Jump to content


Photo

The Last Us Remastered


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#21 Jironimo

Jironimo

    XBOX ONE Apologist

  • Admin
  • 3,857 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 06:15 AM

So hold on, the game is 60fps but they give you an option to play it at 30fps? That's strange.

 

I was watching some people play on Twitch last night and this game is very pretty.



#22 Kinetic

Kinetic

    is Algebraic.

  • Veteran
  • 3,679 posts
  • PSN:DocKinetic
  • Steam:dockinetic

Posted 01 August 2014 - 08:04 AM

So hold on, the game is 60fps but they give you an option to play it at 30fps? That's strange.

 

It's probably for the people who played it on PS3 and are used to playing it at that frame rate. I don't know, that's my asshole talking.



#23 Drew

Drew

    Waifus R Us

  • Member
  • 3,906 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:00 AM

It's not a locked 60 (sometimes drops into high 50s), so for those wanting a consistent framerate you can lock it at thirty. Also DRASTICALLY improves shadow quality, but it's definitely not worth it in my opinion. Switching back and forth between the two is night and fucking day. I have no idea how I played the original game with it's consistent mid-20s framerate. It's buttery smooth at 60, and the drops aren't noticeable because of the vsync - absolutely no tearing or microstutter. It's amazing.


Edited by Drew, 01 August 2014 - 11:01 AM.


#24 UHYVE

UHYVE
  • Veteran
  • 1,689 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 05:45 PM

Allowing people to feel the difference in input latency between 30fps and 60fps is gonna be interesting, since so many people seem to be unable to see the difference it'll be cool to have a console experience where you can freely switch.

 

Anyways, I bit the bullet and bought it... 30 minutes before release on PSN so I could get the preorder bonuses, heh, totally surprised that worked.



#25 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:57 AM

And I thought Destiny's versus mode was bad, this game is complete garbage. I mean I love the story and everything, I didn't touch the multiplayer for whatever reason on PS3. Now that I have it on PS4, I gave it a shot. We always got paired with people that were at least 9 levels above us, bullets are inconsistent, the game rewards better players with more cash to buy things, getting the drop on someone does not mean you will win, and on top of it all it encourages camping because of the nature of trying to sneak around and avoiding someone else's listen mode...reminds me of another shitty game.

 

I'm staying away from this one. Ugh.


Edited by DualX, 03 August 2014 - 11:02 AM.


#26 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 02:22 PM

And I thought Destiny's versus mode was bad, this game is complete garbage. I mean I love the story and everything, I didn't touch the multiplayer for whatever reason on PS3. Now that I have it on PS4, I gave it a shot. We always got paired with people that were at least 9 levels above us, bullets are inconsistent, the game rewards better players with more cash to buy things, getting the drop on someone does not mean you will win, and on top of it all it encourages camping because of the nature of trying to sneak around and avoiding someone else's listen mode...reminds me of another shitty game.

 

I'm staying away from this one. Ugh.

You didn't give the game very long.

 

1. Yes, you get paired with people higher than you, because it means nothing. All level means is the number of weeks you have survived the survivor minigame. You get survivors if you have a decent match, you lose them if you have a really bad match, and if you have survivors after x weeks you are level x. That's it. Now you could argue that the game should do proper matchmaking, but the levels mean nothing. I'm one of the highest levels I've seen and I'm not that good, just have played a lot.

2. I don't know about bullets being inconsistent. I'm sure they are at times, but overall I'm decently happy and I think the actual feel of the bullets (there are few and they hurt), makes it feel a lot more realistic and something that you don't take lightly.

3. Yes, you get more cash if you play well. However, the boxes also drop a lot more for the losing team, so it is a lot easier to craft items like bombs and molotovs. It's actually a good mechanic because it balances things out pretty well.

4. Wait. I thought people complained about CoD and BF because when someone does get the drop on you, you have no chance, and praise Halo because the higher time to kill does give you a chance? This game, like Halo, rewards good players. If you got the drop on someone and lost, it could be for a few reasons: situational (they had a shotgun, you didn't, and you engaged in close - like Halo), equipment (they had armor, you didn't - much like the overshield in Halo you should see this and plan accordingly), upgraded abilities (some of the weapons are much better when upgraded, but this is part of the CS meta game this exists during rounds - do I want armor, ammo, or an upgraded gun?), or you just got outshot; the absolute most skilled players in the game can control the recoil on the burst rifle just enough to get what is essentially a 1 shot execution; incredibly hard, but rewards skill, as it should, and is exactly what almost every Halo thread on this site digests over and over.

5. Camping gets too much hate. It's just a slower way of playing the game. Regardless, the best players I've seen rove around in groups; and you really should be on the move in order to flank and get what you can from boxes. Some of the best players excel at sneaking around flanking solo. Also, one of the abilities you can pick (Covert Ops 2) makes you invisible in listen mode if you are crouch walking. A lot of games you can't pick up hardly anyone at all on listen mode because most of the players have it, and it is one of the most useful abilities in the game.

 

It's fine if you don't like it, but it sounds like you gave it a few hours, didn't take the time to understand it, then declared it shit. It is a complex game, and a different game than the vast majority of shooters out there. I know you have done some game design yourself, and I'm guessing you wouldn't want people who tried your game (especially one that tries unique things) to do the same and only give it a few hours of play without understanding core mechanics.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 02:35 PM.


#27 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 02:56 PM

I played the game for about 2 hours last night. Every single thing I did in the game resulted in me getting punished somehow. How does that a fun game make? You're telling me that I'm supposed to play more before the game is supposed to be considered "fun" somehow?

1. So basically Call of Duty. It does mean something when every team we fight against knows all the tricks in the book. Survivor minigame?

2. Watch my gameplay, you can see where I shoot a guy with a sniper and he drops then later on it I shoot someone else and he walks away. Really? Also, other bullets in the game will kill me without even letting me crawl back for help. Inconsistent. Shotguns are also either completely short range, or are completely pointless with how random the bullets scatter. Makes it worse than the Forerunner shotgun somehow...

3. So basically Call of Duty again. I'm seeing a trend here.

4. It would make the game more enjoyable when the game actually rewarded good players when the game actually had consistency especially in it's weapons. Which it does not at all. Just like Call of Duty. All the more reason why even after the one single time we won, it wasn't a satisfying experience. Halo, on the other hand, has a much more balanced weapon set. You know exactly what each weapon does, everyone is on an even playing ground and it only rewards players that know how to use the weapons better than the other guy. Not this perk, and armor system bullshit.

5. "Camping gets too much hate." I wonder why.

Again, I've played through the game's story. I understand how the game works in that regard. In multiplayer, it looks like they just threw a bunch of shit together.


Edited by DualX, 03 August 2014 - 02:58 PM.


#28 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 03:38 PM

I played the game for about 2 hours last night. Every single thing I did in the game resulted in me getting punished somehow. How does that a fun game make? You're telling me that I'm supposed to play more before the game is supposed to be considered "fun" somehow?

1. So basically Call of Duty. It does mean something when every team we fight against knows all the tricks in the book. Survivor minigame?

2. Watch my gameplay, you can see where I shoot a guy with a sniper and he drops then later on it I shoot someone else and he walks away. Really? Also, other bullets in the game will kill me without even letting me crawl back for help. Inconsistent. Shotguns are also either completely short range, or are completely pointless with how random the bullets scatter. Makes it worse than the Forerunner shotgun somehow...

3. So basically Call of Duty again. I'm seeing a trend here.

4. It would make the game more enjoyable when the game actually rewarded good players when the game actually had consistency especially in it's weapons. Which it does not at all. Just like Call of Duty. All the more reason why even after the one single time we won, it wasn't a satisfying experience. Halo, on the other hand, has a much more balanced weapon set. You know exactly what each weapon does, everyone is on an even playing ground and it only rewards players that know how to use the weapons better than the other guy. Not this perk, and armor system bullshit.

5. "Camping gets too much hate." I wonder why.

Again, I've played through the game's story. I understand how the game works in that regard. In multiplayer, it looks like they just threw a bunch of shit together.

No, I'm saying understanding how the game works is the key to it being fun. It is like Splinter Cell in that regard. If you jumped into Chaos Theory and played for two hours you'd probably lose a lot and it would be frustrating because you didn't understand nuances of the game. Once you understand those nuances you appreciate the skill it takes to do certain things. So it is in this game. On the other hand, I had fun almost immediately. The game just isn't for you.

 

1. I mean at this point it doesn't matter. People have been playing the PS3 version for a year, so there's no way you are going to be playing completely fresh faces anyway. As I said, they could have proper matchmaking, I won't argue with that; only that levels are mostly pointless. The survivor minigame is the Week 10: Day 7 stuff you see on the multiplayer menu. That could be more intuitive and it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it didn't exist.

 

2. I haven't seen the issue to the same extent you have with inconsistency with bullets. I'm probably biased, but I've also played a lot more than you have, so I doubt we'd agree.

 

3. Did you read what I said? Call of Duty only rewards the team that is doing well. In this game the losing team gets a ton more pick ups in the supply boxes, so they get more parts (just like the winning team), and items so they can craft molotovs, and bombs (molotovs are one-hit kill even with armor, so they are very very good). So really not like CoD at all.

 

4. You yourself said you played 2 hours. I don't think you can accurately gauge weapons at all in two hours. You know "exactly what every weapon does" in Halo because you played more than 2 hours. You didn't know shit about how perfectly balanced Halo was in 2 hours. Are you really making that argument? I can tell you after more than two hours of play that the burst rifle is has the highest skill ceiling but is the best short and mid range when mastered. The semi auto is the most versatile weapon in the game, the sniper can lock down a map, the bow is an excellent flaking weapon, and the shotgun absolutely destroys close range.

 

Guess what? Counter-Strike has a "armor system bullshit" and it is by far the most competitive FPS out there, even more so than Halo back in its day. A perk and armor system doesn't have to be a mindless Skinner's Box designed to get people to play more, it can be something that adds variety and strategy, which is what this game does. Just because something is like CoD doesn't mean it is CoD. Halo has elements of Quake, but it is a very different game than Quake.

 

5. You didn't bother reading what I said. Camping *does* get too much hate, but movement is key in this game, and if you don't understand that, then you haven't played enough.

 

As I said, I take no issue with you disliking the game. I take issue with you playing for two hours and then deciding the game is shit because it didn't click that fast. It's probably not for you anyways, but for your sake I hope nobody ever takes one of your games, plays for two hours, and then declares it a cobbled together piece of shit when they don't understand the mechanics of the game.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 03:52 PM.


#29 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 03:58 PM

Ok.



#30 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 04:06 PM

I don't like arguments like I used to, believe it or not. I'm sorry if I'm being a jerk about this, but this is probably the first game in years that has grabbed my attention, so forgive my fanboyism.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 04:08 PM.


#31 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 05:09 PM

I'm just not going to continue an argument when anyone continues to give reasons without giving real examples of a counter point and a lot of what you just posted felt like LoU DEFENSE FORCE and not a proper debate "I'm probably biased" etc. I posted my reasonings as to why I felt the game is off and even linked to the games that I talked about and all you did is just came back saying "OH IT JUST WORKS FOR ME."

 

You keep making assumptions that I've apparently only played the entire game in total for 2 hours which is the exact opposite of what I've been saying the whole time. And you also keep making assumptions that I'm not reading what you say, yet you do that exact thing yourself. The time between my last post and yours afterwards proves you didn't even attempt to watch the games I played. You completely ignore why I'm disliking the game and give no counter arguments to prove your point.

 

"I haven't seen the issue to the same extent you have with inconsistency with bullets."
Then you didn't even see the full extent of my argument with the video I posted.

"So really not like CoD at all"
Doesn't the winning team also get those supply boxes? So basically they get double pickups and therefore are rewarded more, right?

"Just because something is like CoD doesn't mean it is CoD"
I'm not even sure what your point is. Uh...Halo 4?

 

"Camping *does* get too much hate"
Saying this just implies that you are FOR camping.

 

Also, Counter Strike is plenty more balanced than this which is why it's on the competitive scene and not the Last of Us. That's why these thing like body armor in CS don't matter as much.



#32 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 05:27 PM

I'm just not going to continue an argument when anyone continues to give reasons without giving real examples of a counter point and a lot of what you just posted felt like LoU DEFENSE FORCE and not a proper debate "I'm probably biased" etc. I posted my reasonings as to why I felt the game is off and even linked to the games that I talked about and all you did is just came back saying "OH IT JUST WORKS FOR ME."

I stated that I was probably biased because I recognize that I am. I think that is a good place to start when discussing anything.

 

The only place I said anything close to "it works for me" is when I said I haven't experienced the same bullet inconsistency issues you have. At least not to the same extent. They are there to a degree, but it is rare, and I think it is a pretty valid argument to state that I've had 20+ hours of time to notice them versus your 2. But I ultimately said that we aren't going to agree on this, I don't know how much more unbiased you'd like me to be without just saying, "you are right".

 

 

 

You keep making assumptions that I've apparently only played the entire game in total for 2 hours which is the exact opposite of what I've been saying the whole time. And you also keep making assumptions that I'm not reading what you say, yet you do that exact thing yourself. The time between my last post and yours afterwards proves you didn't even attempt to watch the games I played. You completely ignore why I'm disliking the game and give no counter arguments to prove your point.

You stated that you didn't touch the multiplayer on the PS3 and that you played for about 2 hours on the PS4. If you want to argue that you have played the singleplayer so that counts the same, it doesn't because it isn't the same game. You've stated things multiple times which show you don't know how the MP works. You are the one who said you only played for two hours, what else am I supposed to take from that?

 

As far as watching your videos, I didn't realize there was even a link. This sounds like an excuse, but I'm partially colorblind - is the link text not the same color as the plain text for everyone else? Can we change that?

 

I went back to try and watch a video, but its 2 hours and 31 minutes of gameplay. I'm not going to watch through all of that trying to guess which parts you dislike, that seems completely unreasonable. If you tell me timestamps in the vid to check, I'll do that....

 

"So really not like CoD at all"
Doesn't the winning team also get those supply boxes? So basically they get double pickups and therefore are rewarded more, right?

 

They do but not the same extent. The box for the winning team might only give 1 or 2 items (and no parts), but the losing team might get 5 or 6 items and parts. I just played a game of survivors where we were down 3 to 0, and the supply boxes started dropping 5 or 6 items regularly for us, we got armor and molotovs and tied it back up at 3-3. It is reasonably balanced. The winning team is going to get more parts for kills, but the losing team gets parts and items to compensate, so it ultimately comes down to who plays better.

 

This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the game. You've made this argument several times about the supply boxes and it just isn't true.

 

"Just because something is like CoD doesn't mean it is CoD"
I'm not even sure what your point is. Uh...Halo 4?

 

My point is that you made the CoD comparison largely on the basis of upgrades and abilities. I'm saying that the introduction of those into the game doesn't make the game play the same.

 

"Camping *does* get too much hate"
Saying this just implies that you are FOR camping.

Believe it or not, it isn't a universal truth that camping is bad. Not to mention it is a watered down, ambiguous term that people use to describe any semblance of slower gameplay. If you are a good TLoU player (I'm not saying me), then you won't camp, anyway.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 05:29 PM.


#33 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 05:56 PM

"The only place I said anything close to "it works for me" is when I said I haven't experienced the same bullet inconsistency issues you have."
Because you don't give any solid counter arguments.

"If you tell me timestamps in the vid to check, I'll do that...."
Just look at any single match. Trust me, you'll know when you hear me get pissed off.

"This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the game."
Then show me what I'm doing wrong. You've yet to do so. That should have been your counter argument all along.

"My point is that you made the CoD comparison largely on the basis of upgrades and abilities."
Nope. Inconsistency of weapons, perks, and rewarding the winning team. That was my comparison.

"Believe it or not, it isn't a universal truth that camping is bad."
Then why is it hated by the majority? Please read this article.



#34 Blaze

Blaze
  • Veteran
  • 3,196 posts
  • Location:m cheif's house

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:09 PM

Guess what? Counter-Strike has a "armor system bullshit" and it is by far the most competitive FPS out there, even more so than Halo back in its day. A perk and armor system doesn't have to be a mindless Skinner's Box designed to get people to play more, it can be something that adds variety and strategy, which is what this game does. Just because something is like CoD doesn't mean it is CoD. Halo has elements of Quake, but it is a very different game than Quake.


Your "variety and strategy" is another man's "complexity and unpredictability".
 
The multiplayer is yet another example of a unique premise surrounded by layers of complex, arbitrary shit. You have a layer of custom loadouts, weapon attachments, and perks; a layer of purchasing weapons and items before and during matches; a layer of crafting items you find during the match; and a layer of one-time-use pregame boosters that enhance your weapons and abilities. Four layers of complexity suffocate what would otherwise be a pretty interesting competitive game. A unique idea squandered by modern shooter bullshit.
 
You can't blame Dual for not giving this game everything that it's asking from players. Those layers of complexity that essentially equate to unpredictability are impenetrable to those who aren't willing to get seriously invested. Those layers work in CoD because people have known what to expect for years now, whereas TLoU has a different kind of gameplay, but still asks you to carry the burden of all its complexity and unpredictability. The game doesn't ask you to meet it halfway, like Halo does, it asks you to meet it 90% of the way, and for most players, that's way too much.
 
And this is not a case of the campaign and multiplayer sharing the same ruleset like Halo does. The reason Dual knows exactly what each weapon does in Halo is probably because he played its campaign first and knew how to fire weapons, drive vehicles, and move appropriately because both modes play exactly the same. TLoU's single and multiplayer are similar, yes, but they still feel like seperate entities designed in parallel, rather than together. The weapons handle differently, item crafting schematics are different, all the custom loadouts and perks and shit are obviously different, and I'm sure people who have played the game more recently than I have can point out some other mechanics that feel different between the single and multiplayer. For players who have played the campaign and then jump into multiplayer, all of those differences are off-putting.
 
Jesusphreak, perhaps you're latching onto this game's multiplayer so hard because, as you said, it's the first multiplayer game that has grabbed your attention in years, and thus your bias towards overlooking the game's faults is quickly approaching a zealous level.

#35 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:12 PM

"The only place I said anything close to "it works for me" is when I said I haven't experienced the same bullet inconsistency issues you have."
Because you don't give any solid counter arguments.

Cause there is nothing to say. It is a difference of opinion. You think that bullet inconsistency is a major issue, I don't. It is completely arbitrary and subjective, so there's no way to prove you or me me wrong."

 

"This is what I mean when I say you don't understand the game."
Then show me what I'm doing wrong. You've yet to do so. That should have been your counter argument all along.

 

Well you know, telling you about Covert Training 2 (which you weren't aware of) is exactly that....

 

"My point is that you made the CoD comparison largely on the basis of upgrades and abilities."
Nope. Inconsistency of weapons, perks, and rewarding the winning team. That was my comparison.

 

We've already gone over inconsistency.

 

Perks do exist, but that's how the game is designed. That is the closest aspect to CoD but it isn't a stretch from Chaos Theory or numerous other titles in the last 10 years, where perks existed all but in name.

 

You were wrong about rewarding the winning team. Just give it up.

 

"Believe it or not, it isn't a universal truth that camping is bad."
Then why is it hated by the majority? Please read this article.

 

As I said, camping a completely arbitrary term. It means different things to different people. Is sitting in 1 spot the entire time camping? Or is it slowly moving from one spot to another? People complain in every game about camping, whether it is legitimate or not. This is a cover based shooter where bullets do serious damage. It is going to be much slower. But show me a team that camps and I'll show you one which moves around the map, gathers parts from the boxes, then flanks and destroys the other team.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 06:25 PM.


#36 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:20 PM

Your "variety and strategy" is another man's "complexity and unpredictability".
 
The multiplayer is yet another example of a unique premise surrounded by layers of complex, arbitrary shit. You have a layer of custom loadouts, weapon attachments, and perks; a layer of purchasing weapons and items before and during matches; a layer of crafting items you find during the match; and a layer of one-time-use pregame boosters that enhance your weapons and abilities. Four layers of complexity suffocate what would otherwise be a pretty interesting competitive game. A unique idea squandered by modern shooter bullshit.
 
You can't blame Dual for not giving this game everything that it's asking from players. Those layers of complexity that essentially equate to unpredictability are impenetrable to those who aren't willing to get seriously invested. Those layers work in CoD because people have known what to expect for years now, whereas TLoU has a different kind of gameplay, but still asks you to carry the burden of all its complexity and unpredictability. The game doesn't ask you to meet it halfway, like Halo does, it asks you to meet it 90% of the way, and for most players, that's way too much.
 
And this is not a case of the campaign and multiplayer sharing the same ruleset like Halo does. The reason Dual knows exactly what each weapon does in Halo is probably because he played its campaign first and knew how to fire weapons, drive vehicles, and move appropriately because both modes play exactly the same. TLoU's single and multiplayer are similar, yes, but they still feel like seperate entities designed in parallel, rather than together. The weapons handle differently, item crafting schematics are different, all the custom loadouts and perks and shit are obviously different, and I'm sure people who have played the game more recently than I have can point out some other mechanics that feel different between the single and multiplayer. For players who have played the campaign and then jump into multiplayer, all of those differences are off-putting.
 
Jesusphreak, perhaps you're latching onto this game's multiplayer so hard because, as you said, it's the first multiplayer game that has grabbed your attention in years, and thus your bias towards overlooking the game's faults is quickly approaching a zealous level.

If you want to argue that the game is unintuitive to newcomers, I'm fine with that. That's absolutely true. On the other hand to compare it to modern shooters just because it has some similarities is lazy. I personally think if you invest the time to learn the game and how it works, it is a very well-designed and nuanced multiplayer mode. But I felt the same way about Splinter Cell and Brothers in Arms - both games which you can't just pick up and enjoy like Halo, but games that really reward those that take the time to master them.

 

If you want to argue that multiplayer could be more similar to singleplayer, that's valid. Halo should be recognized for just how well it does that. However, I think that it is the difference between sp and mp that makes this an interesting game mode. As I said, there is the metagame where you have to chose armor, ammo, upgrades, and different load outs can produce wildly different playstyles. You can legitimately create a ninja build where you sneak around and Splinter Cell shit, or you can build a run and gun build based around shotgun and melee. I like the variety, I appreciate that. Even with abilities you can only adapt CoD or BF to your playstyle so much. 

 

I've stated as much that I'm probably biased, but my entire argument is that you can't possibly just play a game for 2 hours, call it CoD (which is now the catch-all for "this game sucks"), and act like that is the truth. It just isn't fair to the game, and isn't any less biased than what I'm putting forward.



#37 DualX

DualX

    Great Job!

  • Veteran
  • 3,169 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:56 PM

Cause there is nothing to say.

I guess I'm done here then.



#38 Blaze

Blaze
  • Veteran
  • 3,196 posts
  • Location:m cheif's house

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:59 PM

You keep reducing both of our arguments into "It's CoD", when that isn't the point either of us are making. Stop it.

If a game is only good to those who put in 20+ hours, does that make it a good game? I vote no. I don't think the multiplayer merits the level of investment that it's asking. It's overwhelming.

#39 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 08:12 PM

You keep reducing both of our arguments into "It's CoD", when that isn't the point either of us are making. Stop it.

If a game is only good to those who put in 20+ hours, does that make it a good game? I vote no. I don't think the multiplayer merits the level of investment that it's asking. It's overwhelming.

I keep going back to that because that's how Dual almost literally responded to multiple points of mine, "so just like CoD".

 

You're right, you shouldn't have to play 20 hours to enjoy a game, but there's probably a happy medium between 2 and 20.

 

You and Dual do make a good point that there is no on ramp to this game. When you've played a lot, it is easy to see how the systems come together and realize they aren't that complex; you have essentially the core gameplay, the survivor minigame (leveling), loadouts (perks), and upgrades + crafting (Counter-Strike purchase system). The second could be dropped and not sacrifice anything. I think the last two are crucial to the game and it is a better experience for them, but there certainly should be a tutorial or a better way of picking those up. It *isn't* immediately obvious how the crafting works, or how certain weapons should be used, or that Covert Training 2 lets you sneak around without being seen on listen mode, etc.

 

So if your argument is that the game does a bad job of introducing new players, or is initially too daunting, you are dead on. I just disagree that it is overly complex or mashed together. I think I've enjoyed the game as much as I do precisely because it has that level of complexity, if you took out too much, it would basically be Gears of War.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 08:15 PM.


#40 phreak

phreak

    What happened???

  • Member
  • 735 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:13 PM

Aw, fuck.

 

I don't care enough about the game to be this much of a dick about it. Sorry, Dual.


Edited by phreak, 03 August 2014 - 10:13 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq