Scott Clarke writes: "Nearly one year ago I wrote a feature for IGN that said the traditional boss fight is a relic of a bygone era. My argument was that while technological and creative advancements within the games industry have resulted in modern games that are more cinematic and immersive than ever before, these advances have not extended to how many developers shape the conclusion of their games. As a result, many games end in a traditional boss fight."
Rockstar Games’ shiny new Red Dead Redemption port is now on GTA+, and you can play it while claiming some tasty GTA Online benefits.
Rockstar still strying to make GTA plus work
Should be $6 for the rdr game on sale not 6 bucks for a months playtime
One of my favorite games from PS3 generation. I have the remaster as there was a buy 2 get 1 free deal a while back but the price they are charging for the port is way too high although not surprising at all.
Improvements have been made to the stability of the game
I still think this release was a big waste of time. I would have been a day 1 purchaser if they had redone the game w RDR2 graphics. I still own my PS3 copy, so don't see the point in picking this up if it's minimally improved.
They should have released the game in its current state not the state it launched in. Obvious we all wanted this to be a expansion to rdr 2 given that the original map was already remade in the game lots of people though this was just going to be added in later as paid DLC.
Now the game runs at 4k 60 fps on ps5 and can be brought on sale it's actually worth playing.
At launch the game was priced far to high and was a ps360 era game that couldn't run at 60 fps.
I'm in no way a frame rate snob I defended games like tears of the kingdom in the past for being 30 fps experiences but rdr was a joke at launch
GB: "With this feature, we take a look back at the incredible Batman: Arkham City with the aim of analyzing it from the perspective of a 2024 release."
Where as I loved all of these games finales (cept bastion cause I never played it)
I felt Arkham City's was kind of cheap. I mean this is a SPOILER for those who haven't played AC... but the final battle with Clayface really didn't make sense. I wish they alluded to it more, and Clayface's reasoning for being in Arkham was really cliche. Also sadly the final boss resulted in me spamming R2 to throw freeze grenades and X to dodge, and then square to defeat clayface with a sword... which was pretty awesome.
I mean they did really good fights for Mr.Freeze and Ra's... why not the final boss? Hell unlike others I actually like Titan joker at the end of Asylum... but clayface made no sense.
The conclusion of AC was amazing.. but the minutes before made me scratch my head. My biggest problem with AC was that it did not wrap up like AA. Where as with AA their was the slight possibilty there would be a sequel... AC makes you know there will be a sequel... which is agonizing to me since I love batman and the Arkham games so much. I mean the stuff with Hush, Azarael,and Harley makes you know that their is a sequel, and I want to know more now.
Its like waiting for the next issue of a comic book impatiently. Hell I'm buying those digital Arkham comics to read because I want to know more.
Im putting everything on hold to play Harley Quinn's Revenge on the 29th...
But man, Arkham City was a great great game.... and I impatiently await a sequel... because my love for Batman is too damn high