@Tyrael696 Not everyone thinks that's a good thing you know--- I wish people would stop stating UI signalling as just a flat-out bad thing. Some people don't like walking about aimlessly; and some people don't see the point of trial and error systems.
In no way is it more immersive to play a game where you have to fumble your way through and eventually 'get it'. Restarting at a save point because you had to trial-and-error learn a sequence is more immersion breaking than a UI pop-up telling you what the buttons do as far as I'm concerned.
@billlabowski @Breyant Yes: but if you watch this video Danny doesn't exactly present any of his ramblings as opinion; he's just as guilty, because he's just going on about "Uuuuh it's become so crap." as if it's a fact--- he isn't even trying to look at it objectively in the sense that many of the changes are just changes to suit other tastes-- and not just 'devolution' of the franchise.
Change can often be a good thing-- otherwise stagnation occurs. Cough.. Nintendo.. cough.
It's all opinion-- I actually found AC3 to be far better than the first game. It was certainly an excellent game in its own right.
I also disagree with UI signalling. It's a good thing: because how is it any less gamey to simply not have those UI signals and then as a result have to learn through trial and error. "You died. Try again." seems just if not more gamey to me. Maps are only a good thing: getting lost isn't really fun is it? Think of how large games are these days, maps are simply required.
Danny I can be almost certain you won't like AC4-- it will be very much like AC3, insofar as all the features you personally dislike that have been added.
@SkyfireZX @willzihang @LucentWolf @Zalla00 It doesn't make it pointless actually; I'm just tired of people who seem to think they requesting a game release is entitlement, or bitching.
As I said this is already a multiplatform game, so it makes no sense to not release it on PC as it isn't an Xbox or PS exclusive.
They would release any of those listed games: Starcraft, TW-- but you know, I haven't seen any petitions or people ask for them.
@LucentWolf @Zalla00 Oh shut up you morons. Why the **** would you care what platforms games end up on? There's only one reason to actually WANT games to be exclusive to certain systems, and that's mindless fanboyism.
You realise this isn't an exclusive either? Sony and Microsoft aren't the same company. I dislike actual exclusives, a release tied to one company like Sony, but can understand the business mentality behind them.
It's not 'entitlement' to ask for a version of a game for their system of preference.
Stupid dumb company slaves: you think it's somehow a good thing for consumers exclusivity.
Everyone should have a chance to play it (obviously within reason of the systems that can actually run it). What's your argument again? Fuckwits.
@Rushaoz @willzihang Yes, it looks strange to your eyes because you are so used to watching film at 24 speed. Ask yourself how can it possibly be in fast motion (why it appears to be), it's just an illusion, because it is just smoother, not faster as if people move around quicker-- reality isn't 'capped', so the smoother you get, the more life-like you get-- it's that simple. You don't get that 'life-like' blur in 30/24 either, it just shudders instead.
I've read all the 'arguments' as to why 48 frames is worse... it's just because people don't want to adjust to something new, it looks unusual (not strange, literally unusual) to them so they simply dismiss it.
Think about how it works on a screen: when objects move quickly you notice them jerk across the screen (this is apparent in cinemas where 24fps is shown true)-- just watch any pan and see the hideous shudder-fest, it's very apparent when watching a blu-ray, as you have full frames instead of interlaced cover-ups on SD (though that also presents it's own problems. It appears jerky because when something leaps across many pixels as 30fps isn't enough to render it smoothly to the eye - changing position every 30th of a second, it skips past too many pixels, and too far across the screen without intermittent frames.
Remember 24fps has been standard for over 100 years, people are just completely used to how it looks. If you look at many of the arguments against 48fps, they actually say it 'looks too real."
With that in mind you get 'more pixels to play with' so to speak, when you move your reticule around quickly, so you have more positions to aim at. This is just a fact.
willzihang's comments