The thing about that is that there are certain elements of the game's balance (especially the number of titans on the battlefield) that work better without more human players.
One of the most pathetic articles I've ever read. Based on the other content I see on that site, the author seems like an all-around piece of shit.
This guy sounds like he has some real issues to work out, and I'd also like to echo the advice to not encourage him further by clicking on this article.
I don't like to just attack people like this, but this is some truly sad stuff.
I considered that, but I still believe the two are different enough to justify their mutual existence.
Isn't it a good thing, though, that games have evolved to the point that many of them are now able to include an entertaining multiplayer experience that adds value to a game?
I don't necessarily think that "13 years ago people wouldn't have minded" is the best mentality to have when looking for games to continuously grow and evolve.
True, but its more about the idea of these major next gen titles that aren't appearing on the competitors console releasing so close to each other.
Excellent choice.
Titanfall being on the PC and 360 makes it feel a little less special, but its clear the main focus is on the Xbox One version
"As With All Films, There’s a Chance, No Matter How Small, That Bill Murray Will Be Somehow Involved With It"
This makes me more optimistic about life in general.
Good call. That would be trippy.
Honestly based on many of the comments I'm reading, I'm suddenly happy I'll be playing Titanfall with fewer people.
One thing that gets overlooked is that this is the first time Sony has released a console that wasn't offering a new game format as a major selling point.
In other words; the PS1 had CDs, the PS2 had DVD, and the PS3 had Blu-Ray.
I think then that in the absence of that obvious format upgrade, they've been wise to dial back and focus on being a pure gaming system.
Does it annoy anyone else when the relevant picture is at the bottom of the text and not the top?
It always gets me really disorientated.
I completely forgot that was a thing.
Based on your comment, apparently you also don't want to bother reading the article you comment on before contributing an opinion on it.
Perhaps you consider that leeching as well.
Oh yeah. The indie scene gets a little more exciting each year.
I really hope this article gets read by as many people as possible.
It's very important that everyone who hasn't lost their damn minds to absolute greed band together, while those bastards trying to cause all the trouble are, rightfully, singled out.
I don't think they're intentionally milking, but they may just be taking on too heavy a workload.
I don't see how when EA the company, much like many EA games, is the same thing year after year.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but even though my personal preference would be to end cinematics,realistically I know that can't be the case.
Instead my real interest is in more developers to start thinking outside the box in terms of presenting a story. Games like "Gone Home" and "The Stanley Parable" are great examples of new forms of storytelling, but more and more AAA games need to join them in pursuing new alternatives.
In other word...
Again, if you read the piece you'll see I acknowledge that realistically cinematics will always be a part of games.
However, what I'm really hoping is more developers will pursue alternatives to the traditional cinema. That seems to be happening less and less.
Sometimes it's more entertaining the others. For instance, right now they're stuck in an elaborate puzzle room that may just be their doom.
Overall, though, it's the narrative of the journey so far that's more enjoyable than the play by play action.