So they made a game that resembles the other games?
What a coinikidink.
If anything, aside from the interesting opening sequence and the dog who's nothing more than a reference to Modern Warfare 2 in his name anyway, he basically just described every single modern shooter nowadays with the only notable difference being that the game just instantly punishes you for going off track rather than warning you.
Wait, three hours? So they got to play the whole game?
I really liked the Intro and thought it was pretty cool, but they somehow made a post apocalyptic setting feel exactly like an uninteresting modern military shooter which is disappointing
Its a shame too I thought it had some promise from the intro video, it gave some fallout vibes or some shit.
[QUOTE=Saxon;42770429]I really liked the Intro and thought it was pretty cool, but they somehow made a post apocalyptic setting feel exactly like an uninteresting modern military shooter which is disappointing
Its a shame too I thought it had some promise from the intro video, it gave some fallout vibes or some shit.[/QUOTE]
That's probably why it bothers me so much. It's like they specifically noted at the game's announcement that they hired some fancy writer for the game, and the intro shows potential for being something different, but then they almost instantly ditch it for the series' standard-fare.
those last few lines were thoroughly depressing
imagine what it was like to make this game
[QUOTE=person11;42770883]those last few lines were thoroughly depressing
imagine what it was like to make this game[/QUOTE]
Considering the article's main image is this: [img]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/13/nov/cod/gho03.jpg[/img]
I it's easy to see that that about all of ten minutes thought was put into the concept of the entire game itself. I can imagine a boardroom somewhere where some random aide shouted out "DOGS AND ALIENS AND UHH THE WORLD ENDED!" and the room bursting out in spontaneous applause.
Seems like someone forgot to mention to the exec's that this isn't Fallout, isn't Xcom, and isn't good.
My favorite part of this is they swore up and down the game would be different, multiplayer was barely the same, made it out like the campaign was worth something and made it out to be heavy stealth and it is literally the same as every CoD from MW2 up with a different coat of paint.
The only things i've seen mentioned in articles about the Multiplayer is the Squad system (which is neat, admittedly) and the fact that they changed perks. It's like, is that really all that's worthwhile to say about a "brand new multiplayer"?
[editline] November 6, 2013 [/editline]
How many sales did this get, by the way? Anyone know yet? And how "close" were they to beating out GTA5 like they said they would?
[editline]5th November 2013[/editline]
Been watching TotalBiscuit play it, holy Jesus shit it's literally the exact same. Why do his arms stick out so far? Jesus. This is an abysmal disappointment, how could they even feel okay playing it up like they did.
[editline]6th November 2013[/editline]
It's like they're taking strides BACK instead of forward. The Loadout system is the exact same as MW2/3 barring perks. Menu stutter? Really?
I agree with this article. The first 10 minutes or so was strong as FUCK, hell even for the first few minutes where it jumps to ten years later it still held some promise. Holy shit, wandering through a TLOU-esque war torn city with a dog? That's actually neat!
And then you shoot a bunch of brown people the end.
Even though I should've known it's going to be the same shit over again, I really hoped that it'd prove me wrong and turns out to be something new and interesting.
I regret getting this.
I'll wait till it goes on sale, just like every other COD I've ever bought.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
