"Remember that game that you all (mostly) enjoyed? It's back! Although this time there is less of the fun stuff! Liked destroying buildings? FUCK YOU! Liked fighting for the people, as one of the people? FUCK YOU ALSO! Also this time there are aliens! Goddamnit!"
I quite enjoyed Red Faction, was nonplussed about RF2 and was pleasantly surprised by RF:G. If I were one for following trends, I might say that it stands to reason that I would be disappointed by the next game in the series.
Big ol' bag of meh, in my opinion. Matchmaking can be a great service, done right. Although, I don't see why matchmaking and server search/selection services need to be mutually exclusive.
All the matchmaking is doing for you is selecting a server from a list that closest suits your needs (skill, friends, gametypes etc). Is there any reason why the players can't choose to skip matchmaking and navigate the list themselves?
As for the choice to play the game on a console instead, I have this to say. The Call of Duty series has, and always will be a PC series to me. First person shooters are always better on a PC, except for when they are specifically made to suit the limitations of console controllers. I can see the attraction in playing AAA titles on consoles as, chances are, you have a big TV and a surround system with which to enhance the experience. But having said that, control fidelity is more important to me than a larger screen (which you most likely sit further away from, anyway) and surround sound.
As for boycotts, cancelled preorders and bumper stickers: It's interesting that, as a rule, the majority of the gaming community is somewhat standoffish when it comes to protesters, environmentalists and phone-charity callers. Yet, when it comes to matchmaking being added to MW2 what tactics do they jump to first? Yep: boycotts, bumper stickers and petitions.
Log in to comment