elements you needed to advance. Which just shows how the abandoning of the open-world hurt the game even more.
Armageddon felt like something where the elements that were most fun were calculated into mediocrity in an attempt to put out a blockbuster.
lol he's "depressed" and contemplated quitting because something successful got copied. Sounds like a bit of pearl-clutching going on here. Try to aim for the fainting couch Rocket, if you get too woozy. I mean, it's not like even yet-to-be-released books/films/games/whatever have been blatantly copied before. No, that's never happened. Ever.
Everyone who creates something and puts it out for public consumption has put their rep on the line. And often get ripped off. Welcome to adult life big guy.
@vaillant085 Totally agree. The intensity of the horror in DS1 came from how sticky the controls were, combined with limited ammo. It mimicked actually stumbling around in a steel and rubber engineering suit that was never intended for combat.
DS2 was still fun, but far easier, and thus lacking DS1's intensity.
DS3 looks like a GoW knockoff. I understand the pure business decision. They'll make more money (although, it's not as if DS1 was unsuccessful and lost money).
But the game will likely suck. Or even more likely be mediocre and forgettable.
DS1 will never be forgettable. It will never be confused with any other game (yet made anyway). But it's not the first nor last time somebody creates something inspired and unique, and then waters it down to make more money. Even though they made plenty of money being inspired and unique, they just want MORE money.
The irony is that if they had offered up a watered-down, mass-market, forgettable product in the first place, they probably wouldn't of enjoyed the success they have. And thus probably wouldn't be making the third game in the series.
gilalizard's comments