gogosox82's comments

  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by gogosox82

Looks like a regular hive knight. Think I'll pass.

Posted by gogosox82

Nice review Rorie! And I agree about the AI being dumbed down a bit. There was so much customization in the AI behavior in the previous games and now its just what three spells you want them to use or how many potions you want them to consume. Its pretty disappointing. Also found playing this with m and k/b to be a pain in the tactical view. Seems like it was designed for a controller in mind so I've been playing with a controller which sucks b/c I planned on playing with m and k/b. I'm also slightly disappointed in the auto leveling. The game just levels your attributes for you. Why are they taking out the best part of an rpg besides the story? And they have respec potions so why not let the player chose how they want to build their character? I still think its pretty good so far but man if those things didn't disappoint me so I'm glad you pointed them out some of them.

Posted by gogosox82

Great review. And I agree they really need to do something with the way the game is structured. I felt like Black Flag was a step in the right direction. This feels ..."off" for a number of reasons. I do wonder how you would have liked it if it didn't have so many technical issues to deal with but I guess its hard to know that. Ubi should've waited instead of rushing this out. If this came out in say March, I bet this game reviews a ton better.

Posted by gogosox82

Not surprising. Saw a live stream on twitch and it looked terrible. Shame since the game looks like a lot of fun.

Edited by gogosox82

Wow, kind of hard to figure out where to start with this one. Let's start with "I'm an Xbox fanboy". Well, you just undercut your entire argument by stating that you having an irrational admiration for the company your about to defend and I now have to take everything you say with a grain of salt because you will more than likely deliberately paint a scenario that makes MS look better than they actually are (some people call that lying, but I'm trying to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt).

"Some people still have flies stuck to their faces in third world countries." This line right here is kind of crazy if you think about it. How does this justify them putting this kind of a system out? People in developing nations are poor so it totally makes sense to design a console that they won't ever be able to use? How does that make any sense if your trying to run a profitable business? How is it good business sense to limit how many potential customers you could possibly have?

"Imagine a world where someone goes to buy one console and one specific game for their child. They walk into a store and see two consoles (PS4 and Xbox). The game they want is Star Wars Battlefront (for example). Now, they see it’s available for Xbox One because there is disc on the shelf. They see that it isn't available for PS4 because there isn't a disc anywhere on the shelf. EA has since decided to stop printing discs for PS4. Why? Simple: Programmers don’t want to optimize their games to function with spinning discs, and publishers are losing money left and right with trading and pirated games. It is a no-brainer to print games on Xbox One because it is safe, secure, and profitable. Not so much on PS4."

Huh? This is completely baffling. First, programming doesn't work that way. You program the game, then you decide how its going to be distributed. Deciding whether to print discs or not doesn't factor into how the game is coded. Second, if there was disced version for xbox then there's probably a disced version for the ps4 why? Because EA wants to make money. EA publishes on everything because they want to make MONEY period. If their is a significant install base on the ps4 (and there will be) it make no financial sense for then not to make discs for the ps4 since they would already be making discs anyway for Xb One. Third, publishers may be losing money from trade ins but they need to incentivise consumers to not trade it in, not create a system that takes away my right to do whatever I want with something I've already paid for. Forth, how would you even know if the XB One is safe, secure, or profitable at this point? It hasn't even come out yet. 360 servers have gone down before and we all remember the psn hack so for the life of me I cannot understand how anyone could think that any of these platforms are secure and nothing will happen to them. Nothing is completely secure and everytime you put your information online, you run the risk of someone stealing it.

"So, that person buys Xbox One and Star Wars Battlefront thinking that it is an exclusive, unknowing that it is, in fact, available on PS4 via download.

Microsoft is setting themselves up to win the digital future, and ironically, they will accomplish this feat through RETAIL. Sony may be chuckling now, but I believe Microsoft will have the last laugh. As they say, "It is not a sprint."

Sony fanboys can’t trade games, if there aren't any [to trade]. And without the flexible DRM that Microsoft is inventing, they will be stuck with a hard drive full of games they can’t trade or share. [Granted, Sony is zipped-lip on DRM talk.]"


You do realize that Sony has streaming and cloud technology as well right? They bought Gaikai and are going to use it with the ps4 so no they're not going to be left behind. They will have cloud services available just like Xbox will, they just aren't taking away our rights to implement these services like Xbox is trying to.

Edited by gogosox82

Everything you described makes me more interested in the game, not less so I'll guess I'll give it a try. I'm of a mind that storytelling, visuals, art direction are just as much gameplay mechanics and combat and exploration so I think this is right up my alley.

Posted by gogosox82

Wow that actually looks like fun instead the somewhat boring experience DS3 turned out to be. Too bad its at the end of a game you have to pay $60 for first to get it.

Edited by gogosox82

@zevvion said:

@gogosox82 said:

Wait there's only 4 maps? I thought the whole point of this thing was the multiplayer(at least that's the impression I got from all of the trailers and such) and they only have 4 maps? That's kind of a bummer if you were looking forward to this.

It's not just that.

As far as I understand it the dedicated servers that Gears 3 had, are now being used for Judgement solely. That means Gears 3 doesn't run on dedicated servers anymore which was a huge bonus.

Essentially, you're trading in a great multiplayer experience in Gears 3 in for a multiplayer component short on content in Judgement. You can continue playing Gears 3 without dedicated servers, but allot of people don't like that.

Wow gears had dedicated servers? I'm not a big gears fans (but try to follow the news surrounding it) but that's pretty messed up if your big into playing gears and don't wanna buy judgement. Your basically stuck playing gears3 in an inferior way and its being supplanted by an inferior product.

Edited by gogosox82

Wait there's only 4 maps? I thought the whole point of this thing was the multiplayer(at least that's the impression I got from all of the trailers and such) and they only have 4 maps? That's kind of a bummer if you were looking forward to this.

Posted by gogosox82

Wow Jeff must really not like Crysis. Asking questions like why should this game exist is usually reserved for the A:CM's of the world.

  • 20 results
  • 1
  • 2