It’s not objectively shit. Aside from anything else, objective means entirely factual and without bias or emotion. A fine thing for an investigation or scientific study but much harder to apply to entertainment beyond pointing out obvious fuck technical ups such as incorrect procedure or uniforms in military dramas for example.Not a game for me? It is objectively shit. The most cowardly kind of generic, easy slop. Reminds me a lot of Arkham for how it incorporates all these things without any care if they fit the material.
Hey, can I ask you a question? And you need not answer it, if you think I am prying into something that is not any of my business:Not a game for me? It is objectively shit. The most cowardly kind of generic, easy slop. Reminds me a lot of Arkham for how it incorporates all these things without any care if they fit the material.
The developer explanation for being unable to move bodies makes even less sense now. (Of course he was moving bodies in the movies, even if we didn't see it.) So you have to face-palm rush the weak submissives off cliffs and buildings where they won't be found, which would let them scream as they fall and alert the others anyway. They can't swim back to land?
Or, instead of bluffing blindly, let the players judge for themselves if the guard is gullible as they listen to him and watch how he carries himself. The Q-lens is too easy. Games rely too much on heads up displays.How would the Q-lens show if a guard is immune to the bluff mechanic? Even if a person's whole personality was transmitted in their body language and facial expression, the guard at 4:49 is turned away and the ones at 4:57 have their faces hidden by hats from where Bond is. (You can't put technology that advanced in a contact lens. What powers the lens? It's too futuristic and silly for Bond.) Bluffing blindly would have at least added some risk.
Yeah about that. I went over to the Steam page for a second for a loom and according to the blurb, Bond is starting this game as a naval airman. Now the closest role I could find for that in the Royal Navy is someone who handles aircraft on the deck of a carrier. Which includes firefighting skills, working around live ordinance, jet engines etc. Now this does give a man some serious nerves of steel and fitness and the ability to think and react well under pressure. But while this is a high risk job, it doesn’t sound like one that encourages high risk individualism.Or, instead of bluffing blindly, let the players judge for themselves if the guard is gullible as they listen to him and watch how he carries himself. The Q-lens is too easy. Games rely too much on heads up displays.
Edit for a great response:
"Bond is all about high risk, high reward. XXXXXXX around with a gadget to make sure his bluff doesn't fail before he even makes the attempt doesn't fit the character at all."
Is this your first ever video game?
Who could have guessed this might happen? A playtest? What's that? If devs cared about AI, one of these men would flip the table or grab his leg as he slides over.