And those big sites never produce shit quality reviews that obviously look rushed. Take a look at Battlefield 1 reviews (I've really enjoyed the game, to be fair) and when they discuss the single-player campaign it seems pretty obvious that they didn't play through it.
Prequels (which is what this is looking like) are great when there is some legitimate mystery to the origin and past of the characters. We already know a lot about John Marston, and most importantly, we know how it ends for him and the vast majority of the important characters associated with him.
Except it hasn't launched yet. I'm sure the player counts from EA Access are relatively high, but that's nothing compared to what it will be on Friday and that is when the stability of their launch will be tested.
I'm sure it will be an improvement over Battlefield 4, but to write it off as a success before the game has officially launched? Talk about jumping the gun here.
You know this game is about World War One, right?
Personally, I'm leaning towards either a remaster or an entirely new cast of characters. Similar to what Rockstar has done with GTA. Same universe, different characters.
Except the system in Gears is almost identical, but the unlock rate is really slow. I hope they adjust the system slightly to make it easier, but the actual system itself is basically the same as Halo 5 - which I think is a fine way to do things. I haven't spent a cent on Halo 5 (beyond the original purchase), and haven't had any issues unlocking a lot of the weapons/skins I want.
The "season pass" is nothing new, except they used to be called expansion packs (and generally had much more content - Witcher 3 being the recent exception). But microtransactions for cosmetic items? I'll keep my 10-20 dollars thank you very much. I have no problem "grinding" for stuff that I couldn't care less about.
And if people really hate them so much, then don't buy them. The only reason companies do this is because people fork over the money to purchase the game and then the microtransactions. If they weren't making any money from this, it would stop.
I've played tons of games with microtransactions and I've never spent a cent - and I don't see that changing ever.
In the case of Gears 4, the "microtransactions" are just a way of spe...
I think it was the fact that the delays were also accompanied by significant changes in the direction of the game. So, I agree with you, but the context of these delays in particular, speak to overall issues surrounding this game from the get-go.
If, for some reason, you haven't played The Witcher 3, $15 is certainly worth the experience. That being said, it doesn't look like it includes the expansions, which you'll definitely want (the vanilla game is amazing, but the massive amount of added content that you get with the DLC is also worth the price).
Hopefully the single player lives up to the hype, but too often I see "amazing stories" filled with cliches, poor dialogue and subpar voice acting. So, that remains to be seen.
But unless the combat and gameplay has vastly changed from the beta, I don't know how you can argue "authenticity" for anything. Satisfying? Sure. Challenging? Go for it. But authentic? Come on. The tanks are slower, but still much faster than their real world counterparts of ...
Diablo 3 vastly improved itself after a disappointing launch. Unfortunately, a lot of people are unwilling to forgive or forget. That being said, despite the vast improvements, it is still my least favourite Diablo title - emphasizing action and massive number explosions instead of enjoyable gameplay.
The one thing that I will give Blizzard credit for is the continued development and support for Diablo III and finding ways to keep it fun and addictive for players. I still j...
Is anyone surprised anymore when it comes to Games Workshop IPs? Every single game that has the Warhammer tag comes with a justifiable amount of skepticism. There are certainly titles that do stand up and are positive additions to the franchise (Warhammer: Total War, Dawn of War, etc.), but there are countless others that fall well below expectations.
The one positive I will give to Eternal Crusade is that it isn't a terrible game. It's okay. It has it's problem...
Has it been that poor of a year? I've really enjoyed Gears so far, but the story is pretty lacklustre - though Marcus' voice acting is awesome. The gameplay is more of the same really (which is fine and awesome, because Gears) - but I also can't think of much else that has really stood out either.
I guess we were all in for a bit of a letdown after Witcher 3 last year.
Cosmetic items. Let me repeat, cosmetic items. I'm more willing to discuss how terrible the cosmetics are (flamboyant colours that look incredibly out of place instead of "cool") and the different player skins mostly being the same. There are a couple of cool characters to unlock, but the separate skins look terrible.
Now, if you want to argue that a full-price AAA title shouldn't have any microtransactions, then sure. But there's no difference between...
The system that has been implemented with BF1 is really good and the way that I would like other cosmetic systems to be handled (looking at you Gears of War - similar, but snails paced progression). However, the actual content of these cosmetic battle packs is pretty poor on the whole. They feel pretty pointless, which I guess is fine, given that they're a free little bonus that you get for completing a match, but the skins are relatively bland and aside from the title they're given, ...