MiniPato's comments

Posted by MiniPato

As someone who has put 300+ hours into Payday 2 on PC, I can't really blame anyone for not getting into it. It's a bad heist/stealth game and a decent horde survival game. Payday's biggest downfall is that it can't decide if it wants to be Heat or Ocean's Eleven. As it a result it falls short of being a really good heist game or a really good 4 player horde game.

The stealth mechanics are shallow and an unintuitive with you arbitrarily only able to kill 4 guards before triggering an alarm. And you can only move bodies if you have body bags. And it's fucked up that the ideal way to stealth most heists is to kill every civilian in the map. Stealth is boring, tedious, and only really satisfying the first time through. If your idea of fun is to sit around monitoring a camera while one or two guys hide in a corner for 5 minutes waiting for a guard to turn around, then you'll love Payday 2. Or maybe you would like to be the guy waiting in the corner wondering whether or not the guard will move or if his AI randomly decided that's where he will stay forever.

They don't have a disguise system or anything. You can walk around incognito as a civilian in the beginning of a heist, but you can't take any action except pick up keycards and spot people and that's only if you have the perk that lets you do it. You can't distract guards with noises or even close doors.

The game is only really fun when you're going loud. But even then there are only a few heists where going loud is really fun. They should have dropped any pretense of this being a heist game and just strengthened the horde gameplay with perks that let you weld doors shut or reinforce window barricades.

No matter how many new characters, weapons, and heists they add. Those addons will never change the way the base game plays. Payday 2 just doesn't support proper heist gameplay. They should stop adding onto Payday 2 and just make a Payday 3 with a gameplay formula that can support complex heist setups.

Posted by MiniPato

Kramer and Vinny is such a good combo! I love sincerity, it's really refreshing.

I wish they would host an actual radio show.

Posted by MiniPato

This looks like the game that should have been released between Ghosts and Advanced Warfare.

Posted by MiniPato
@qblivion said:

@danryckert Did no one ever tell drew that doing non-lethal kills on bosses gives you a cool item? Most bosses drop camo, but The End drop a tranq sniper rifle.

Yeah, but the tranq sniper rifle is still loud, so it's kinda pointless unless you're going for a no-kill run.

Posted by MiniPato

Please don't be another multiplayer-only arena shooter/MOBA hybrid aiming to take the MLG gaming scene by storm.

Edited by MiniPato

@firvulag said:

keeps fighting of droves of enemies when caught instead of restarting the checkpoint.

Save scumming on the first playthrough? Please tell me that's not how you play all MGS games the first time. You're not going to get Big Boss rank on the first playthrough blind. Running low on resources, medical supplies, ammo, it's part of the survival aspect of MGS3. My first playthrough of MGS3, I had to leave some wound untreated because I ran out of bandages and disinfectant. It really did feel like a survival experience.

Edited by MiniPato


Posted by MiniPato

@rasmoss said:

The primordial soup stuff isn't supposed to be taken literally,

Yeah, I don't know why people, including Brad, take that line so literally as if it's not metaphorical and try to prop it up as a prime example of bad Kojima writing.

Posted by MiniPato
Edited by MiniPato

@pattonfiend said:

How sad. Your review states the game as a 90-96 score yet you gave it an 80.

Doesn't make any sense at all. How could you have that much enjoyment and say it is so highly polished then go on to give it a B-, like you will ever find a better game like this in its respective category.

There is no consistency between your review and score: as I stated before, that is just sad.

@legendarychopchop said:

No 5 star?


I just don't like this star system — it's too narrow and basic. It seems like most games chime in at a 4 star, while mediocrity tends to get a 3. This review makes it sounds like it would net a "90-94", so to lump it as a 4 star when a game reviewed this way can be as low as an 80 in some systems seems a little bleak.

You guys are sad and bleak, placing so much stock in a score. Blame the metacritic system, not the star system. People have been using it for movies, restaurants, etc for ages. Metacritic is the one that simply equates it to an 80. What makes a game a 95 instead of a 94 anyways? Having such minutia is unnecessary except for in fanboy arguments where someone could argue that one game is one point better than another. Videogames aren't students.

4 stars doesn't mean 80. 4 stars means "very good." 5 stars means "excellent." Or if you care so much about hard numerical numbers as indicators of quality, think of 4 stars is more of a range of 75-90 and 5 stars is 90-100. Or you can be part of the meta problem and just say it's an 80 because you see 4 out of 5 stars. The star system isn't narrow and basic. It's your interpretation of it that is because you've been conditioned to think that way.