CRank: 20Score: 0

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)

1124d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

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.

1124d ago 3 agree0 disagreeView comment

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...

1124d ago 5 agree1 disagreeView comment

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...

1124d ago 4 agree2 disagreeView comment

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...

1124d ago 12 agree2 disagreeView comment

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 It is a PR move that is part of an outdated practice.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 ...

1125d ago 8 agree8 disagreeView comment

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)

1125d ago 2 agree0 disagreeView comment

No as it uses they sold it as in game assets. It will look really good on PC but no where near that

1126d ago 0 agree1 disagreeView comment

In the grand scheme of things these seem like bottom of the barrel reasons

1126d ago 2 agree2 disagreeView comment

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...

1128d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

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...

1129d ago 23 agree3 disagreeView comment

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.

1129d ago 23 agree6 disagreeView comment

"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

1129d ago 8 agree0 disagreeView comment

"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...

1129d ago 9 agree6 disagreeView comment

I really do not rate IV. As an Assassin's Creed game it is fairly poor. The story went on some massive tangent which didn't really link the the grander story. I remember, towards the end, the massive tangent just randomly stopped (bare in mind that this tangent had gone on for most of the game) just so an ending could be made that fits in with the Assassin's Creed universe. It was bizarre.

Sailing was fun but like a lot of features in the Assassin's Creed gam...

1129d ago 7 agree18 disagreeView comment

But it sold more console units. Remember these sale reports do not count bundle unit sales when it comes to game sales. There is no way, in the Destiny example, that the PS4 sold significantly more than the One purely down to chance (despite nothing really launching at that time). The Destiny release had something to do with it

This isn't mean discrediting the blog but merely suggesting why users may think the PR deal will do wonders for Sony

1129d ago 14 agree2 disagreeView comment

I think the lack of a campaign is a minor issue compared to some of the other omissions. The developers talk about having a focus on detail "quality over quantity" but forego the details that made the previous game so iconic

I feel this is another case of style over function

1130d ago 2 agree3 disagreeView comment

I think the idea comes from what Destiny did for the PS4. For Sony Destiny was a huge success as it sold a lot of PS4s compared to its competitor. It pushed the PS4 in a critical time

This is like what the 360 had in the last generation as big, blockbuster third party titles were a huge deal for the system. Having exclusive promotion rights made the deal even bigger.

1130d ago 14 agree4 disagreeView comment

I can see why "fight on the ground then hop into an X Wing, fight against TIE Fighters then land inside a Star Destroyer to try and blow it up" wouldn't work (and not be included unless you have a massive player count and specific objectives to certain users) but to not put in space battles to start with is idiotic. I wouldn't mind if they separated the ground and space battles (little bit of ground with the infiltrating of the ships). At least it is there

1130d ago 0 agree0 disagreeView comment

The more I read about this game the less appealing it is. It just seems like a massive step backwards from a game that released 10 years ago.

1130d ago 5 agree1 disagreeView comment