@edinko Geeze, fine then don't get it, but don't kid yourself either. They could have done much worse...most developers do. Try being forced to be online at all times and charged regardless for Day 1 DLC.
You're being hard on them and you know it. DLC stands for downloadable content, and doesn't necessarily cost you anything, that's up to the developer. This probably wasn't included in the game because, oh what the hell, they want gamers to be happy and this sounds like great news. It's good press. If they had included it without ever telling anyone, there'd be no news. This way, they make news.
Free? DLC is always great when it's free. It's especially a slap in the face when they charge you on day 1 though. I'm glad that one of my favorite games has some respect left for their gamers!
This probably would have been a success...if Ensemble Studios were still around.
Personally, I was waiting for Age of Empires IV: Age of Kings II...or something along those lines. Imagine Company of Heroes graphics and gameplay, tied into the empire building of Age of Empires. Age of Empires III wasn't quite a success because they deviated from the formula: Knights and castles = More interesting than muskets.
What are RTS gamers who are fans of the Medieval genre waiting for now? The next Warcraft? Settlers? It's a wide open vacancy that needs to be filled with an innovative game, preferably with "Cataphracts" and "Feudal Knights"...not "Space Marines" and "Marauders." The Settlers kinda hits the mark...but they miss it by putting in too much micro-management.
Stronghold? If they make a game like the original, get rid of all the childish stuff lately, and make a brutally realistic rts with blood and gore and have sieges the way they were meant to be depicted...then why yes, I think you'd have a competitor.
Politics aside, the multiplayer is well-done, especially since it was the first introduction into the series. The gameplay is tactical, and it becomes very difficult. Some pros and cons:
It should not be a requirement to play, rather, a privilege. Repetitive Overly difficult at times (I mean...Banshees and Praetorians on Gold...seriously!?)
Suggestions for improvement in the future: ME3 is known as an RPG. Players tend to expect a lot of customization here. It doesn't look good when an FPS like Halo offers more armor options than Bioware. Guns don't need camo, but it'd be nice to be able to customize everything about your character, even voice. We should also not be confined to roles and classes, but should be free to mix and match traits to create a very unique experience. In short, our MP characters need to be individuals, and in ME3 you failed to present that.
I personally enjoyed Mass Effect's multiplayer. It was refreshing. But if you want to put an MP element in an RPG...dudes, you have got to max out customization in every way you can. It adds replayability and allows OCD people like me to sit on your game for hoooouuuurs building a class, tearing it apart, rebuilding it, etc.
What sells me with the Playstation is their acceptance of Blu-Ray. Once you see something on Blu-Ray...it really is no comparison to DVD. But Blu Rays are twice as expensive as DVD's.
But the Xbox 360 was cheaper than the PS3 because of the BD player, right? But why would anyone buy a 60$ game on the 360 when it's offered in Blu-Ray on the PS3? I suppose it's a trade off between being constantly charged, as opposed to a large up-front charge.
And I tend to, if anything, associate Playstation more with RPG's than Xbox. Just look at their largest, biggest box-office titles: Final Fantasy vs. Halo.
Just stay away from that horrid free to play but charge you for every single thing you do formula...just because the entire industry adopted it doesn't mean gamers ever, at any point, approved of it.
d_kell411's comments