I got Silent Assassin, Blood Money, and Absolution. The only one I beat was Absolution, and I really enjoyed it. I really enjoyed Silent Assassin's soundtrack by Jesper Kyd, though I wasn't that into its gameplay any time I played it, and I could never get into Blood Money (I watched the ending though which I heard many loved, and I didn't think it was that special). I got as far as the casino mission, which I guess was four away from finishing it. That all said, I wouldn't mind playing through all of them before playing this, if this is something that turns out to be good. I'm not sure about the episodic idea though.
I like the look of the setting, and I've always really enjoyed the style in which this game plays in (starting with Splinter Cell: Conviction, and last we really saw it with was Ghost Recon: Future Soldier and Splinter Cell: Blacklist, as well as I suppose Watch Dogs, though none had the dodge roll like Gears), but I am not a fan of playing online, and games that have a cool atmosphere, and yet do little with it in terms of story.
I'm not sure if that's this game, but most, or perhaps no game has really done it correctly. Also, the enemies are bullet sponge-y depending on level, which doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of this games world from what I've seen. It looks like something I'd want to play... If it was a single player campaign. On the other hand, if this game does have a decent enough story, I may go through it. My brother will be buying it I think. It looks fun to play though... Ugh. I don't know. It's not for me necessarily in one big way.
I beat SOMA on PS4, and the game was great; one of my favorite of the year, and a complete surprise. It was a game I thought was just a PC game, and I know my PC probably can't run it, so after a few glimpses of some reviews (which I had forgotten about), I didn't give it much thought until I saw it on PSN. I bought it, then watched the quick look.
I really only played the intro of Fallout 4 so far, basically just up to meeting the dog, and so far I loved it, way more than any previous Bethesda game. I am trying to get through Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and then after that, I have to play Tomb Raider, then I will jump back into Fallout 4. Oh, what I wanted to say is that while I agree that Fallout 4 is more rushed than Fallout 3, I felt the entire intro was far more effective to me.
I got the game, but haven't played it yet; it's sitting next to me with a few other new games I just bought with it, but reading the review, whether I agree on how enjoyable and how tolerable it all is, it's a good review that touches on issues that seem valid (at least from what I've seen, and I can understand how he feels about it all).
I've been enjoying this game way more than last years Call of Duty. I thought last years was pretty dull; that said, I'm mainly talking about campaign. This exceeds it on every level, except for maybe how comprehensive it is, because there's quite a few things so far that they just don't explain (at least at first), so it makes me question what is going on, though some of that also has to do with me not paying enough attention. The game also has more exciting moments, and is just a lot more interesting. The sound design is more impressive as well. I'll probably go through this game on Realistic once I finish with it on co-op, something that I didn't do with last years Call of Duty, or the last Blacks Ops, since I didn't enjoy them enough.
I also like this more than the first two Black Ops games. It wasn't a game I was that excited about, but it's good. While I am enjoying the splitscreen with my brother (of which I am playing as I type, just waiting for him to finish fiddling with the upgrade stuff in between a mission), the frame rate isn't great, and other visual aspects are not great either. I think the thing last years Call of Duty may have done better was visuals, though this game has good visuals still. I could be wrong on that, and they're the same, but it was something I thought when I first saw it. I haven't seen enough of it on solo play to decide. Oh, and if you play this, don't forget the twin stick shooter zombie thing. I think that was in the first as well, and it's back in this game. It's fun, but I didn't want to finish it. Have to finish the main story.
The biggest thing in campaign that I don't like that was also present in the last one, though it is a little less offensive here, is how it does that Battlefield campaign thing, where they have the environment open, not blocked off by walls, and yet you can only go so far out of the missions area before it says turn around with a timer ticking down before it makes you fail. I hate that in campaigns, as it ruins the act of exploring a games setting.
@nggamer: I mean, take the best aspects from each game, and then make them the same in each, yes, that's what I mean. I want to play all three as if they look and play the same. That said, I wouldn't really care if they didn't want to take that extra time and put the work in. As long as it was 1080p/60fps on current-gen consoles, and all DLC, then that'd be nice. That said, while I am okay with the first Mass Effect's shooting gameplay, I think two, and even more so in three just made that aspect of it way better, so if they all played the same, it'd make all play as well in that respect for example, and that'd be cool to me. Plus, if they made the change to have them seamless, having them play and look differently wouldn't really work.
@ntm: 1 seamless playthrough would be the ultimate.
Yeah, that's kind of what I mean, though I think the way things change, especially with how you go back to the citadel throughout the three, would make that a bit hard. Just making them all play and look the same would be good enough for me, even if I had to quit out of one game and into another.
NTM's comments