I just watched michael pachters latest episode of pach attack and he believes that developers have no choice but to start charging subscription fees for the multiplayer parts of their games because people are getting way too much for their money and developers can't afford to keep supporting it without charging. He goes on to say that because plaers are getting 10 hours or more from the multiplayer in modern warfare 2 that there is replayability but then you shouldn't get that much for you're money. I think this is completely nonsence as developers have been giving out free online multiplayerfor years.
However I do agree that developers like activision and EA will start charging for multiplayer but only through their own greed and nothing else.

What's your thoughts on this?

Timesplitters 4 :( :'(

If a new company decide to make number 4, they may ruin the series. This way they can keep timesplitters as a distant memory of hours of endless fun for us :)

Magic_Panda92

What if a new company decided to make it and hired some of the creators from the first 3 games to help them make it. I think a current gen timesplitters would be epic if done rightly and true to the series.

Does anyone know what's going on with timeplitters 4? As I was digging throught my oldps2 games yesterday with a bunch of my friends I saw timesplitters future perfect and decided to play that as none of us had played it in years. So we decided to play some 2 player co-op and 4 player multiplayer and I have to say it is the best first person shooter I have ever played, even compared to any of this gens shooters. The amount of variety the co-op brings and shear fun the multiplayer brings is something I havn't seen since goldeneye and perfect dark on the n64. The amount of funny and unique characters on multiplayer is insane.

Does anyone else feel the same?

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"][QUOTE="Kaim91"]

For starters, I'll ask why people complain that XIII is linear, yet they call X a quality game when it was just as linear. Contradiction ftw. XII is awful, but I really enjoyed XIII. I don't care that it's linear, and I absolutely love the battle system. And about that, I think people bash it because it's different, and it's labeled Final Fantasy. Innovation is gold in the game world, yet this is frowned upon when it's an excellent solution. A matter of taste, of course.

MAILER_DAEMON

The result is that XIII feels like something pretty to look at, with a world to save that you never care about, while in X you deal with a world that just feels more alive. You want to save Spira because it's a world worth saving, while Cocoon... not so much. Square's biggest problem is that they forgot how to make people care about the world they created for the game, and this is because they've shifted their focus to making a flashy, cinematic experience at the expense of good writing, good localization, an engaging story, a world to enjoy, and characters that hold your interest. They took steps toward this with VII, but by XIII, it feels as though they may as well be making an interactive movie instead of a game. VII started it, IX moved it back in the right direction, X was when I seriously to get worried (first FF game that I had no interest in replaying), and XIII is where I say they've lost it.

VI is still my favorite game in the series, and until they remember what made it great, FF will continue to slide.