I love the original and finished it many times, but the aesthetic was always my least favourite thing about it, and it seems even worse here. Like, why are the anticonsumerist rebels wearing aggressively branded polyester while the business sheeple wear retro-chic tailored natural materials? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Also we're supposed to love the hyper-sterile white iPod look of the city but hate the conformity and monotony which it is meant to symbolize at the same time?
I got to a point where I had robots researching how to build better robots, as well as building new robots, thus literally multiplying exponentially. Thankfully I beat the game before the robots took over my computer. This might be the best game.
Am I the only one who hates down-but-not-out mechanics in singleplayer games? It has never worked well. It seems shooter AI is simply not equipped to handle that kind of responsibility. When I hit game over I want to have no one but myself to blame.
Even if it does work properly, taking a break from the action to revive an AI team-mate is not fun, and waiting to be revived is not fun either. There's zero appeal to the whole thing.
It is a fun mechanic in multiplayer though, and given how popular co-op is for this game, perhaps it makes sense to consolidate the single and co-op experiences like this? Then of course, surely singleplayer is still the vastly preferred mode?
I'm not hugely invested in this series; maybe this is something that the fanbase wants. It's close to a dealbreaker for me though.
I would rather have it and have it be finicky than not have it at all. The benefits of that mechanic for me outweigh the negatives.
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Why is hitting a Game Over and restarting a level or checkpoint better than a revival system? With revivals, you get into the game quicker and spend less time in menus and replaying content.
Well, being downed is not an alternative to getting game over. Games that have this mechanic still have a generally game over state if the whole squad goes down. If you want to die less, that's what the difficulty option is for, right?
It is true that all other things (such as player health and encounter design) being equal, a game where you go down with a chance to be revived is easier than a game where you instantly die, but I disagree that this can be considered a "benefit," especially in a game which has adjustable difficulty anyway.
Am I the only one who hates down-but-not-out mechanics in singleplayer games? It has never worked well. It seems shooter AI is simply not equipped to handle that kind of responsibility. When I hit game over I want to have no one but myself to blame.
Even if it does work properly, taking a break from the action to revive an AI team-mate is not fun, and waiting to be revived is not fun either. There's zero appeal to the whole thing.
It is a fun mechanic in multiplayer though, and given how popular co-op is for this game, perhaps it makes sense to consolidate the single and co-op experiences like this? Then of course, surely singleplayer is still the vastly preferred mode?
I'm not hugely invested in this series; maybe this is something that the fanbase wants. It's close to a dealbreaker for me though.
Voidoid's comments