TheRealTurk

I'm only a few hours in right now, but so far:

Things I Like

• The map screen isn't filled with garbage. Sure, there are ?s around, but the map isn't an incomprehensible mess of them.

• Locations having a defined purpose. Unlike AssCreed, where the every single location regardless of type is just another generic way of giving you experience points, I like that set types of locations give you set benefits in this one.

• Stand-offs. So good. I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't gotten old yet.

Things I Don't Like

• The stealth isn't great, particularly at the beginning of the game. While it has gotten quite a bit better after some upgrades, I feel like it isn't as useful or as fun as going in guns blazing. I think some of that has to do with that initially, the assassinations are so slow and make so much noise that you are almost always going to start a fight. And if a fight is going to start anyway, I'd rather use a standoff and get rid of 3 guys right at the start.

• The combat camera is sort of bad. I'm not fond of how when you parry, it tends to move the enemy slightly behind or to the side of you but not swing the camera around to track them at the same time. I've had problems with the soft-lock as a result - I try to follow-up a parry with an attack, but the camera is pointed at something else, so it goes after a different enemy.

• The soft-lock flat out needs work. The game is clearly wanting you to use stances for different enemy types, but often the enemies bunch up and the game isn't very good at picking out the one I want to attack. I've definitely had instances of swapping to water stance to get rid of a shield dude only to have the game decide to go after the spear-guy next to him.

It had unfixable audio issues that essentially made it unwatchable. According to Jeff those issues cannot be fixed and it will not be reposted.

On the "BioWare didn't get worse, everyone else got better" thing, my take on it is that BioWare didn't necessarily get worse, but they did start to chase other developers in search of a larger audience and got away from what they were good at.

• Back in the day, BioWare was really good at the mechanically dense CRPGs like Baldur's Gate. They also more or less had that genre to themselves. Or at least they were so much better than everyone else that no other developer really factored into the equation.

• • The problem is that the CRPG is a pretty narrow genre, so as the company grew, they tried to go in a more mainstream "action RPG" direction.
• But the ARPG genre is much more crowded and filled with developers who really knew what they were doing, while BioWare didn't have experience in that area. That's how you end up with something like Jade Empire. (A game I will defend to the death by the way, cultural appropriation and all. It's an interesting concept but one that needed a more experienced ARPG developer behind it)

• • The real problem is that BioWare never really got much better at making ARPGs, or at least, they failed to keep pace with improvements in the genre. I'd argue they topped out somewhere around ME2/3 but even then the gameplay rarely got above "good, not great."
• In the meantime, other developers like Obsidian and Larian filled the niche BioWare used to occupy with games like Pillars or Divinity. Now it feels like BioWare is kind of "homeless" from a genre perspective. They don't really make good ARPGs, but other developers have sort stolen their thunder in the CRPG space.

I think one of the reasons DA:O resonated as it did is that at the time, it was BioWare kind of going back to its roots a bit. They were clearly more comfortable designing that kind of game from a mechanical perspective and not needing to move a million miles an hour so action could happen helped the story and the characters. Games like Pillars or Divinity hadn't come along yet either, so if you were hungry for a CRPG experience, this was kind of it.

Good gravy, these reviews are all over the place. Kind of hard to know what to think. Some of them say the combat is a highlight, others say it's repetitive.

Some of them like the combat because its complex, others claim it's too simplistic.

Some reviewers like the open world, others say it's one note.

Some of them say the story and characters are really compelling, others think the story was forgettable and the characters basic.

Some of them read like it was the most disappointing thing they've played in years and then turn around and give it a 9.

It really makes me wonder if some of these people actually played the game. Generally things aren't that much of a Rorschach test.

Well, to be fair, the ?s trigger a lot of OCD for people like me, and you can also never tell if the activity is going to be worthwhile until you actually get to the ?. AC: Odyssey was a horrible offender with this. The "limited guidance" mode still put a bunch of vomit on the map screen. I shudder to think what the hand-holdy mode must have been like.

The thing I'll never understand is why games just won't let you turn them off completely.

Alex seems to not be that fond of it.

Looking at the reviews, it seems like it might end up being pretty divisive. A lot of reviews are praising the combat, others are saying its horrible. Some people are saying they love wandering through the world, others are finding it repetitive.

None of the reviews I've seen think it's terrible, though, so there might be a minimum bar of quality it hits.

Not really. I'd much rather have their attitude than another stream of mush-brained YouTubers screaming THAT LOOKS SICK, BRO!!!!!

Sometimes I find that Jeff can grate a little bit with his tendency to immediately dismiss games that don't have super-fast CoD-style movement and instantly responsive controls, but hey, that's his taste in games. He doesn't like the kind of things I like, so I know to take his experiences with a grain of salt.

As far as the Ubisoft conference went, I kinda agree with them. Everything they showed was extremely underwhelming. And like Vinny, I'm getting pretty damn sick of their "Here's this game about a revolution against a corporatist police state. But would you be interested in knowing that we're totally not political?" schtick. Turns out next-gen Ubisoft looks an awful damn lot like current-get Ubisoft.

Man, I hate the direction they've taken Assassin's Creed these last few iterations. It's supposed to be right there in the name Assassins. Creed. There's been little to no creed to write home about and they appear to have no idea what assassination actually is. Assassination is an intimate act. It's about a single target rather than giant war-bands.

Instead the games have become just more murder simulators stuffed with a bunch of superfluous crap like boats and massive battles and inventory clutter and dialogue choices that never end up having an effect. But hey, that doesn't matter because Look! the numbers get bigger!

At least it looks nice and they moved away from classical antiquity as a setting.

A book? Or maybe an Etch-a-Sketch?

Whatever his next step is, I hope it's something that can afford the opportunity to drop into a stream or two once in a while.

Sledgehammer and Ravensoft got booted from Call of Duty because they couldn't work together nicely.

I actually don't know if the game has even come out yet. They call the game "Call of Duty 2020." I thought there already was a CoD release this year, but I admit to finding the release conventions of that series hopelessly confusing. I guess fans of the series are capable of distinguishing between the multiple sub-labels. To me, it looks like exactly the same game.