Hah... that will never get old. But seriously... I have the most difficulty replaying through choice-dependent single-player games. Choosing new story paths the second time around kind of feels like I'm betraying my original experience. Even when I reload a previous save to change something, I end up feeling a little disconnected from the game.
Going back through an actually well-written game with good characters like ME2 and playing differently just for the sake of seeing different story and dialog options is kind of like watching the deleted scenes, "alternative endings", or the "special director's-cut unrated rerelease" of good movies for me. More often than not, doing so just completely breaks down the fourth wall for me, and the stories and characters just seem inconsequential as a result. It's a totally valid way to play, and I think it can be enjoyable, but... I'd rather preserve the story without any cognitive dissonance.
This goes back to your "c ome on brah, it's just a vidjagame..." statement; saying all this is beginning to make me feel more self-aware of just how roleplaying-esque I can get... but that is what an RPG should do right? From a design perspective, I think it's interesting to think about whether or not these kind of games should make invested players doubt their decisions so much that they feel like they need to reload old saves to retry everything. But realistically speaking... having such a major choice at the very end of ME2 (when it is unclear when the next installment will be released)... well, some might call it a bold design choice... but I think they could've done better.
Hopefully ME3 will make you feel better about your decision!
As smart as I think they are with giving you exposition, I think it'll be really hard to get into Brotherhood if you haven't played AC2 first. (But you definitely do not need to play AC1 to be able to fully enjoy AC2)
" Reboots happen far too quickly these days. As soon as one game, or movie, in a franchise returns less than stellar results, a reboot of the franchise is announced. At the rate it's going, franchises will end up diluted beyond the point of recognition. That's no to say that I am against reboots. When done properly, they can really revitalize a franchise, and make it better than it ever was before. I just wish publishers and movie companies weren't so quick to resort to these 'tricks'. "
I agree but they say that its because of money loss. if they lose money, is that a good reason. "
I honestly cannot think of a better reason to do a reboot.
I think too much hype can definitely make some people overly critical. I guess sometimes hype can ruin legitimately good experiences, though for me I think it's happened way more with movies and books than it has with games.
For big franchises, I think the hype itself can be kind of fun so most of the time I just try to enjoy it. Hype is such an integral part of every CoD, Halo, GTA... etc. release that I honestly think I would be way more disturbed if there weren't any hype. It's kind of an douchey thing to say, but in a "you are what you consume" kind of world, those kind of hype-machine-set-to-11-type experiences also make slightly smaller gems like Vanquish seem that much better... because I get to feel like I'm more discerning. /gaminghipster
Multiplayer Online Split-Screen Support Let’s get started with what I believe is the most unknown, yet confirmed, aspect to Call of Duty: Black Ops Multiplayer -- the online split-screen support we’ve re-introduced to the franchise! This applies to both the Xbox 360 & PlayStation 3.
You can connect a 2nd controller and bring a Guest online (i.e. "JD_2020" & "JD_2020(1)").
Guests can rank up, earn unlocks, etc -- all Guest progress goes away once signed out.
(Xbox 360 only) You can bring a 2nd, Gold Xbox LIVE account online!
(Xbox 360 only) Both players with full online accounts can rank-up while playing split-screen, as if on two separate consoles.