These were not only petty, but slap-worthy: 1) "Cutting down the roster from 94 playable warriors to one is a drastic change" - one of the biggest flaws in the series, we all thought it was bloated.
2) "The absence of co-op is disappointing" - you work in the industry, you knew this was the way the game was built. Koei made this apparent, said it wasn't gonna be there.
Review the damn product in front of you, take off your rose-colored glasses and do your effing job.
@fireinabarrel: Based on previous comments, it wasn't particularly great at launch. I haven't played it yet, myself. Glad to know people are having fun with it. Given that it's been almost a month since you started, how are you liking it at this point?
So, here's the thing. Helldivers, the very first one, is still played on both PC and PS consoles (including the Vita, btw).
Now, I personally think Spencer is blowing smoke up our tucheses. If this were really a concern, he'd have mentioned it while the game was in its dev cycle and he was buying up the entire Western AAA market.
I think what he really wants to say is "Congratulations!", but he can't muster anything better than a backhanded compliment with a whine.
Look Phil, if you're going to be petty, we're all gonna laugh at you.
Good riddance. Too bad these kinds of people can't be fired "with cause". A solid-gold parachute would be much more appropriate than a golden one.
This sets the tone for Microsoft's new dealings with Activatision/Blizzard; if they're going to give this one a generous payoff, they really don't care what kind of prick runs it, as long as it makes money.
I haven't played this game, but to be fair, devs have used old levels to good effect. I don't know if any of you have played Dynasty Warriors 7: Empires, but a lot of the better battlefields were the ones that were brought in from Dynasty Warriors 5 because they fit the gameplay mechanics extremely well.
And, mentioning Dynasty Warriors in the same conversation as Call of Duty is quite appropriate given that a lot of the Dynasty Warriors games, much like CoD, can be like regurgitations.
There are some levels, like Halo's Blood Gulch, Doom 2's Map 01, and I think it was called Dust in Counter-Strike, that generally translate extremely well to a sequel property - the point that if they're not there, they're sorely missed.
I would rather these old levels be included in newer iterations of games along with newer content, though studios tend not to do that, and won't even bring them back via DLC, sometimes. I think Blood Gulch was brought back as DLC for Halo 2, though, but that was it.
Now, I personally don't care for this game franchise, I think Call of Duty is extremely shallow; then again, when I went into it, I thought I was getting in to a tactical shooter, not an arcade game; I have been able to embrace that with titles like Infinite Warfare (which I actually really liked) due to the gameplay variety.
There's nothing wrong with remastering levels, so long as the levels themselves work well within the game mechanics, though. And, if done properly, it's incredibly welcome. But it can't be a primary selling point.
@majikayo666: Here's a hot take for ya: You have your opinion and it is for you, only. You do not speak for the rest of us, nor do you get to imply that you do without consequences.
I have briefly played the RE remakes, and I enjoyed more in those few minutes than I ever did playing through the original RE 2.
It sounds to me that you are more a creature of nostalgia, and that's fine for you. It's not fine for the rest of us that move forward, let alone those of us who have shed our pretenses.
These games were fine "back in the day". Today, most of them, are clunky AF. A lot of the remakes that I have played have been made with love and skill.
And, I think Kojima's a self-centred and pretensious douchebag who constantly oversold his own product (I "get" MGS, I do not like it, it's pseudo-intellectualism).
That came to a head with Metal Gear Solid 4 which, interestingly enough, is not in this collection.
Konami has made many fantastic games without him. We're not really going to know what we're going to get until we see the final product.
I saw your earlier post, and yes, you are right, all they've mainly done as of late is effectively little better than slot machines because they burned through their money. It doesn't mean that they don't know how to assemble a team.
Games are about user experience, whether it be a board game, card game, or pinball inspired by the mighty Gamblor.
We'll see if they learned their lesson. That's all, no more or less.
This is not okay. That money was earmarked to pay for financial stress caused by the pandemic, not to fund heritage projects - though that in itself isn't a bad thing.
The real "what to know" is this: Does the video card that you want to buy support its respective OEM AMD or NVidia drivers? If so, then that's what you buy.
Motherboards, as long as your chipset driver doesn't come with a crapload of bloatware programs that you must install with the driver, you're aces.
And finally, if your soundcard supports hardware acceleration, that's the one to buy.
This is coming from someone who has real PC building experience. Your best rig is always going to be a frankenstein built to your specifications (at least within the specs that will run your games and other software; minimum requirements matter!).
Nate_The_Not_Great_But_Okay's comments