The balance issues killed it more than WoW did. People wanted the pvp, if the pvp was good they would have stayed because WoW's is utter garbage. But there were so many problems with bright wizards and sorcerers that it made the game completely boring to play.
Now the problem is that there's very few people playing and in order to compete with some veteren players you would literally have to sub for a year and grind non stop to get up to their level of renown and gear, and over the course of that year you would be rolled at will. There is no easy way to get good gear which, while understandable in some respect, makes it imposible to attract new players and keep them once they see what's ahead of them.
Oh and in the end why the c4 did not dismember the bad guy? They better not remove gore from the game.
dakan45
I haven't played Fallout 3 in quite a while, but don't you need a perk to see gore? Bloody mess or something like that, maybe that guy didn't have that for the demo.
Well...it's official...the next dead rising game is going to have a time limit. Apparently it's the 72 hours like the first dead rising. I really really hope you dont have missions that you need to do by a certain time, because you really can't enjoy the full game. I mean unless your a master at this game, you pretty much are forced to focus totally on the story missions so you can continue to be able to play and not fail it and start over. I mean you pretty much have to make one playthrough being solely focused on saving people and killing bosses and one playthrough doing only story missions. It will suck bigtime if the time limit is the same as the first. But they will have more than 1 save slot. Maybe that will help it some.
Morphic
This is the only way they could make such a stupidly simplistic game have any replayability at all. If they gave you enough time to do everything in 1 playthrough no one would ever play it again and would see right through how short it is.
Ah right, I did see that and was thinking about getting C&C 4... but completely forgot to go back, haha Oh well, it'll be on sale again by Christmas at least, heh
Yes I see your point if you take the meaning of the words literally. Using your definiation, the true definition of MMO, you'd have to say Team Fortress 2 or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 are MMO's. They are both Massive in terms of numbers of players. Multiplayer and Online.
However if you use the more widely used definition of an MMO as containing a Massive world, with Multiplayer Online action. APB fails at the start. The game world isn't Massive at all. In fact its a couple of highly detailed, brilliantly design and fun maps.
The more I see the term MMO used. The more I think its lost its meaning as too many games, officially or unoffically are defined as an MMO.
Well you're arguing semantics, 100 people per map is still pretty large, far larger than almost every other non MMO out there.
I liked burnout paradise, but from my experience the online is dead (and complicated). You can drive around, find an event you'd like to play, but more often than not there'll be no one to race against. As far as I could tell there was no race browser system, so you couldn't just look for populated lobbies, etc. By itself, with a mostly empty multiplayer, it gets boring fast. Shame too, the burnout series has been awesome.
The game definitely has problems, but all MMOs really should have this sort of review embargo on them. Countless times I see sites put up MMO reviews after like 2 days, which is a bit ridiculous. Of course they have some beta info, but there's often times a new iteration that comes with launch than there was even at the end of beta, so it's unfair to judge largely from beta impressions.
Log in to comment