E3 2018 and upcoming titles

[Mossburg]

10 minutes ago, Spartica4Real said:

I've never disagreed with a post so much in my life lol. That said, opinions are gonna opinion I guess. Though, since when is replay-ability the measure of a good game? If that's the case then every single player game ever sucks IMO. I have no interest in replaying single player games, I think I've replayed maybe 4 or 5 single player games in my life. I don't really get that complaint.

Also while you might've found past God of War games very meh (I would agree with you there), this one looks so much different and have almost no clue how it'll play and be. So it's pretty premature to write it off. I'm excited for it, but it's definitely in my "wait for impressions and reviews, buy a week after it comes out if they say good things" box. 

I agree and disagree with the bolded. Some single player games aren't worth replaying and weren't really made for it. A game like Uncharted is a perfect example. Then there are games like Bayonetta and Deus Ex. The former gives you incentive to master new weapons, combos, and overall gameplay which the game is built around and is just fun to play and execute, the latter unlocks different paths in an epic story that you may have missed.

showtime measures overall game value in terms of dollar per hour, which I personally agree with. There are exceptions and some SP games are totally worth playing for the one time experience and all, but even then you got single player games that can be passed in well under 10 hours and there's Skyrim.

[bucsfan333]

22 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Last time I brought this up people tried to pick it apart saying that there could be bad endings or different outcomes in Skyrim.  They're not on the level of Witcher 3 or even Fallout 4.  Witcher 3, you could legitimately get one of the most depressing endings to a video game ever if you do things wrong.  Seemingly standard quests could literally lead to major characters dying.  Even Mass Effect three had choices from ME1 show up in ME3, so as bad as the ending options were for ME3, that element is much, much, much better than any of the Elder Scrolls games have ever achieved.

Fallout 4 I don't like as much as Mass Effect or Witcher 3 just because the side characters and your interactions with them and how those interactions can go are so lacking compared to Witcher 3 or Mass Effect. 

Both of those games came out well after Skyrim did.

And the reason there aren't major stories continued in the next game is because there are so many ways they can go. I doubt there's a "winner" declared for the civil war. The Emperor may or may not be dead and replaced. The Dragonborn won't be mentioned by race.

There are a couple ways each major quest can go and Bethesda doesn't want to make one canon in the next game. They're not to the extent of other games. But there are some.

[Saosin]

Really looking forward to a CP2077 update. That's been the only game on my radar since finishing Witcher 3. I'm also curious about Bioware's Anthem but I'd imagine that EA has basically pressured the studio so much so that the game will probably turn out to be garbage like ME: Andromeda.

[showtime]

34 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

I agree and disagree with the bolded. Some single player games aren't worth replaying and weren't really made for it. A game like Uncharted is a perfect example. Then there are games like Bayonetta and Deus Ex. The former gives you incentive to master new weapons, combos, and overall gameplay which the game is built around and is just fun to play and execute, the latter unlocks different paths in an epic story that you may have missed.

showtime measures overall game value in terms of dollar per hour, which I personally agree with. There are exceptions and some SP games are totally worth playing for the one time experience and all, but even then you got single player games that can be passed in well under 10 hours and there's Skyrim.

Pretty much.  The Last of Us is a game I do not regret playing, but it is a game I regret dropping $60 on.  I could have rented the game, beat it in 10 hours and been fine.  An example of a single player game that I bought just last year and am happy I bought is NieR: Automata

[Spartica4Real]

35 minutes ago, Mossburg said:

I agree and disagree with the bolded. Some single player games aren't worth replaying and weren't really made for it. A game like Uncharted is a perfect example. Then there are games like Bayonetta and Deus Ex. The former gives you incentive to master new weapons, combos, and overall gameplay which the game is built around and is just fun to play and execute, the latter unlocks different paths in an epic story that you may have missed.

showtime measures overall game value in terms of dollar per hour, which I personally agree with. There are exceptions and some SP games are totally worth playing for the one time experience and all, but even then you got single player games that can be passed in well under 10 hours and there's Skyrim.

Value per dollar is something I definitely get and I use too, though I care more about the quality of each hour than just the amount. Ie: First time I played The Last of Us I beat it in 17 hours, while let's say some random average open world game would take 50 hours, if I'm a big fan of TLoU and thought it was an amazing game then those 17 amazing hours are much better than 50 hours of average game. I'm very picky with my single player games for this reason, I play a lot of online and I'm not spending $60 on a SP game unless it's amazing. I usually wait on buying my SP games for that reason, like I just bought Horizon: Zero Dawn about a week ago. Or I didn't buy The Witcher 3 until a year after it came out. Etc. The only thing I was really talking about with his post was the "replayability" aspect, I like the value per dollar method too but I don't really care if the game is something that lends itself to multiple playthroughs. 

[MacReady]

5 minutes ago, Saosin said:

Really looking forward to a CP2077 update. That's been the only game on my radar since finishing Witcher 3. I'm also curious about Bioware's Anthem but I'd imagine that EA has basically pressured the studio so much so that the game will probably turn out to be garbage like ME: Andromeda.

I don't think Mass Effect: Andromeda was bad at all.  The only issue that game had was some strange animation problems.  That's literally it.  Social media killed that game, which was really sad because it would have made for a SUPERB trilogy. 

[Thelonebillsfan]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I don't think Mass Effect: Andromeda was bad at all.  The only issue that game had was some strange animation problems.  That's literally it.  Social media killed that game, which was really sad because it would have made for a SUPERB trilogy. 

Hudson is back, if Anthem takes off they'll go back to that well and do it the best. But it'll be a while, Anthem has to do well or Bioware is in DEEP trouble with DA:4 already seeing a complete reboot to be a GaaS modeled title that might not ever see the light of day. IDK why EA spent all that money on the exclusive Star Wars license to not even give Bioware a shot at something.

 

Bioware Austin could kill a SWTOR II for instance.

[Danger]

I'm not getting Anthem. Given the nature of Bioware games as of late, EA publishing, Battlefront 2,  and even  how Destiny 2 turned out. No thanks.

[sjfja_fkdldjs]

Anthem just looks dreadfully generic to me... The thing they showed off just looked like soldier in suits. The abilities looked even more boring than Destiny's. I think Mass Effect: Andromeda was exactly what it was, a rushed game with a new developer. I think it got overly bashed, but it wasn't a good game. I felt like it had a bunch of pieces, but none of it was in place or ready.

[TXsteeler]

Anthem will be a pay to win lootbox filled garbage fest. Blizzard, Rockstar, CDPR, and Nintendo could team up to build a game but if EA publishes it, it WILL be garbage, FACT.

Also, comparing games like TW3 to Skyrim in terms of story telling isn't really fair. TW3 has an established world with established characters, including a single main character, and is more linear. They can have more personality and depth in storylines and the main character because they know exactly how it will play out. Yes it has choices that are very impactful and well done but they are still crafted from a single main storyline.

In Skyrim your choices aren't as deep or as impactful but they are much more varied. You can ignore the main questline entirely, joining a group like the mages guild or the dark brotherhood or just going off and exploring. Not only that, but you can change what character you play with great variation. They have 3 races of elves, a lizard person, a cat person, 4 types of humans, and orcs. In TW3 you play a human with nothing but some hairstyle changes. In skyrim you can play as a warrior archetype, a ranger archetype, a thief archetype, a mage archetype, a paladin archetype, and any mixes in between with variation within them. In TW3 you play a swordsman who either focuses on straight combat or combat with buffs through elixirs and potions.

They are different games which go for different things and shouldn't be compared as 1 to 1 as you would compare say battlefield to CoD or Gran Turismo to Forza. Yes Elder scrolls games could use better story telling and depth to NPC's with choices that feel more impactful, and yes CDPR has done this better than they have, but skyrim offers things TW3 doesn't. Also, TW3 came out 3 years and 6 months after skyrim, which is practically an entire development cycle, and came out on the new gen PS4/XBONE consoles whereas skyrim was built for PS3 and XBOX 360.

[Danger]

17 hours ago, HighHopes said:

Anthem just looks dreadfully generic to me... The thing they showed off just looked like soldier in suits. The abilities looked even more boring than Destiny's. I think Mass Effect: Andromeda was exactly what it was, a rushed game with a new developer. I think it got overly bashed, but it wasn't a good game. I felt like it had a bunch of pieces, but none of it was in place or ready.

No Andromeda was bad in every sense of the word. All the criticism it got was 100% warranted. Everything from the writing, to the characters, to the glitches/bugs, character models, etc. It was a disaster.

[sjfja_fkdldjs]

2 hours ago, Danger said:

No Andromeda was bad in every sense of the word. All the criticism it got was 100% warranted. Everything from the writing, to the characters, to the glitches/bugs, character models, etc. It was a disaster.

This is exactly what I mean lol. I actually agree with your last sentence, it was a complete disaster and a mess, but there were parts that were decent.

[Saosin]

On 2/13/2018 at 11:29 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

I don't think Mass Effect: Andromeda was bad at all.  The only issue that game had was some strange animation problems.  That's literally it.  Social media killed that game, which was really sad because it would have made for a SUPERB trilogy. 

My expectations were on the level of the original ME trilogy. I've played each original ME game at least 2 times through, so to go into Andromeda and get immeadiatly bombarded with disappointing storylines and animations and glitches, it really turned me off and it showed how rushed of a game it was. Now I'm betting if I went back after all of the patches and such, it might not be as bad when it comes to the glitches but if the story isnt great, than why play it?

[MacReady]

Just now, Saosin said:

My expectations were on the level of the original ME trilogy. I've played each original ME game at least 2 times through, so to go into Andromeda and get immeadiatly bombarded with disappointing storylines and animations and glitches, it really turned me off and it showed how rushed of a game it was. Now I'm betting if I went back after all of the patches and such, it might not be as bad when it comes to the glitches but if the story isnt great, than why play it?

Eh, I didn't think there was anything wrong with the story.  I thought it was more fun and compelling than the original trilogy.  The idea of being the first humans there and creating a lasting legacy was really fun for me.  Saosin is a good band by the way. 

[KManX89]

On 2/13/2018 at 1:59 PM, Thelonebillsfan said:

 IDK why EA spent all that money on the exclusive Star Wars license to not even give Bioware a shot at something.

Which they could soon lose if rumors are to be believed. Disney supposedly got tired of EA tarnishing their brand and said "no mass", though the two companies they're reportedly in talks with to hand the license off to are Activision and Ubisoft.  Good to know that they're forcing us to choose between the lesser of three evils for the next series of Star Wars games (which is clearly Ubisoft, not that it means much).

Please not Activision, that's all I ask. AV wouldn't be much better than EA, if AV gets their grubby mitts on it, you better believe they'll milk that ish dry with extensive DLC, MTXs and, yes, loot boxes. I would say give it to Square-Enix for one of their NA companies (Crystal Dynamics, Eidos Montreal) to have a go at a Star Wars game, but they're busy with the Avengers and GotG games ATM, so IDK. If I had to choose, I'd vote for CDPR or Bethesda, but I think we all know that's sadly not gonna happen.