Microsoft seems to be hitting all the right notes the past year or two, but I guess if you're the kind of person who needs big flagship exclusives to justify playing on a certain platform it could still be a bit of a disappointment.
And damn does Cyberpunk 2077 look like it was designed by scientists to appeal to Giant Bomb staff lol
I'm with Vinny and Brad, it's a bit unnerving that they're showing so little of Anthem when it's really not that far away. It'll probably turn out fine I guess, but it just seems weird going into E3 without much at all to say about it.
This seemed $20 worth of alright up until that last sequence, which had me thinking "Yuuuup there's what Alex was talking about." If the writing in these games could just rise to the level of "consistently decent" I'd be all over them. But no, "ham-fisted" winds up being generous.
The cash mechanic's quasi-persistence is a neat idea and the game show setting opens up plenty of opportunities. I hope nine months from now this thing has people running around with lasers and jetpacks with a huge T-Rex spawning somewhere.
Although, I can't exactly abide the idea of putting microtransactions into the game before textures because the dev was so eager to release while the genre was hot.
@imhungry: GB tends to be much better than most comments-wise, but there will always be folks bizarrely invested in either defending a game they like to the death or waging war against one they don't. Apoplectic, one could say.
@mrguffman: For sure; Brad's story about turning off all the lanterns and sailing behind some rocks to avoid a ship full of people who might take his stuff sounds like this game at its best. Watching the QL though I can't help but feel like the other stuff you do in the game could be more fleshed out. The handful of quest types and what you're actually being asked to do seem kinda dull and a bit repetitive before long regardless of fun pirate hijinks.
Who knows, maybe it'll become something I'm into later once more stuff goes into it.
It looks like it'd be fun to mess around for the first few hours but once you see everything why come back? Neat idea but pretty bare-bones. Like they said, I hope their expansion plans come down the pipe soon.
Hearing Jeff talk about games as a service makes me simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic about the next few years for games. I'm totally on board with games like Hitman and Overwatch that are still putting out great new stuff well over a year later that you can keep coming back to (except the blindboxes, Overwatch). I'm totally NOT on board with what misguided money-grubbing suits like EA think games as a service is and what is inevitably to come: ludicrous nickle and diming though naked shakedowns for more than the $60 entry price. The crucial component of the "service" concept is that the $60 "base" be totally worthwhile on its own and the paid additions be valuable if you want more than the base. I am intensely cynical that major publishers will adopt this model without purposefully devaluing the base in order to make the paid additions essential in all but name.
As an example, Paradox sometimes runs a very fine line between paid additions that add to the base (acceptable) and paid additions that improve the base (unacceptable). A big part of the expectation is that improvements be free, which they do largely deliver on.
PancakePatriarchate's comments