Not all that surprising honestly. Starfield is going to be Bethesda's focus and main talking point for a few years at least. And who knows how many games are scheduled between it and ES6, whenever it comes out. Given that Bethesda generally likes a short window between reveal and release I'm wondering just how much they regret teasing a game that might not release for another three or four years.
I am a big Dragon Age fan, and I don’t know how far into development DA4 is, but if they are following DAI route (an almost 10 years old game), they’re so screwed. DAI, while better than 2, didn’t leave the best taste in my mouth.
What’s got me worried is how they’re basically trying to copy God of War for the combat. That kind of hack and slash gameplay is not what I want from a Dragon Age game. They’re chasing trends and that rarely goes well.
Andromeda was a mess, and not for the reasons most folks like to ding it for. It was both trying too hard (all those references to other games, like Conrad Verner’s sister and Zaaed’s son) and not trying hard enough (all the copy and paste rule of 3 quests to find three MacGuffins then SAM will figure out how to find a location for another fight).
Andromeda was frustrating because they had a lot of potential - I almost wish had had just truly been bad instead of mediocre. Mediocre is more of a letdown.
I forced myself to finish it. It’s just mass effect 1 but awful. That said, if they just wanted to restart Andromeda and pretend the first one never existed, I’d give it a shot. There’s so much potential in the idea but it was squandered in every possible way
(all the copy and paste rule of 3 quests to find three MacGuffins then SAM will figure out how to find a location for another fight).
This has been my biggest complaint as I’ve been going through ME:A for the first time. I have limited time/energy to play so jumping into ME:A for 2ish hours and basically accomplish nothing really hurts my motivation for the next play session.
When I first started playing it, I was really enjoying the game. It was about the 3rd planet where I had to go to 3 places to unlock a vault to do a thing that the progression loop really started to weigh me down.
The original trilogy was brilliant for me. Get in, do a couple of missions (each one progressing the story a little more) maybe get sucked into a couple more missions and go to bed excited for the next session. But ME:A is just a slog. I’m doing various loyalty missions which is a little better, but still seems to require a lot of go here, here, and here and shoot some guys and then go into here to finish up.
I remember before it came out, when they boasted that each world would be bigger than all the areas in Inquisition, and I had a sinking feeling, because Inquisition had so much bloat. Andromeda was just more for the sake of more, instead of the side missions being tight missions that gave you extra information about the lore or the world.
It reached a point where whenever I found one of these random rule of three quests in the open world where you kill random whatever enemies and SAM says you need to find more data, I would laugh and say, “welp, that’s a quest I’m never finishing!” and ignore it. I had so much better things to do with my time than drive around the world and hope to come across the next two clues that would pop up in randomly chosen spots. It was a time-waster, and Mass Effect had never had those before. So much of the game feels like it’s designed to take up time to increase play time numbers.
What finally decided me to buy it was a comment section of some random YouTuber talking about the game, and people saying how much it reminded them of Dragon Age Origins.
I definitely gotta admit, this is one of the most impressive parts of the game to me.
Having played the original Baldurs Gate and Baldurs Gate 2 by BioWare, its really kind of amazing the depth they’ve given this game, which is arguably very inspired by what was done with Dragon Age Origins (follow ups maybe not so much).
Except it really is like playing the two original games, just with the ability to get a super close up look at your party, as well as as a high-level overview of the gaming space.
So far, the game does a stellar job of providing a truly cinematic experience during dialogue exchanges. One of the more recent RPGs that people claimed “set the bar” was Witcher 3, and it had a lot of people gesticulating from the waist up for the most part. So much of the game is so fully detailed, and yet has reasonable system requirements compared to current PC specs. It really is a stunning achievement, and a near perfect follow up to the classics.
Tell me more about what you disliked about D:OS. I’m playing through in co-op (in the endgame right now) and want to commiserate.
For me it was the bugs and some weird choices where things that should work to progress don’t, and some progress is so convoluted that we had to look it up and we were like ugh wth.
Looking up stuff is annoying when something you’re sure should work logically doesn’t.
It was just very combat-heavy and very challenging, and not in a very fun way. Also I remember going through a period of finding combat just to get XP to be able to get gear to upgrade to or something like that, which prolonged the dragging. Overall it was a slog, which I carried through to see if I got some payoff. Looking back the payoff for me was "Avoid Larian games".
Fair. I was playing a warrior so combat wasn’t as much an issue for me. Tbh when we were starting, someone told us to play DOS 2 instead of 1 since it’s a better gameplay experience and I wonder if all these rough edges have been fixed.
Hope this one is less car dominant. It would be good to have more progressive layouts with cycle lanes and low traffic neighborhoods. Not just aping US city blocks, with cars to get anywhere.
Wow really? I like some of the new stuff they’ve shown like mixed-use zoning but this might be a dealbreaker for me. If I can’t build a nice city I don’t really see the point of the game.
techradar.com
Ważne