@garvielt: Isn't this how life is? Have you never seen a documentary where a soldier talks about some unbelievable shot they took or how they survived because the bullet hit a quarter in their pocket or something like that?
The crappiest marksman is going to eventually get a headshot. 1% shot means there's a 1% chance it'll hit you. For some reason people think that 1% chance means "It won't hit me, and if it does hit me that means it's bugged or rigged." You were unlucky and got the crappy roll.
I think something that people miss is that every game relies on "dice rolls". The difference here is that Fireaxis shows you the exact odds of a shot. In FPS if you play against AI, their aiming at you is based off random number rolls. The lower the difficulty the higher the chance the AI is going to aim slightly away from your body instead of aiming dead on.
Some people suggest making it so you can't aim at someone behind full cover. But that brings up exploit possibilities and it's unbalanced if you still let the person behind cover take shots. There is definitely room for improvement, I just don't know what that would be.
@jenovaschilld: That would be cool to see some more character individuality. The initial trailers seem to paint a picture of characters having more... character. I'm curious how that will play out.
It's hard to tell meaningful character stories when any character could die at any moment. The only way I could think of them doing it is if there are "special" story characters that can interact with each other and stuff. To be honest, who wouldn't just reload a save if one of them died? By making them "special" and different from normal soldiers, you pretty much guarantee that most people aren't going to want to let them die.
@charlieboomboom: Huh? Exclusives are all the rage on consoles. Halo, Uncharted, Last of Us, Gears of War, etc. Right? All console exclusives are exclusive simply for business purposes. Console maker pays Developer to make a game exclusive, done deal.
The thing with PC exclusives is by being PC exclusive they have tangible GAME related benefits. I'm not even talking about graphics or anything like that. By having a PC exclusive game it allows developers to really integrate modding from the ground up. They can create a more complex GUI and control system due to keyboards and mouses. Plus as they said, PC games are their expertise and they wanted to focus on a single system to allow them to create their vision.
I own a ps4, PC, and Wii U. There are games that for the xbox 1 that I would love to play but I can't because I don't own it. I don't get mad over it though, as I made the choice to not buy the xbox 1 right now. No one is forcing me to not buy it, so why on earth would I get mad over exclusives for it?
The system requirements for this are MINIMAL. How do you guys not have any type of personal computer? A mid range laptop could run this game with little issue. A modern desktop could run this with little issue. If you are college age or under, what do you do your homework on if you don't have a computer?
@deviltaz35: Deviltaz... Recommended is not the same as maximum settings. I think you are confusing that. Recommended means that to get the developers basic vision at a good framerate you should have those cards or better.
They are not saying that you can run the game at maximum settings with that. So I'm not sure why you are concerned about 4k support simply based on these recommendations...
@Yams1980: Game sizes have been exponentially growing. Expect this to continue as now we have two systems that use blu ray and the 360 isn't holding stuff back anymore with the DVD drive.
Audio is no longer being heavily compressed to save processing power, at the expense of HDD space of course. CGI movies are also a huge space hog. Ultra HD size textures take a lot of space also.
Fallout 4 takes around 35 gigs while Skyrim was only like 5.5 gigs at launch. Better get used to it.
There are examples of where not knowing the ending has made it suffer (Lost the tv series). They constantly went on record saying they had no idea where the series was going next in their minds. That, IMO, was bad for the Lost series as it became convoluted and just weird.
Babylon 5 was a good example of knowing start to finish what was gonna happen and executing it. It was a huge risk though. Fans typically hate when shows end with no resolution and get cancelled. I know I do.
Lucas is not the best storyteller out there. I truly think he "sold out" during the period between 6 and 1. The consequences of that being the completely disjointed Expanded Universe that has so many contradictions and probably hundreds of random authors contributing to it over the years. But I just didn't think the examples you gave were that compelling. I found it out that you focused on them when there are honestly hundreds of more objective literary critiques you could throw at Lucas. Especially when titles change so much, especially in movies. There have been movies that were given a trailer and subsequently changed the title AFTER announced to the public, or simply after production.
I appreciate you remaining calm and giving me a legitimate answer to my response. My initial response to you was a little sarcastic and aggressive and I apologize for that. We can both definitely agree that Lucas gets a lot more credit for his literary genius than he probably deserves. It's silly to argue about the little details though, and for that I apologize.
Super man is an established character who does NOT KILL. It's been a part of his core personality for over 60 years. He is completely against killing and that's why he has troubles fighting sometimes, he has to figure out how to incapacitate people.Some of you keep saying you don't understand what the big deal is. Let me give you an analogy.
Ghandi, universally known as a peaceful man who did not believe in using violence. That is one of the core personality traits that has always been attributed to him.
Imagine someone decides to do a retelling of the story of Ghandi. The director decides that Ghandi hating violence is boring, so he decides Ghandi should get into street fights with people who disagree with him in the movie. The movie completely missed the point of what made Ghandi Ghandi.
Just like Zack Snyder completely missed the point in what makes Superman Superman.
@YohanDeEmercer: It was controversially because they basically took an established character with an established MO and put a middle finger at that MO. DC didn't want Snyder to have superman kill. Snyder had to pull out every favor and beg for months and use all his leverage to get them to finally agree.
Imagine if they movie about Mother Theresa and had her kill someone simply because the director likes blood (which Snyder has stated many times over)
@paramortalics: But that idea goes against everything we know about psychology. Newbie cops/soldiers typically are NOT trigger happy. They have yet to spill blood so they aren't trying to.
You are saying that it makes sense that someone who deeply cares for humans and was raised in a human setting would get into his first fight and instantly snap into a cold blooded killer? How does that make sense? This is something a disillusioned old superman could be argued doing, but not a brand new one.
Are we all forgetting the interview where Zack Snyder basically stated he pestered DC and Nolan for the whole production to let him put killing in the movie because his movies have killing. DC finally caved in after he begged and begged.
OldDirtyCR's comments