About how long should I expect the game to take? I don't know much about the game, whether it's got lots of optional stuff or not. I probably wouldn't do much of that stuff if it was there, unless I enjoyed the game considerably more than expected. I've seen some people saying 20-40 hours. What's the verdict? I got it in from Gamefly and will play it after I beat Dragon Age.
RobbRipken's forum posts
Okay, I'll be honest with you. I'm a gamer that's pretty hardcore. I try to play all the good games on every system since I have all three. So can someone tell me what makes this game so special? I'm just wondering since it got the great reviews. I'd like to try it sometime.
I've watched a bunch of video reviews and I'll say that the online component seems pretty interesting. However, I think that other games have done things fairly similar. The whole thing about seeing other players while playing seems to be similar to what fable 2 did with the orbs (though perhaps done better, I dunno I haven't played this game yet). The ability to leave hints has been done in games like World of Warcraft through add ons (Also, I do realise this game actually included it out of the box, something the developer actually did). I'm not putting these features down at all, they sound great to me, but people claim this game to be innovative, so I'm just pointing out that they've sort of been done before, so that people don't ask me "Name one game that's done anything like this!!!"
Finally I keep hearing that the game is so incredibly difficult. I'm not sure why that's really a good thing. I think I'd rather a game be reasonable then just have a harder difficulty available. Bottum line, difficulty alone isn't innovative at all. In fact, I think it's astep backwards in a lot of ways.Though if it does something unique that makes it challenging, like some clever puzzles or something, that's different.
So if someone could just tell me what makes it worth so much. Why am I seeing it compared to every other great RPG from this generation.
To me, Oblivion is the best RPG out there. I'm not big into many JRPGs.
I think what they should do is only implement that if you're playing a "ranked" game. COD may not have ranked vs unranked games though, I'm not sure about that. But does anyone else agree with me there?
When we talk about games, we refer to them as being AAA (9.0 or 9.5), AA (8.0 or 8.5), and so on.
Here's the problem, people keep talking about how the PS3 has caught up in AAAE's, or how the 360 has almost caught up in AAAE's for this year or whatever. I think though that a game that gets 9.5 should be better than a game that gets 9.0. Instead we just categorize it as being AAA. For instance, Uncharted 2 got 9.5, Halo 3: ODST got 9.0. Now I personally am a Halo fan, so I enjoyed ODST just as much as Uncharted 2. However, it should count for something when a game gets 9.5. It seems stupid to me to say Killzone 2is as good as Halo 3(which is said on almost a daily basis) when Halo 3 was reviewed higher.
I'm not defending or criticizing anything or anyone. I'm just saying that the .5 difference should be noted and count for something.
I think the PS3 had the better year this year, but though it's caught up in AAAE, it doesn't have as many 9.5 games as the 360.
If I could play them online, I would have to go with 360. 360 has better online services, and generally better multiplatform games.If not I'd say PS3. The PS3 is a better piece of hardware, especially since you get a blu ray player out of it.
If you're a PS3 owner that has a PC that can run these games, and you actually do make it a point to play them for your PC, then I'll allow you to make your arguments. However, if you don't have a PC that can play the Xbox/PC games, or you choose not to, then you're argument here is stupid.
It's like me saying "OOOOHHHH Gran Turismo 5 doesn't count because the PSP has a GT game." Granted, it's not exactly the same game, but it's still a stupid argument if you don't have the means to play it without having a 360.
Log in to comment