Marathon ain't doing shit, seriously think Bungie can attract a big player base and keep them long term?
How you play the game has always been in there, no one is stopping you pulling the trigger. They've done a good job of putting like minded gamers together IMO. There's plenty aggressive PvP players out there if that's what you're looking for, I don't see why it can't be both.
I got turned off because their lame matchmaking doesn't really allow for both at once. If you defend yourself, bam you're in the pure PvP servers.
I'm pretty sure the data they use goes off who shoots first but I may be wrong. I was initially PvP player and it creates a tension in game that at the moment I don't have as I'm generally "friendly" but that was largely because I was collecting materials to upgrade work stations etc.
Yep, I hate that too. Sadly it's because pussies would quit playing because they get killed. What's the point even in friendly servers fighting robots for nothing. 0 skill and 0 tension required.
Yeah but you'd think we'd gotten a new weapon or two by now.
It doesn't track who shoots first.
No end game.
Natural trappings of the genre then, maybe.
For some reason Arc has grown stale for me yet I put in over 2700 hours into Hunt Showdown. The latter especially has become very consistent over the past two years or so with constant content updates and/or events.
That made me not buy this at all, I have no interest in shooting at clankers in games, it's the most boring shit in the universe to me.
I think it's normal.
Hunt Showdown sounds like a real one, grew from the bottom up, I think this Ark Raiders was way more marketing hype than game.
I doubt it. Just think it's going to take Embark 12 - 24 months to build one.
It does, it just can't know the intent for doing so.
When I played that demo test or whatever it was, I could feel the copy paste EA SW Battlefront 1 in the assets and UI, think people laughed at me saying that, that's fair, I'm retarded etc, but the game gave me slap dash pump and dump vibes. Still does, always will.
They certainly have the runway to do it now.
These are the less boring clankers in the history of robotic enemies tho.
It's a total subjective personal gripe I have, dude, lol, yeah if they're good to you then kickass, my eyes just glaze over when it's bots, I have no idea why.These are the less boring clankers in the history of robotic enemies tho.
Their ai, hit reactions, pathfinding, audio design and destruction is first in class, i give the clankers what belongs to ceasar, they were almost the only reason why i played the game for 100 hours.
There is just not enough diversity and they are not exactly original in term of look.
Gears should have ended with gears 3
So you never reached the part where the robots mixed with the locust and things became chaotic and more difficult?
Only the biggest studios (like Epic and Activision) can pump new content every 2-3 weeks.
No sir, and this is a while ago so I could be wrong, but I bailed from Gears 4 soon as I was fighting robots and I bailed from Gears 5 after about an hour of being unable to physically stand the peppy quippy dialogue.
Player driven stories >>> Linear authored stories.
This is pretty much correct.
After the first couple of hours in Gears 5 the tone becomes darker and a main character is punished for being sloppy and not taking things seriously enough, because it led to mass casualties.
Don't get me wrong, i also prefer fighting humans\monsters, but i'm a sucker for good enemy AI and these are some of the most intelligent enemies you are ever gonna find in a videogame, using machine learning to fix common pathways problems was a stroke of genius that should be used in any videogame in existence, like even tetris
There is no player-driven story. There's siloed experience after siloed experience, where you either complete your objective or you don't. It adds up to nothing but cosmetic unlocks. The existing story, such as it is, is as linear and passive as any other.
It's not even that.
Nah, each run feels unique and gives the player interesting choices to make. We're the protagonist in ARC Raiders. That's why it blew up.
Maybe when I lose myself in a realistic game, I carry a subconscious hopelessness, a feeling of this being wasteful struggle when having to fight against a sentient bathtub or whatever.Don't get me wrong, i also prefer fighting humans\momsters, but i'm a sucker for good enemy AI and these are some of the most intelligent enemies you are ever gonna find in a videogame, using machine learning to fix common pathways problems was a stroke of genius that should be used in any videogame in existence, like even tetris
Yeah, within each siloed run. There is no narrative aggregate. Once the run is over, it has no bearing on a larger story. You might complete the prerequisite quests to unlock the next area or cinematic, but that's just as linear as anything else.
Is that more a problem with your friend? or the game? I guess the correct answer is both but your friend sound terrible no offense.
Not him, but Gears 4 didn't get much better even when you got there and honestly it wasn't worth his time.
So it's an immersion problem?
That's interesting, to me it literally becomes pointless because there is no nature involved in the kill, not the same kind of payoff of struggle for the brain.
You take this stuff way more seriously than most breh
It's why Dark Souls is so cool, it's a dangerous struggle and you know in the moment whatever you're facing wants to take your damn soul no matter what, you can sense your opponent is visibly organically pissed at you enough to want to smoke you, lol. The stakes are high, your soul vs theirs, makes it more "real" to your lizard brain maybe.You take this stuff way more seriously than most breh
I don't think the devs had that train of thoughts when they chose clanker enemies, they probably jist tjought they were the most adapt type of enemies for their world and gameplay loop.
