Strangelove77
Member
So many nominations for AC Origins and Shadow Of War. What a shit E3.
At least for playable games.
At least for playable games.
Two sequels that in extended play sessions look like substantial improvements over their predecessors? A claim backed up by the majority of hands on impressions people had with the games? Did you just decide that they're both automatically mediocre or do all those positive impressions not count towards anything? I'm not even hyped for Mordor, but i definitely noticed that a lot of good things were being said about it.So many nominations for AC Origins and Shadow Of War. What a shit E3.
At least for playable games.
The hate this game (and the first one) gets on gaf always baffle me
It has to be because MS has the marketing rights. No other reason for it.
The demo was so limited that it did a pretty poor job of showcasing how different this title is beyond the new abilities. There's so many Witcher 3 influences as well as way more sandbox elements not unlike those seen in FC and BOTW.The praise AC keeps getting from the press intrigues me. I saw the trailer in the conference and immediately zoned out because it looks pretty much exactly the same as previous ACs... is there something important I'm missing?
The side quest design was really cookie cutter and disappointing tho, especially since it had no effect on the world overall. As well as the difficulty because I literally never died, nor had to flee....and the only reason I wasn't fully leveled by the second half was because of the fact that some abilities are locked off by story missions. But otherwise yes it's a fun game to play where like Dishonored you're completely OP compared to the enemies.It has to be because MS has the marketing rights. No other reason for it. The game is solid in story, mechanics, and level design. The nemesis system alone is worth playing the game.
sure..
to me it's just one of those games that is mediocre but gets praised as good so people feel the need to tell everyone that it's the worst thing ever.
i personally think it's mediocre but nothing terrible.
The demo was so limited that it did a pretty poor job of showcasing how different this title is beyond the new abilities. There's so many Witcher 3 influences as well as way more sandbox elements not unlike those seen in FC and BOTW.
The side quest design was really cookie cutter and disappointing tho, especially since it had no effect on the world overall. As well as the difficulty because I literally never died, nor had to flee....and the only reason I wasn't fully leveled by the second half was because of the fact that some abilities are locked off by story missions. But otherwise yes it's a fun game to play where like Dishonored you're completely OP compared to the enemies.
Best of Show
- Assassin's Creed: Origins (Ubisoft Montreal/Ubisoft)
- Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo)
- Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle (Ubisoft Paris/Ubisoft Milan/Ubisoft)
- Middle-earth: Shadow of War (Monolith/Warner Bros Interactive Ent.)
- Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (Machine Games/Bethesda)
Wolfenstein 2 was playbe? didn't see any press gameplay vids.
The fact that AC is nominated even though it looks as dull as always speaks volume of how weak this E3 has been.
Sad Spiderman didn't make the cut considering they showed gameplay.
If I recall correctly, Bethesda does their gameplay within their booths and usually out of the nearby eyes of onlookers. Usually you have to set up an appointment to actually play any of Bethesda's games at E3. Still, it would still be playable (just not in the open like other publishers).
The praise baffles me just as muchThe hate this game (and the first one) gets on gaf always baffle me
Neogaf voters didn't play games anyways.
Playable game won.
Why does it matter?
So many nominations for AC Origins and Shadow Of War. What a shit E3.
At least for playable games.
What is wrong with you guys? Are you serious with this?
It has to be because MS has the marketing rights. No other reason for it. The game is solid in story, mechanics, and level design. The nemesis system alone is worth playing the game.
I kind of want Mario x Rabbids to win, just to see the resulting shitshow that will follow
But that's automatically assuming that the sequel just MUST be mediocre. Which directly runs in contradiction to the majority of impressions from people who actually had hands on time with it. Which by my knowledge, is what is the deciding factor for whether something is eligible for these awards compared to just watching videos.I think it's more a case of like Dragon Age Inquisition, where it got a ton of praise early in this generation, when there really weren't a lot of great games. Due to the lack of competition they won game of the year awards and stuff that they really probably didn't deserve in better years. So there is some backlash now to kind of mediocre games getting overpraised.
There are a dozen award things for that....If the game had a demonstration by gameplay for the media it should've been included regardless of whether it was playable or not. At least Mario and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus are still there.
What about TEW2 than, was it playable? if it was than why it didn't get to the list?
What is wrong with you guys? Are you serious with this?
I just noticed that in the anime version, Goku's hair goes Super Saiyan 2 hairstyle before going Super Saiyan 1.
Really? Skull & Bones is the one that gives you pause? Not the Mario and Dollar Store Minions crossover? Or the fucking Dragon Ball game?
The handheld nominees are BS. Why is Odyssey not there too?
Is this panel of people now defining a console and it's role?