last few months just been noticing more and more people speak about the industry and problems beyond that (not here, none of all ten of us left lol) as if the only voice or change they can affect is through what products they choose to buy or not buy, what creators they can harass on social media or influencers claiming to provide them with the better products, confined by illusionary walls of consumerism, not understanding the change happens on the outside where laws are fought for instead
It is, but mainly among the actual fans of the games themselves, or the smaller YouTube channels in these type of games.
I haven't played any of these, FF XVI did get a patch update fixing this last I heard from a friend. As for Lies of P and its DLC, I guess people are too enamored to even care or ignore the issues.
Let help you add your mental gaming library:
Surprising but glad your enjoying it. Maybe someday I'll go back and give it another shot, but right now I am still uninterested in ww2.
I don't do Persona but I wouldn't expect anything else. Most long story games fall apart at the end. I'm pretty sure I understand the reasons why and that's a whole 'nother long post...
Yes. I admit, I was messing with you a little there.
I prefer my long story games to be 7-15 hours at most. Anything more, and it's just stretching it.
symbol before you install it), which equals a total of nine gigabytes. No one mentions this either in their reviews or rants.
I haven't actually played the Vanguard campaign. The latest one that I played was MW (2019), which I actually enjoyed quite a bit.@Worgen, @thebobmaster, @laggyteabag, and everyone else:
One thing I didn't hear discussed enough about COD Vanguard, then and now, is forcing the player to have an activision account, just to play the single player. No reviewer, be they positive or negative, about any aspect of the game's single player or multiplayer talk about this. Or only bring it up as a super minor convenience at best. Yahtzee, who was okay with the single player and thought it was fine, never mentions this either especially. He's usually on shit like this. Yet he never once brings it up. What the actual hell, Yahtzee?
To add insult to injury, you still have to actually download the campaign digitally, even when you have the disc. The install for this game is over sixty gigabytes (and that's not counting some of the updates). And you have to install two campaign packs ( within the game itself, when you're at the menu screen; capmpaign is faded and has a
While I am still early into the game, I already like the cast of characters you play as. The whole "force diversity" thing is bullcrap. Just so everyone is clear: this game originally was supposed to be more like Wolfenstein, hence the diverse cast in the first place. It would be even more over the top, but Activision forced Sledgehammer, to not do that, and make it "our real world". Yet, just as many over the top stuff happened in the game. Sledgehammer still made a fun single player campaign, and that is all that matters. It's not their best, but it's certainly not the disaster certain people and grifters on the internet were claiming. Some of them never actually played the game or just getting second hand opinions off each other, and they're little pals or echo chambers. Thus proving once again, many streamers or youtubers aren't there for the "common man/gamer" they claim to preach about; if they don't even bother bringing up this aspect and why it sucks.
I bought mine used. I'm assuming you're playing on pc.
I did play World War 2, and I didn't really care for it.
That was pretty much the point, and I love it. COD WW2 is throwback to those type of WWII films and TV shows respectively. The game itself is a genre throwback to the Classic COD Trilogy. The first game especially with an actual health meter, and med kits making a comeback. Only in the single player. Multiplayer is the standard regenerating health.
I mean that's fine if you feel that way about the movement in W3 (I just disagree, otherwise I wouldn't replay the game so often, as I find it rather intuitive and easy to move around), but that's a whole 'nother issue from the combat thing I'm talking about. In W3, when you hit an enemy, it gets hit. The only ones that tank hits and keep going are large stone monsters, which makes sense. And I'm just saying it's weird that it's a game widely panned for its combat when more beloved games don't even do that.
PRJKT RED will be fine. They know they can't afford to mess up like last time. UE5 it does have its problems, but it seems like most developers, mainly those on the japanese side of game development, already know what to do and what not to do.
The main problem with W3's combat is that the system is designed for humanoid enemies and the main highlight of playing as a witcher combat-wise is fighting monsters and combat against monsters is really weak because it's not designed for that. I remember the E3 when they showed off the griffon fight and that was a really bad fight in comparison to the griffon fight in Dragon's Dogma; I didn't understand how other people thought that was good. And then playing it, the fight was even worse than expected, I think the griffon just has like 3 moves or something, it's a really bad fight. Also, both Axii and Quen abilities completely break combat and make it joke easy. For example, you can just Axii the griffon over and over again.
