I don't think they did. The genre could do that all by itself regardless of Halo or CoD. It also feels like there can only be so many creative weapons. Ratchet & Clank reused the same handful of templates after only a handful of entries.
We used to have flak cannons, tri-barreled rocket launchers, railguns-a-plenty, and rifles that straight-up shot everything from super-heated(and occasionally explosive) circular saw blades to literal lightning bolts. What do we have now? Licensed out dime-a-dozen replicas of the same like 30 weapons that keep spilling innocent blood in the hands of irl barbarians; I refuse to believe that would’ve just been ‘the end game anyway’ assuming a world without military spectacle as a genre. Not knowing how much Pentagon money goes into military spectacle.
At least Halo tries to look like it didn’t jump off the weapons rack at your nearest military outpost’s armory. Fails about half the time, but it at least tries.
The sci-fi games that didn't just jump off the weapons rack gave us assault rifles with chainsaws on the end of them. Ratchet & Clank has no connection to the military industrial complex and gave us the same handful of templates within only about 5 years of the franchise. There's just only so much you can do with a weapon that's essentially a gun. Maybe you get one really unique-feeling weapon every game, but you can't get an entire arsenal of that every game.
I’d have paid 70 bucks for the zombies mode alone which is all I wanted it for anyways. Team deathmatch and domination are so boring compared to game modes like warzone, DMZ, and the new zombies.
Considering it’s the first CoD I’ve purchased since Infinite Warfare, I probably won’t. I haven’t even bought a new game since Mass Effect: Legendary Edition. I’m a patient gamer 99% of the time, I just love the idea of an open world zombies game and it was absolutely worth the money on that premise alone.
How does the open world affect it? One of the reasons I liked Zombies mode in the earlier CoDs was being able to do quick maneuvers through tight spaces and really getting the game down to a muscle memory to see how far you could go.
Well there’s definitely still places where you can flex those muscles! There’s nests that you have to go into buildings and clear out, which still requires you be able to dodge and loop through rooms. Getting stuck in a room that doesn’t have a window to jump through or a second door is a death sentence unless your gun is way over-leveled for the zone you’re in.
There’s also a couple other mission types that are “hold out” style that you have to perform in similar ways.
The open world does affect it though, in my opinion for the better. The map has three zones of increasingly difficult enemies (the ones from Cold War Outbreak are back) so you can pick how far you want to go on any given match. The goal isn’t to hold out for as long as you can until you die (though you can if you want) but instead the goal is to find and extract items that will allow you to upgrade your gear quicker (all pack-a-punch, rarity upgrades, and perk colas reset on extract) so that you can drop in and gear up fast for a high level set of missions that will earn you higher level equipment and upgrades. Including schematics so you can craft the upgrades eventually and have a little bit more to roll with from the get go.
So basically, perk sodas, P-A-P, and rarity are extractable items that you can stash and stock up (in addition to weapons) and the gameplay loop is either in building your character out for high level missions or acquiring a backstock of critical perks and upgrades so you can drop in and upgrade immediately to go straight into the hot zone. If you survive, you have to extract. Which can be done either at the least dangerous zone but based on the given match’s randomness could also be in a higher risk zone as well.
Extracting is just mowing down hordes of zombies while trying to defend the helicopter until it takes off.
It’s functionally DMZ+Outbreak, but the itch it scratches is closer to L4D than old school zombies. If you really like the idea of getting to high waves and pretzels with a ray gun it probably won’t be enjoyable, but for someone who’s always wanted an open world zombies game done right, it’s perfect.
bit wait, I do remember another differentiator. Dying light heavily discouraged frequent use of guns, preferring you to use melee. If you used guns too much, it would spawn in a bunch of 28-day-later zombies that would absolutely fuck your shit up in groups.
I'm all for people buying what they enjoy playing, so if someone genuinely enjoys CoD I'm excited for them that they get some new stuff to play.
What I don't get is the constant group of people buying it every year and complaining. Like, guys, if you don't like the product you're buying, stop buying the next product from the same place until they fix what you hate about it.
There's literally tens of thousands of video games out there. You'll be fine if you don't play one of the most creatively bankrupt franchises in the industry, I promise.
DMZ in the last iteration of CoD was the most fun game that I’ve played in a long time - despite the bugs.
Zombies mode in MW3 is also good fun but it irks that I paid money for this game and it’s buggier than DMZ which it’s evidently based on, and they’ve had a year to fix it.
I guess gold farming bots were too self-sustaining? Blizzard really wanted to make sure they were getting their pound of flesh out of the exchange?
I just can’t imagine this mattering in any other instance. It’s not like you were realistically farming the gold with the free trial, this is a weird change solely to prevent theoretical abuse.
Free trials can’t farm gold anyway because they’re capped to 1k gold, so this really does only impact bot accounts for the most part. There’s likely a small number of people who use tokens because they otherwise couldn’t afford to play, but I expect that’s not terribly common.
From the article, it indicates you’ll just need to have bought something since 2017 to avoid this wave. I can’t imagine someone has been playing exclusively free since WoD while buying the expansions, but it sounds like just paying for the next xpac with money will be enough.
Oh, I’ve been doing that. This is a hot topic on the big gold-making Discord server, and there are over 10,000 people in there (and that’s just English-speaking players who even know about and opted-in to said Discord server).
No, Blizzard makes an extra $5 a month on any subscription bought with gold.
This seems intended to create an extra hurdle for people managing a large number of accounts in the hopes of making that kind of operation less profitable.
I’m gonna be really cynical here and say they’re hoping people sign up to auto sub which they forgot to cancel.
Was a long time wow played and back before tokens were a thing it was pretty straightforward to just pay for 1 month only of game time. I stopped playing midway through baf and at that point I mostly bought game time with gold but on the few occasions I did pay for 1 month it wasn’t that easy to find the 1 month game time, like the nonauto sub. Then I fired up the game like right before the last xpac, can’t remember the name now and it was near fucking impossible to find game time in the store, it kept trying to get me to buy an auto sub.
That seems a bit ridiculous since you can immediately cancel it if you’re only in it for one month. It seems like they want to link payments to account so they can ban all accounts of specific boters at the same time that are on one payment source. I’m going to guess that they also want to ban people who are using other regions accounts. Like Chinese and Korean users who play on the American realms. If they have a contract coming up for someone else in China it would be a big push they would need to get the Chinese players back off the American realms.
As someone who uses gold to buy WoW tokens for both game time and shop credit to make other Blizzard purchases, I have a hard time getting upset over this. I’ve been playing the game without spending money for years, and tokens are also how I buy both WoW expansions and other Blizzard games. Asking me to pay money for a month of sub time every few years seems reasonable, especially if this change makes it even the slightest bit annoying/harder for bot accounts.
The WoW token wasn’t introduced until WoD, so if you played that long ago it wouldn’t have been an option. If you’re ever looking to jump in again though, it’s definitely a useful system if you like to make gold in game.
As long as it’s a one-time thing I can’t get too annoyed by it.
I just hope it doesn’t turn into a frequent thing, and it’s hard not to be skeptical when the token/battle.net credit system has only become more restricted over the years.
True, if it turned into a situation where you had to sub with money for a month every time you wanted to redeem a token or something, that would definitely lessen the value for me. I’d still say it was worth it because I could use the tokens for expansions and other games, but not everyone may have the same opinion.
But somebody else has spent the real money to buy a token. The only justification for the concept is, that it allows people with less time and more money to balance things with people with more time and less money, in an effort to curb the expansive illicit gold trading that happens otherwise (and still does).
Without the motivation of the people with less money and more time, to afford playing for free, the whole concept is weakened and the token sellers are more inclined to go back to illicit gold farmers.
I wish more PlayStation games would allow use of motion controls. I’ve gotten used to enabling it with Steam Deck to actually make fps games playable for me on controller, then when I switch to ps5 and start tilting the controller for precise aiming and nothing happens…
Steam input, and their customization options for controllers on Steam Deck (or I guess in Steam in general) are incredible, and something I don’t see mentioned nearly enough.
I think it wasn’t used enough or not creatively enough in the PS3, the only one that comes to mind is Heavenly Sword and its implementation was a bit poor and I’m unsure if it was the Six-Axis fault.
I've had playstations for multiple console generations, but I just ordered an OLED Deck as my first ever "gaming PC". Forgive the naivety, but could non-supported titles potentially get Dualsense features modded in?
Yeah, that’s what steam input did, it emulates a controller on the fly, you can even emulate a keyboard and mouse in games that don’t support controllers, I have a steam controller and in most fps I configured it to emulate a controller but with mouse look on the right touch pad and gyroscope on a light press on left trigger, unfortunately some games don’t support simultaneous mouse and controller use, other games change UI when switching between mouse and controller, which may be annoying
Touchpad always works, but the haptic triggers and rumble need you to be wired. They also only work in supported games like Spiderman. I remember needing to go into desktop mode to enable the controller’s “speaker” for the rumble.
Too bad my Dualsense started drifting less than 8 months after purchasing… it’s just been sitting in a drawer ever since. I liked it, but I feel it was a waste of money.
Yes and no, there are MANY games I have been forced to use DSX for because they don’t recognize my controller (not that what this update does changes that).
I feel like the kind of “freedom” players want from an RPG is somewhat inconsistent with playing as a specific character, i.e. Geralt. For me, I want to be my own character and decide who they are and what they do. I never really got on with Geralt because I don’t want to be a moody medieval jedi, I’d much rather be a whimsical wizard or something.
As someone who personally enjoys a told story more than a lot of directionless freedom (because I get bored after a few dozen hours, so I want the game to get its thing told and then I’m ready for the next game, basically) I of course enjoyed Geralt’s directed character more, but the two are definitely incompatible at a very basic level.
And honestly, none is inherently better, though I wish studios understood more readily just how different the underlying approach is. If someone creates a defined story then give me those fully defined characters. Give me a cool story through which I learn of them. With a few surprises. Make it like a book! On the other hand, if something is freeform, then go hard the opposite way. Make it sandbox-y! Allow me to create narrative myself through what I do, don’t hold my hand and try to guide me back onto rails.
(That is, the main story was just about the part I enjoyed the least in CP2077 next to the bugs, and I really don’t think V’s character fits the gameplay and what we players do in it very well. V is an interesting character, but not for an open world do-whatever-you-want game, and the game they created doesn’t fit a character that is supposed to have a specific design very well.)
I’m not suggesting it should be at all. Not sure how you got that from my comment. I liked the Witcher 3, honestly, but it isn’t a game about freedom and it shouldn’t be imo. It tells character focused stories well, which is harder to do the more choice you give the player.
“You don’t want to be forced to play a specific role, and that removes the R in RPG” is what they are saying. However, I disagree with them. Real RPGs let you choose your role, ethical alignment, and quirks of behavior. Even older video games like Fallout 3 have that. Being forced to play a specific role is almost antithetical to the concept of RPGs.
Of course, maybe that’s not what they meant at all.
pcgamesn.com
Najstarsze