The feature has definitely made sure these systems feel more future proof but it is no game changer.
They look cheap and nasty
It is alright but no way should anyone pay full price for the New Order. It is very old school and does feel dated in its design. It reminded me of an old PS2 game.
It is a good second tier title (which is strange to see since they have died out in favour of cheaper indie titles) but they asked for way to much at launch
It is interesting about the cut and really highlight how lazy Valve have become. It is the same with their Steam machines. The are going to try and make money of a product someone else makes. With this they are basically trying to make DLC a big thing on PCs. Instead of creating their own compelling content they are just going to put independent products there were free behind a pay wall.
I really don't see the good in a service like this. Sure modders will get paid but...
Gabe (and Valve) have the gift of the gab. I don't see how this will benefit modding in the future. Paywalls have done nothing but stunt growth and limit creativity.
I think the point is though it was free and now it isn't. Donate pages have been around way before this and it isn't like the modders are getting 100% of the money (since it is distriputed) through the scheme (even more so when Mods of Mods are monitised). To me it seems it is monetising something that never really needed it in the first place. Modding fostered without it. I doubt paying for Mods is going to help foster talent (probably do the opposite)
This won't end well. It is nice to support modders but including money into modding will ruin the entire experience. There will be less modders as reputation will be needed (you are not going to throw down money on a new modder over someone who has consistently delievered) to succeed. Also adding money means it is open to exploitation (other valve services have proven that point)
Probably but now they have made more work for themselves as they need to convince people that this isn't a Star Wars skin of Battlefield 4. First impressions are important.
I still do not know why they didn't show gameplay. I mean they showed it to the press (in a closed door affair) why not just show off that to the masses. If they are really confident in this product and how it will not play like Battlefield, they need to show it. Something is clearly showable since they have shown it to people.
Apart from the words (which seem far to defensive for a reveal) DICE haven't shown they are confident in their product. One way to silence cri...
I feel it is more of an amalgamation of an idea. Treyarch couldn't exactly just release AW 2. They needed their own angle that isn't a complete departure from COD AW. Human augmentation is a good alternative. Now one could argue the theme has been stolen (moral issue of human augmentation and the eventual ethic issues with it) but what else can you do. Human augmentation would automatically bring up these questions anyway.
Edit: One thing I can say is Eidos Montré...
The idea of focusing on ground combat is the insane part for this Star Wars game. Star Wars has a rich vehicle history and it seems DICE have limited that down to just the tie fighter and the X wing (bombers have to be "called in" and the ATAT is on rails). The way Battlefront 2 did space combat was to emulate the ground war but just in a vehicle only focus. It worked well. They only needed to expand on this idea.
The way to make -Foxtrot idea work is to set object...
See I disagree. Let's take the Battlefront example, that isn't how the game is going to look or play like. It is far to fluid and natural. It isn't telling us anything about the final product. It is a PR move that is part of an outdated practice. Gone are the times were magazines pushed this type of content as a way of building hype. Before launch gameplay would have to be shown as it is easy to get that information now. The pre rendered/cgi/in game assets trailer is an outdated...
It would be a big mistake if they allowed the partnership to jump ship. Sure more money could then be funded into the first party games/studios (because the deal would have cost a lot) but like it or not this deal did help Microsoft secure a huge market share in the US with the 360.
For us I guess we can all hope there is no partnership deal with anyone (since timed elusive content is just a pain)
No as it uses they sold it as in game assets. It will look really good on PC but no where near that
In the grand scheme of things these seem like bottom of the barrel reasons
I am with you on the notion that the lack of a campaign is a non issue. BF2 had one but it wasn't extensive (though a similar system wouldn't hurt as it gave a good insight into the 501st).
The Space battle, for me, are a big deal. I seriously disagree with their logic. BF2 did it in a fairly bare bones way but it was fun. It was essentially a traditional domination/objective map except there was very little infantry combat and more dog fights in aircraft. All they ne...
The entire reveal event has been a misfire. Not only did they fail to communicate their game (the confusion over maps being evident of that) but the entire game seems like the detail and style have taken centre stage instead of the features and gameplay. You know something is wrong where a 10 year old game gives you more options and a bigger scope than your soon to be released game. I don't need to see gameplay to tell me that. They gave me that knowledge with the list of things not appea...
A gamebolt? article was posted here sometime last week about this (turns out it as another but similar) interview. I will say what I said in the comments in that article. It is all ifs and possibilities. He is theorising something he has yet to prove that it could realistically work. This is the same talk we have had since the announcement of the One (from Microsoft and other independent developers) yet nothing has come of it.
"Apparently these vehicles are effectively on rails, and players simply man the weapons, most likely hinting towards a walker assault mode"
I hope not. I can see them being a type of levelution which would piss me off. They should be controllable
"when it comes to games and actual gaming, Wii U is the best console out."
Is it though? I mean sure if you like what Nintendo has historically offered you will enjoy a Wii U but it still misses out on some of the largest and important games ever released. Objectively speaking, "when it comes to games and actual gaming" the Wii U isn't really a great console as you still need a PC, PS4 or One to play the vast majority of big and important games of this...