Fucking preach. Entire problem with Ubisoft is their “formulas”. Zero risk, zero creativity. Boring games that all are the same. SO just started playing ac mirage and it looks and plays exactly like Valhalla. Which was exactly like Odyssey. Which was exactly like Origins.
Then they’re all like “why are people bored with our games?!?!!”
Mirage absolutely doesn’t look and play like the previous three games in the series. Unless I’m remembering it completely wrong and it actually was filled with copy-paste enemy camps, tons of pointless loot and fighting felt more like a hack’n’slay than a stealth assassin adventure game.
Well they just started playing, I’ll let her know it might be changing. The UI and engine are just exactly the same, so they have pretty low hopes so far for it getting better.
I remember reading that bosses just scale to the amount of players so my guess is solo is actually solo. This would make the solo or trio only decision even stranger…
IGN: Sure. [Laughs] Back to the game, one thing that wasn’t clear to me yesterday. Do you have to play it online in a group of three, or can you also play it solo or in a duo?
Junya Ishizaki: The game is designed to be played as a three-person team, but you can play it as a solo player.
IGN: Oh, great. Or in a pair?
Junya Ishizaki: No, it’s either one-player or three-player.
That’s so weird. Why not give an option for two? What if a lot of players only know one other player? What’s the reasoning for “one, or three players”?
Just their artistic vision and game design philosophy, which I can both respect and go WTF at the same time. Like with their steadfast refusal to provide the option to turn off invasions.
Turning off invasions while still playing coop you mean? Cause offline mode turns off invasions (duh). I guess invasions are part of the thrill in their mind and after a random coop sunbro and I were invaded by a phantom while super low health and outta potions way into a dungeon in Dark Souls and managed to survive by hiding away together with no voicecomms, it‘s hard for me to disagree with them lol
I don’t know, I usually play duo and 5-6 is overtuned, and nearly impossible. Especially on automatons, because it just spawns infinity low levels. But then diff 9-10 feel like diff 3-4 because even though they spawn the big enemies, for some reason it spawns less of the low levels.
The game feels like it has automatic scaling, but it always feels like it is set up wrong.
I think I just did automatons back then because that's where the rewards were but it was a completely overwhelming number of enemies spawning in non-stop. Combined with the sort of time limit I just did not enjoy that experience at all. Maybe you can kinda get better and grind through it I feel I'd rather waste my time and money on something that's balanced around singleplayer, even if just optionally.
I don’t know what it is with Japanese devs and arbitrary multiplayer decisions. The way Capcom handles Monster Hunter’s multiplayer continues to baffle me.
From a PC gaming perspective, it feels like Western developers decided to just give players multiple options to play together all the way back in the 1990’s. This sort of thing always feels badly regressive to me.
PS to Xbox?.. Yeah…okay uh no. They don’t have to negotiate their brands as that is what gives them power. Something Microsoft is significantly lacking
Holy shit gaming outlets are really desperate for clicks. How, just how are these people better paid than garbage collection crews or entry level nurses. We need to make it impossible to make a living wage creating click and ragebait. Just mandate adblocking by default in all browsers, ffs.
Well, this is misleading. My mind goes to the likes of Sony first party titles in reading this headline, but the examples that the article uses as a metric for “PlayStation exclusive” are more like the games that either were paid to not go to Xbox or didn’t see the fiscal sense in doing so. It doesn’t rule out first party titles, but that’s far from the most likely. Of Sony’s first party games, the ones most likely to come to Xbox, if at all, are the live service games, and that’s looking increasingly like a strategy that Sony regrets anyway, so why even bother with Xbox when it’s not going to move the needle?
I was so disappointed at the mechanics they brought in with FarCry 3. The ability to tag an enemy and have them be visible through walls until they’re dead is ridiculous. I was horrified when I saw it repeated in 4, and then realized it was a permanent part of the franchise.
Something a lot of people miss (and actually Far Cry 6 forgot/discarded) is most Far Cry games end with a very deconstructive and sad message towards the violence you’ve achieved through the game.
They tend to miss since people that care about writing skip these games. I’m curious what they could do with it though.
insider-gaming.com
Aktywne