I'm not sure what you mean by 'did they not learn from Reach, we want halo'.. because I know plenty of people (myself included) that think Reach was the second best Halo game made so far (the first Halo will always be the best). Halo 3 had a boring campaign and the ranking system in Reach's multiplayer was great because it just changed your looks and not your stats (unlike CoD).
I'm not going to actually put in a lousy rating just yet because I know they tweak weapon/movement stats a lot for CS games. However, at release, the weapon balancing was TERRIBLE.. Hit detection was worse than CS:S (which is saying something) and player movement was way too twitchy (if the weapons are designed so that spraying is virtually useless, then you should strafe relatively slowly as well - however, in CS:GO, you can't hit anything while spraying and yet you can side-step at retardedly fast speeds.) In CS:S, spraying was effective in gungame as long as you were within a reasonable range. In CS:GO, I have had multiple instances where spraying full clips at point blank fails to even register a hit, let alone kill the target. Again, I haven't played enough to pass full judgment on the game yet.. But it certainly needs some tweaking if I'm going to stick with it for long.
I agree.. this article would have been great if the guy talking wasn't also trying to justify the JC2 DLC.. I don't see how he can justify charging a decent amount of cash just to add a monster truck or a pistol (if extra money wasn't a factor, most of the JC2 DLC easily could have been included in a free update). If he had said everything the exact same way but then apologized for his own DLC instead of trying to justify it, I would have agreed completely. As it is, it's 90% truth, 10% self-serving
I think focus should shift away from competitive multiplayer and tack-on coop modes and toward coop in full campaigns. Almost every great single-player game that has come out in the past decade could have been 10x more awesome with coop IMO. And games that just had ok campaigns (like halo 2 or 3) became lots of fun simply because they did have coop. If a great game like fallout3 or mass effect2 had coop (which they totally should have), they would have been sooo much more awesome.As for DLCs, I personally think the best DLCs ever released were for Borderlands. They added enough play time and content to be well worth the money, and the vanilla Borderlands was big enough and complete enough on its own that it didn't feel like the DLCs should have been in the original release.
I really hope the scenes from 7:30-7:40 aren't actually in order: "AHH I stepped in a bear trap!""ok, here I'll just help you to your feet, that should fix it""ya, thanks, much better"...... ?
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned on here yet, but by far the best F2P game I've played is the recently released on steam- Blacklight: Retribution. It's like crysis meets combat arms. Pretty much all the content can be unlocked by just playing the game and the items that are pay-only aren't ridiculously over-powered (you can still win a firefight against people who spend money). The weapon upgrade system is unique and cool as well. I definitely recommend it.
Bethesda and ubisoft need some work with beta testing and pc porting haha.. but I agree, on an innovation level, those are generally good companies. But remember, Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield and Fallout 3 were both FPS but they are both great games. So again, it's not FPS that's killing innovation, but competitive multiplayer-based FPS that's killing it... Now, if only the next Fallout would have coop for the whole campaign..
I hope you're kidding, speed. The more hype any game gets, the more it sells. Some unknown games are so good that they sell well by word of mouth, but that's rare.
I see what you're saying but your example was poor. The multiplayer formula in FPS doesn't change much and it gets old. But campaigns, especially when coop is put in the mix, can and do vary wildly. To say that the COD and Halo campaigns are the same is just like saying Skyrim and Final Fantasy are the same simply because they're RPGs with fictional settings.
tushwacker's comments