Ok, so I'm on the fence with Skylanders. Is it possible to play this game without buying the figurines? I'm asking this since I've heard you can scan them at stores, is this exploitation?
Beeezer's forum posts
So I read this crazy book about this mining operation in either the arctic or Alaska and they found this gigantic rock that if it got wet it would electrocute you. For the life of me I can't remember the title of the book!
At one point, the team had to resort to blasting the rock through a tunnel with sticks of dynamite.
I was told to play Candy Crush Saga by a friend of mine, I had better judgement in his ideas of good games before then. The game was fun at first, attempting to play through it without buying any bonuses at all is proving to be way more frustrating than fun. I'm beginning to steer clear of mobile games more and more because of these gross monetization methods.
I'd agree. The fact that you can play the game without buying a single bonus (I played till lvl 70) and still get far shows that at its base level it is still a game. Because of the F2P reasoning, they insist that you buy those bonuses or use their pyramid friend scheme to continue playing. Now a game that is truly rigged for constant payment plans is the browser game, King's Bounty: Legions. That's a game that all but forces you to buy their bonuses. I think it's more of why you should pay for the extra benefits rather than how are you playing this [F2P] game without those benefits.
So after reading through this article, and reading the list of godawful comments, the one thing that did stick out:
"So when will we get to hear a female voice on the Giantbomb Podcast? :)"
Since you're all journalists in the industry, and I've been a long time listener, why have I not yet heard of any women regularly hosting the podcasts? This would be a great way to get another point of view-and more people listen to you guys then read through the articles anyways.
Just my 2 cents.
Yeah, as with some other handheld games (names escape me at the moment) this form of "co-op" actually works. You still get the single player experience, but with the added bonus of letting the online community take part. The only problem is that some might exploit this feature to power through the game, but that's to be expected in the game community. As with how useful this function is offline? That's to be determined at launch.
Actually, when you look at what they've done, it's a bit like Pokemon. You can trade your little guys around to other people (they gain experiences, items, and learn to help you-the player.) This is a game, that if these new mechanics can work and work relatively well, might actually change things for once. Any form of multiplayer in this style of game would have to have as much depth and be as solid as the single-player experience to work.
True, but if you look at the history of RPG games, you come to find out that those that did include co-op didn't really fit. Like Fable 2 or some of the later Final Fantasy's. It was shoehorned in and pretty lame. Plus, in an open world it's not going to work anyways. Most co-op games are segmented into levels, if your partner were to work on the main quest, you would either have to be teleported also, or be left forgotten.
Ugh, what is with you people?!
Leave co-op for the shooters and silly action/adventure platformers since those people seem to be either too stupid or just plain lazy to handle such genres. Yes, co-op is good and fun in some cases (like racing games or sports) but with RPG games, you tackle everything on your own. It's your world, your experience. Don't shoehorn co-op into every genre simply because you want to have your online "friends" joining you. Did Skyrim or Oblivion have co-op? No, and it didn't need it either. This is the one genre co-op can be dismissed.