@shane78: What does "vaulting" mean anyway? And if it's not about the removing of content, then why isn't there a quote like, "We're vaulting it, so it will be optionally available at X / via Y"?
If the content will be available as an option to download for players who want that, then using a term like "will be made as optional extra content" would be much better to use than "vaulting," which suggests putting it in a secret vault somewhere at Bungie's servers, never to be seen again by the public, which is essentially removing content.
@jagdedge124: I definitely wouldn't want Battlefield to get rid of its large-scale battlefields with tanks and planes, but man, my very best shooter multiplayer memories and tons of fun were in Battlefield 3's Close Quarters expansion! Donya Fortress and Ziba Tower ... I ****ing LOVED those maps and the gameplay itself. And it almost broke my heart that none of the subsequent Battlefields had close-quarters expansions, too. I honestly wouldn't have cared much how repetitive or bad other aspects of the games were if they just had true close-quarters maps like those.
And it's far from the same playing CoD's close-quarters maps, because in CoD, you have those fancy gadgets and wall-walking crap, and that's just not what I'm looking for. More importantly, CoD doesn't have Battlefield's roles, medic (assault), engineer, and so on, and I love those roles.
So, I despise battle-royale games, and I hate Battlefield's large-scale maps, where I can run for 5 minutes straight looking for something to do, only to be suddenly sniped from across the map or shot in the face by a tank or perforated by a flying jet, and learning absolutely nothing from any of that, but I definitely want Battlefield to keep having those maps. It's occasional fun for me to get in a tank and try some of those maps.
However, I definitely want DICE To include a close-quarters expansion or set of maps with every Battlefield they release. And those maps will be nothing about copying CoD, because if they were like CoD, then I, for example, could get my fix by playing CoD, right? However, as I explained above, Battlefield is not the same thing as CoD with its close-quarters maps; it's still its own amazing game with its unique character.
One thing about CoD: CW that is very interesting for me is the Zombies part of the game and the direction the zombies series seems to be taking.
Extractions, or end goals to work toward, was a huge, huge step in the right direction. A defense spot to use sometimes, and not always be running around like a headless chicken, was another huge step in the right direction. Doing away with mandatory "puzzles" and replacing them with optional Easter eggs for those interested was yet another step in the right direction. Temporary safe houses for a breather and to upgrade, customize, or change weapons in peace, along with permanent weapon/character upgrades while leveling up without weird currencies, bubble gum, or confusing soda machines -- especially for new or returning players -- will constitute yet another huge step in the right direction.
I love good zombie games and I ain't exaggerating when I say that I could buy Call of Duty: Cold War JUST for THAT zombies part of the game. I tried the Cold War Zombies during the free week and enjoyed it like 10 times more than all the previous CoD zombie games. And I'm excited about the new big-scale Outbreak mode. I think one more big step in the right direction, like adding safe houses and permanent upgrades instead of these soda machines and weird currencies, and I will definitely buy the game.
On the other hand, ONE thing that can pull me back to the Battlefield series is a proper close-quarters expansion or set of maps, like Battlefield 3's Close Quarters expansion, with its maps like Donya Fortress and Ziba Tower. And those maps and their playstyle were not the same thing as CoD games at all; if they were, I could've been getting my fix from CoD, but I really wasn't. I'm STILL waiting for a current Battlefield CQ expansion or set of maps. Heck, if BF3 CQ servers were still crowded, I'd totally be playing BF3 Donya Fortress and Ziba Tower all the way, and forget about all current CoD and Battlefield crap.
The world needs more acceptable-to-awesome zombie games with good graphics and satisfying shooting mechanics, and ideally acceptable storytelling and NO dodgy political, pseudo-feminist, or hyper pro-LGBT agendas, or cringe-inducing "I'm such a fearless badass" dialogue lines, like those planned for Back 4 Blood.
On the PC, that is.
And I'm still waiting for Ubisoft or Rockstar to produce an open-world MMO zombie game, with fighting styles from pure melee to pure guns or anything in-between and traditional tank, healer, and damage-dealer roles, instanced PvE zones with epic final battles requiring groups, NO forced open-world PvP or cancerous battle-royale, or at least with RP and PvE-only servers, and a monthly subscription to maintain all that and keep adding content. My bank account is ready just for that!
@marauder88: Your comment really made me cringe because it's a shamefully unintelligent comment or a comment that's playing stupid with the reader. You're comparing the homosexual content of TLoU to TLoU2 by the number of gay and transexual characters? Seriously?! 😒🙄
Comparing the homosexual content, and judging whether a work of art is promoting homosexuality or not, is not by counting characters; it's by analyzing and assessing the overall message from the work, the overt and covert messages of all major scenes, and the length of said scenes. And in my original comment, I didn't just count numbers, I also said, for example, "meeting" a homosexual character, and it's supposed to be clear that that's in comparison with watching a potentially uncomfortable scene — for some — of homosexual foreplay.
And if you can't see a political agenda in TLoU2, and many other contemporary and controversial games, then either you support that very political agenda because you're a biased and interested member of the minority served by that agenda, or you need help that I can't offer and no one can offer in any number of social-media comments.
And whether the issue has to do with homosexuality or simply the quality and worthiness of a game, saying that "you have to play the game to judge it," which is basically telling people that they have to pay for a game, then play it, in order to judge it accurately, is one of the most stupid comments I ever read. And if that stupid comment is true, then there's no point having reviewing sites or YouTube videos of gameplay to begin with! And I say this irrespective of whether I myself played the game or not, because this is a matter of principle. I might've played TLoU2 but I know that I don't need to play any game to judge it accurately. I don't need to pay money and buy a product to judge, before buying, whether it's worth buying or not, thanks to reviewing sites, useful and informative user reviews, and gameplay videos.
@HesamB: Exactly, man. And don't try to lure us to become a minority either! That's like ... someone making a game to tackle the subject of racism, 80% of its player base will be Caucasian, and the game basically tries to show you how beautiful it is to be black or of African descent, almost inviting you to become black. There's absolutely nothing wrong with any race or skin color in the world, but no race can become another race. Likewise, what's the point of glamorizing feminism with pseudo-feminist BS to lure girls to become fanatic feminists? Can we not call for the just treatment of genders without producing little hostile, rebellious girls? And what's the point of glamorizing homosexuality, and seducing straight people to become bi- or homosexual? Is that going to solve gender issues? On the contrary, it clearly derives an extra-hostile reaction. Is it going to solve our family issues? No. After someone's done masturbating to such scenes in games, someone who gets kicks out of that sort of thing, it's back to normal for everybody. And that very person who was masturbating could also get back to being a bigot. None of this shit's ever gonna solve societal problems. So this is clearly some shitty politics or someone's shady agenda. And that is the exact opposite of escapism.
Please ... please, industry decision-makers, no more pseudo-feminism and homosexuality-promotion in video games. Freakin' enough is enough already. Keep your shitty politics and agendas out of our games. Meeting one homosexual character in a game with 20 characters is normal, meeting a feminist woman as an NPC in a game is passable, but developing whole ****ing games and expansions around pseudo-feminism and homosexuality is becoming repulsive, heavy-handed, vapid, and vulgar. We want to play games, i.e. have fun and practice escapism, not remember shitty RL politics and tearjerking BS. Don't even tackle racism in games; just create a decent, non-racist fictional, believable world. How hard is it to think this way? ****ing hell, man.
@jerusaelem: Dude, Dark Souls never pretended to be great in the story or lore department. Its reputation is that it is a well-made challenging game with very minimal story-telling. Westerners play it mainly because it's a challenge, and it's mildly fun combat. And even if there are lots of arguable points about Dark Souls, what's not arguable is that Dark Souls does not belong to the mystery genre or even the horror mystery genre, which are genres known for the importance of story-telling, which is what I'm talking about, how to tell a mystery or a horror mystery well to Westerners. Anyway, long story short, Dark Souls is out-of-topic, irrelevant, and the wrong number; please call the correct number.
yasso's comments