oh i don't think its a conspiracy. maybe then the question is, why was that format, which continued from U1 to U2, not a big deal in U2, but now it's back with U3.
i'm not taking issue with what's been said, i'm just trying to get an understanding to it all.
[/quote=arne]
Arne: this is my first reply in this thread I actually just came for the Lulz but seeing you here asking good questions led me to give my two cents about this. (Sorry for the bad english too!)
The first would be your question of why this seemingly change of taste from what was accepted in UC 1 & 2 and what is criticized in 3: the first is the obvious remark that there might be some different reviewers than when UC 2 launched so for those is not a change just first time taking into the franchise.
The second explanation would be that this specific kind of design may be "getting old" with some people, kinda like when Gears popularized cover-based shooting it was all the rage but now is like: "oh another cover-based shooter" maybe there could be a "wear" factor?
In this case i'm not trying to make any assumptions though, just trying to respond to your question.
Also now that you might have the chance to see this, I would like to say that IMHO the best kind of games are those who reward or embrace emergent gameplay, games that give you the tools under specific rules to use your imagination or creativity to do things different, to be "active" in the process, Oh and just in case I know that you guys have your emergent gameplay part in the multiplayer of the game, which is created by the constantly different behavior of other real people.
So that idea, that a poster said, about branching paths, it could be a way to give some flexibility while trying to keep the cinematic part, and one more thing, why the focus on keep gaming constantly, like on one sitting, maybe I misread what you said before but I think that you can keep a pretty good pace even taking into account the fact that your players are not going to play everything in one go.