Rocker6's forum posts

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

That was... unexpected, thought Chaz was trolling a little, but GS front page says the same.

Still, not too bothered, November is already overcrowded with new releases, the game could actually benefit from this, as long as they use the extra time for something useful.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

That's cool, Shepard's story is over, and I'd love to see more of ME universe, if done right.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@casharmy said:

lol what? where are you getting that from? So ND hasn't created AAA rated games on GS?

Keep the butthurt going. There seems to be a bunch of you guys coming out the wood work.

I don't know about the past, but this gen, they aren't an AAA dev.

ND games on GS:

Uncharted: 8.0

Uncharted 2: 9.5

Uncharted 3: 9.0

TLoU: 8.0

Average: 8.625

What a shame... and if you include UC Golden Abyss for the Vita (ND were only overseeing the development), it'd go even lower... :(

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

I don't know, I just find it painfully average. KZ games are decent FPS, but nothing more. If they weren't exclusive, I think critic reception would've been much colder, they'd quickly get lost in the sea of more competent competitors.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

Hm, can't remember ever crying due to emotional investment into plot and characters, but I did shed a few tears of frustration here and there.

For example, I remember some helicopter boss battle in the original Far Cry, on a sinking ship. For days, been trying to beat it but I just couldn't, and I desperately wanted to see the rest of the game without resorting to cheats or anything. It did piss me off a lot, but after countless tries, managed to get through it. That felt pretty good... also, in my later FC replays, never had much problems with it.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@seanmcloughlin said:

@MFDOOM1983 said:

Its a prequel that doesn't move anything along narrative wise, but the combat is the best in the franchise, so it's still a solid game.

To me it just felt unnecessary. Characters are bland, story is bland, environments are boring but yeah I guess it does have the best combat but that wasn't hard as most of GOW is just button mashing anyway.

The whole game felt like a cash grab and it made what was already borderline "too much Kratos" into "definitely too much Kratos"

Oh come on... you guys really play GoW for those things?

Hell, I had enough of Kratos after the first game credits rolled out... everything turned into a mess later on, unless "RAAAAWAAAHRRRRAAA AMAAAA KILLLLLLLL EVEEEEERRYOOOONEE!" is considered good writing. The combat and overall mechanics saw plenty of improvements, though, the games becoming more polished and ambitious.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@MFDOOM1983 said:

Its a prequel that doesn't move anything along narrative wise, but the combat is the best in the franchise, so it's still a solid game.

Sounds good enough for me, then. GoW narrative went right down the toilet after the first game, when Kratos was reduced to a caricature with huge anger issues. Hardly had any reason to follow it, except for a few laughs.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@seanmcloughlin said:

@NameIess_One said:

For Beyond alone, I really wouldn't advise it.

But if there's more exclusives you're interested in, like TLoU, GoW Ascension or upcoming GT6, I suppose it may be worth it, as long as you're a fan of those devs and their previous games.

Ewwwww GoW:A. That game is terrible

I wouldn't know, never played it. But GoW 3 was some good fun, and by looking at Ascension, it seems very similar, how could they **** things up?

Still, if I ever get me another PS3, I'll give it a try.

------

EDIT: Wow, we can freely say "****" now.

About damn time... **** YEAH! :D

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@casharmy said:

Your argument now is a non argument. You you have not and can not counter the fact that MS told everyone to "deal with it" or "buy a xbox360" when the public backlash came. The link I provided you is proof and there is more I could provide BEFORE sony announced their counter stance.

Now, whether it's fear of loosing market share or fear of loosing money, it makes no difference since MS would not have "changed" anything **IF** sony adopted the same ideas MS had in mind.

You talk about finding idiotic statements from sony, where does that come into play in this argument? We are talking actions here, did you forget the topic? Try to stay on point.

You are right for saying sony was there offering a system more acceptable by the consumers, but everything else you said that follows were just excuses and "what ifs".

Sony, was not only JUST being there (whether you like it or not) but, taking a direct stance against the policies MS was trying to push with their new console...This is also a fact I can pull up. The outcome of all of this is the reason why MS "changed their tune" so to speak about xbox 1 and the policies MS has in place were dropped.

Of course I can't counter the existence of bad PR, never even tried that. I'm just saying it's irrelevant, since ultimately, MS backed down.

Consumers were the ones taking a direct stance against the MS policies, Sony was just being there, capitalizing on it, using it is a powerful marketing tool. I suppose we can say Sony helped to speed up the process of MS backtracking, but I still stand behind my original statement, how it was the consumers who saved the whole situation, and how Sony would've gladly followed in MS' wake if there was no public backlash.

Avatar image for Rocker6
Rocker6

13358

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

244

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10  Edited By Rocker6
Member since 2009 • 13358 Posts

@casharmy said:

Love, has nothing to do with any part of my argument.

Also your rebuttal makes no sense. Of course the post I have predates MS's 180 move. It demonstrates MS's attitude toward the "consumer backlash" that you and other tired to use as the reason for MS's reversal but the link I posted was MS's response to that...(above)

and shows why that argument fails.

MS was all in with their original plans and were not going to change regardless of who objected because they figured the market share they got with 360 enough or gamers were just that dedicated to their platform but because they were getting blown away by Sony in pre-orders and bad PR largely inflated by Sony's stance against their policies, MS folded to remain relevant compared to Sony and ADOPTED the sony "we are all about games attitude" and DROPPED the previous requirements.

You need to accept and deal with that despite what feel. In reality it doesn't matter what you want to believe, without Sony there would have been no 180 move by MS and that was my point.

The PR attitude hardly matters, when you take into the consideration MS changed their policies. That's the important stuff, when they saw the consumers aren't willing to put up with their plans, they changed them, in fear of losing money, due to all the bad publicity they were gathering. If we're going to play the PR game, I could find you a whole lot of idiotic statements coming from Sony.

Sony was just here, offering a system considered more acceptable by the consumers, based on the demands coming from the public backlash. Again, with no public backlash, Sony would have no reason not to follow in MS' footsteps.