Its Ubisoft attemp at gears of war with the slice of destiny. just another cover based shooter and no proper single player campaign sold at full price. waste of time
B-Cell said:Its Ubisoft attemp at gears of war with the slice of destiny. just another cover based shooter and no proper single player campaign sold at full price. waste of time
What do you consider to be a "proper" single player campaign? Because the entire game is pretty much single player. You can invite other players to play the game in co-op, and there are other players in safehouses, but other than that and the Dark Zone, player interaction is non-existent.B-Cell said:Its Ubisoft attemp at gears of war with the slice of destiny. just another cover based shooter and no proper single player campaign sold at full price. waste of time
It is absolutely okay and encouraged for developers to have plans beyond launch for their game, especially when they expect a game to have a continuous player base.BabyfartsMcgeezaks said:snip
Coincidentally, Ubisoft recently did that as well.Zhukov said:It's like a developer releasing Tetris and expecting me to get excited for some reason.
That's exactly it, I got burned on Destiny and I've been trying to find out if this is worth buying. I have a group of friends who were interested, but if it's just a MMO grind shooter with little to keep you there but repeated enemies and very little story... eh.shrekfan246 said:Coincidentally, Ubisoft recently did that as well.Zhukov said:It's like a developer releasing Tetris and expecting me to get excited for some reason.
OT: Everything I've seen and read about The Division makes it sound like a decidedly serviceable game. One that functions, and provides ample dude-killing opportunities for those who want a bit of dude-killing. It also most assuredly sounds like a game that would not hold my interest in the slightest, between the nonsensical use of the Tom Clancy branding and the boring "realistic" loot and apparently a pretty low amount of enemy variety and lack of meaningful story (I've heard literally nothing mentioned about any story in the game, and in fact have yet to hear someone even mention the name of a single character present within it).
You seem to be confusing what should be expected to be patched (stuff that disrupts the game, like player collision) and what can be expected of DLC (adding more content). You also display a stunning lack of insight into how game development works.CritialGaming said:It is absolutely okay and encouraged for developers to have plans beyond launch for their game, especially when they expect a game to have a continuous player base.
However I think there is a better way to handle it than the way they are doing it now. Like I said, it feels shitty for them to talk about multiple expansions for a game BEFORE it even comes out! I'd rather them wait a few weeks after launch and they get a feel for how people are playing their game and problems that may exist.
For example in the Division, players have collision, meaning assholes can block doorways or objectives just because. Maybe if they waited a couple weeks before announcing DLC, they could see these issue with the objectives and the loot system, and do something about it in the DLC. I'm not saying they can't patch or fix it in the DLC now, but this is just an example.
I am not confusing game design or development. I think Publishers and Developers are confusing game design, especially lately. They want a game to having lasting appeal for the entire year? Be a flagship of the company? Why then did they simply not make the game interesting enough to keep players for the year? Worked for Bloodborne and that's a single player game.Gethsemani said:Snip
The funny thing about the Metacritic scores is that some fanboys seem to be going after the reviewers who gave it a low score (like Jim Sterling). I don't judge a game for its fan base; but when fanboys tell the reviewers that they should be removed from Metacritic and that they shouldn't be reviewing anything (all this decorated by the latest trendy insult), just for not giving it a high score... well, if that's the kind of people I'm going to meet in that game, I think I'll pass.Bob_McMillan said:Well, The Division somehow is getting good reviews from both reviewers (albeit from smaller gaming websites) and the players themselves. This, of course, is based off Metacritic.
I was sensing an "even worse than Destiny" vibe from this thing. Everyone in the YouTube comment section hates it (although they hate everything else too). YouTubers' don't seem too happy with it either, even those who traditionally stay positive on games. Or, well, are paid to stay positive. Most complaints range from shitty gunplay to poorly implemented PvP to just general boring-ness.
The positives I have heard are that the graphics and environment are great. And... uh, yeah that's it.
If it isnt evident, I really have a hard time understanding why people are enjoying this game so much.
So, has anyone played the game? Do you think its good, or is it as boring as it looks?