@planetfunksquad: overwatch was nowhere near my radar. even the beta left me cold. then my roommate brought it home and it slowly won me over. Now I can't stop playing. that and hearthstone. Heh.
I know a lot of people are gonna hate this but what I really want to see is developers learn from MGSV. make an open world that serves your mission design and not one that is just there as an ubisoft collectathon with dots all over the map. Even witcher 3, which had a pretty great open world, was guilty of this. MGSV was barebones, yes but not only did the game perform beautifully on all modern systems, the missions actually took advantage of the open world to do something fresh and interesting. no more 'game over' screen after losing a tail, almost no 'you have left the mission area' warnings. All mission assets exist in the world and all scripted events are occurring simultaneously, allowing for incredible flexibility when it comes to playing with your toys and approaching your objectives. That first mission was a revelation. 'here's your objective, figure it out however you like' it was amazing.
I'm having a pretty easy time on hard. Supplies are scare but I've never once completely run out of ammo or defensive weapons. Running and gunning is still quite viable and infected drop ammo.
I bought last of us on Thursday, put about 2 hours into the campaign and about 10 into the online mode so far. It has some problems but otherwise I've been enjoying it a lot. Nothing has been announced as far as new maps and modes but my question is what would the giant bomb community like to see? Personally I'd like something with the infected zombie whatever thingys. Matches would be much more intense with clickers randomly placed on the maps. Thoughts?
I feel that if you are going to post your unpopular opinion you should at least back it up with some kind of reasoning. Otherwise the whole 'forum discussion' is kind of negated.
. I hate this idea that AAA 6 hour game must somehow be superior to a longer game simply because it isn't as long. Sure, some games could do with trimming the fat off but shorter doesn't automatically mean better. If that we're the case than in theory all games should be beatable in 1-2 hours with no replay value. Just because a game is replayable or lengthy doesn't mean it has 'artificial padding' or whatever.
I also hate the idea that price shouldn't factor into the decision. I'm not paying 70 dollars for a 5 hour experience that ill only revisit once or twice a couple years later, no matter how much of a 'cinematic masterpiece' your game is. Ill wait until its in the bargain bin or trade it in for another game as soon as its beaten.
Also the idea that someone doesn't have the time to commit to a lengthy game. It makes no sense. What's the difference between one game that you can get 100 hours of enjoyment with vs 10 games that last 6 to 10 hours each. Unless your a game critic that has to play many games and gets them all for free anyway.
The vita is the slicker and sleeker hardware by a mile. And with off tv play in the works for ps4 it should be even more attractive. The 3ds beats it software wise but admittedly not by a lot. Also I personally love the 3d effect but I seem to be in the minority. It works brilliantly on some games and is intolerable in others
Log in to comment