LLIINNKK's forum posts

#1 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -

I'm more on the side of disagreeing with you, but for anyone who wants reference, I was a heavy GRAW player.

I used to do LOTS of clan matches in GRAW1/2 and I can tell you that the multiplayer was extremely tactical, at least siege mode was. It was 100% teamwork based and you would get completely owned if you didn't work together. Bringing that into GR:FS, I personally love the game for what it is, but this isn't just Ghost Recon.

Future Solider is essentially a combination of Gears of War, Call of Duty, and Ghost Recon all in one. A couple matches and you'll know exactly what I mean for the most part. With only four modes, some of them are highly more tactical than others, but the biggest problem with this game so far is rushers. People just don't understand how to work as a team, don't use mics, and just run at objectives or enemy players like mad men. I'm hoping this fades away, as a lot of the people I've talked to are CoD players wanting a new game to play... but the game feels so different because of map size.

These maps are just tiny, plain and simple. To the point that they really only work in Conflict mode (which is a mode based on capturing different objectives and holding them down). The fast paced gameplay works incredibly well here, but once you hit the other modes the game's weaknesses show a bit more.

Siege is a mess. It's my preferred mode anyways, but they made some stupid design choices. For one, the base is always right in the middle of the map and the attacking team spawns are random (generally two or three different spots). What ends up happening is that the defenders have a bonus 10 seconds to get positioned, but since the spawns are so close to each other, it really turns into getting killed about 10 seconds into the match. If you've ever played Siege on a Ghost Recon game, this is a joke.

With a full team it is slightly better, but the nature of small maps and only 6v6 is kind of embarrassing. Especially when your previous games held higher player counts.

Even with the negative tone, I'm having a ton of fun with the game. I want bigger maps, though, that's for sure. I personally think that if their were bigger maps a lot of the complaints would end from hardcore GRAW players... but oh well. It is what it is. Worth my money, at aleast.

#2 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -
@TheHT: I understand what you mean. He was portrayed as a cold killer type, but really the story in the game and the back-story surrounding him are far more interesting. Yes, Ezio has quite the personality... but idk if I'd consider it likeable. He doesn't convince me that he should lead the assassin's, he's just there - the guy I'm forced to play as. 
 
I replayed part of AC1 today. The game engine was so much better.
#3 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -
@SirPsychoSexy: His story was much more interesting, as was he as a character in my opinion. I really hope we get some legitimate scenes with him.
#4 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -
@DougQuaid: Well, don't get me wrong - After playing both of them in succession, I want nothing but more Assassin's Creed. I just don't necessarily care about Ezio anymore, as it was hard to care about him in the first place. It rushes you through the death of his Father/Brother, and then doesn't develop him beyond his role for revenge. They touch on it slightly, but it hasn't been deep enough to carry my interest. Ezio isn't likeable at times, and playing as him for a third game seems pointless.
 
Reading what Agent 47 wrote only highlights my fears. With the state Desmond is in, it could just be excuse to build off of the success they've found with the last two games. I'm just really hoping the story backs up the overall plot and isn't just there (kind of like Brotherhood, even though the end is... well, WTF worthy.)
#5 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -
@Ragdrazi: Assassin's Creed 1 is definitely superior to the others in many ways, but I love the evolution from 2 to Brotherhood. Brotherhood feels like the game 2 should have been.
#6 Posted by LLIINNKK (10 posts) -

Having just played through both Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, I'm feeling a little let down by the idea of playing as Ezio again. Without spoiling the endings for those who haven't played them, I don't really see how returning to his story has any benefit to the overall continuation of the games. I understand it wrapping up Ezio and Altair's characters just fine, but it just seems to be for the case of doing so, not because it's essential to any story that we need to have regarding Desmond and the present.
 
Actually, while Brotherhood is an amazing game, It also seems a bit redundant that you're essentially playing to recover the item you already had at the end of the second game. 
 
Eh, maybe I just burnt myself out on the idea after playing them back to back! It just seems like too much of something unnecessary. Granted, that is the industry these days.