This is a good method.llubtoille said:when it gets to the point that I stop feeling anything about them,
best example I can think of is WoW,
I disliked a lot of the events and plot in the game from vanilla to cata,
but I kept playing because it still sparked some fire of passion and thought.
since the start of the year I've pretty much felt nothing towards it, and hence I stopped playing.
When I think of the upcoming expansion, I feel no emotion towards it, so I know I'm done with it.
No, it literally was that you had to rank up in order to play with high level units like Mammoth Tanks and such and the more you ranked up after unlocking units the more upgrades you could get for them. I'm not entirely sure what they were thinking by adding this feature to an RTS but it didn't work. The last time I saw a copy of C&C 4 in a store it had been marked down to $20 from the original $50 and then again to from $20 to $5 and I still passed on it.PieBrotherTB said:They WHAAAAA?!Stryc9 said:For me Red Alert 3 was kind of the end for the C&C franchise with me and C&C 4 totally killed it when they announced the completely stupid system they were putting in place that involved a leveling up prestige system like Call of Duty to unlock good units and that there was no base building I was done. I didn't even buy it because it wasn't a C&C game anymore.
I'm even less excited about this new free to play Generals 2 pile of garbage they announced a while back, way to take one of your best franchises and just grind it into the ground EA.
It's kind of fallible in an FPS, but an RTS?
Surely that couldn't work unless the unlockables were completely token, like skins or something; and even then that'd not really have much point.
I can sort of get how 'no base building' *could* work (a la Dawn of War II), but unlocking (and by association, locking) units through prestige?
And as a fan of C&C Generals; I'm ambivalent, I'm not sure how an F2P/microtransactions (because EA) model could work for an RTS (and still be balanced/good), and I've still got the first to go back to, just seems an odd decision.
I hear ya assassins creed was my favorite new series this gen. I loved the first the second was so improved I don't think I could touch the first ever again then the third came out I had lots of fun but was getting annoyed the story wasn't moving forward then the forth was announced for a year later with Ezio again and I said screw it I am out. They established in the first game they need to go to the future and the whole series is just a giant attempt to avoid its own story it is annoying and embarrassing. People criticize the new MGS game coming out but at least they care enough about the story to transcend the genre for the sake of story that takes balls I respect that. Assassins creed is so afraid to do anything different it is getting kinda embarrassing.Amethyst Wind said:Were it not for the Desmond sections I'd have probably walked away from Assassin's Creed Revelations. They're gonna need to shake things up a bit in AC3 or else I won't be buying it.
...So I assume you haven't played IX?Johnny Impact said:Not very far.
Final Fantasy VIII turned me off to the series as a whole. I can't play a character-heavy game where I don't like any of the characters. We've got an emo tosser in the lead, a forgettable cookie-cutter eco-freak, a sniper who refuses to shoot people, and a dumb skateboard kid who thinks facial tattoos are edgy. I got tired of reading the conversations -- hell, I got tired of skipping the conversations. Most especially I got tired of wanting to grab Squall by his ridiculous fur collar and slap the stupid out of him. No more, thank you.