I'm being totally candid here but: 1) What does this particular game have over the 20 other recent war games? 2) Did you notice that, of that 1:42 second trailer, less than half of it consisted of actual gameplay? 3) How many times can you hide behind the same bush shooting the same (general) enemy in the ass with the same 10 weapons during the same 10 scenarios? Run here! Duck there! Shoot there! Throw a grenade there! I get that the graphics are better but once they've sheared off the skin, the meat is still kind of bland and tasteless. 4) If you have any fucking idea of what I'm talking about, you rock! Fill me in when you get a chance.... *edit* I'm being totally serious and want actual answers to my questions. The few petty gripes that I've had with Arkham City are piddly in the grand scheme of things, I'll admit. While most of you are ooohing and awwwing over the same broken Middle-Eastern backdrop in these war games, I am cutting my way through Arkhams vein of colorful freaks. Not that I'm saying that you should eschew the war games for the others. I just don't understand the total hard-on y'all get for blowing each other up. *shrugs*
1. Battlefield has much stronger teamwork based gameplay than other titles in addition to vehicle combat. 2. That trailer was mostly to reveal new maps that previously hadn't been seen. 3. This is a harder one. Yes it boils down to shoot enemy, hide there, capture bases. It's easy to simplify a game like that. Your quote could easily be applied to the Batman games, and it would be even more relevant. I beat the last Batman game and will get the new one eventually, but it's a different style of gaming. Battlefield is more like playing a sport. Yes the basic mechanics are the same, but EVERY single game you play is different than the last. I copied this from a post I made talking about the last Battlefield, describing just one of the thousands of tactics one can use. There is a map in BC2 where two MCOM Stations are located inside buildings. If the enemy uses tanks, C4, RPG's, and other explosives they can destroy the buildings without arming the actual stations. What I like to do on this level, is just assume that the enemy will advance to the next set of stations. In order for the opposing team to advance to the next stations, they need to pass through a wooded choke point. I equip an Assault class with C4, and blow up every single tree that I can while they are destroying the buildings. When they try to advance, there is no cover, and nowhere to hide. You can even load C4 onto an ATV, drive it towards a tank, jump off and detonate, destroying said tank. 4. I totally get what you're saying. Different strokes and such...
If you look again it is 10/31/2012 so you've got a little longer than you thought. Enjoyable game thus far.
This is the reason why I find there is so much more value in online shooters than in games centered around single player campaigns*. Maps can be approached in many different ways depending on things like weapon selection, where enemies are, where you think they are going, how aggressive they are, etc. For me, the appeal is in trying to surprise and outsmart opponents. I enjoyed arkham asylum and trust that arkham city is excellent, but there is no way I'm paying 60 bucks for it because when I finish the story I'll never play it again. *The only exception is Mass Effect 2. I'm on a second play through and plan to play it at least 2 more times.
1)Fully pilot-able vehicles, TONS of them. Choppers, Tanks, Humvees, Jet-Ski's, ATV's and in BF3, Jets. Also fully destructible environments, if you can see it, you can blow it the fuck up. Guy hiding in a building trying to snipe you? Bring the whole damn building down on top of him. 2) Showing off the maps. 3)While yes, the premise is the same, no match is ever played out in the same way. It's all dependent on your tastes, if you want to hang back and be the guy who snipes, you can. If you want to charge in guns blazing and kill everything you can get a sight on, you can. While I am also currently beating down every Riddler henchman and super villain I can track down before Protocol 10 goes live, I will also be shooting the fuck out of people when Battlefield 3 come out. I can't speak for everyone but for me, the "total hard-on y'all get for blowing each other up." comes from the fact that I'm not beating up on some programmers code, but a fully living breathing person somewhere out there and I take immense satisfaction in knowing that when I kill someone there's someone out there getting violently pissed because I just owned him thoroughly...and his buddy who came to rescue him. Oh, and as much as they suck, complete the WayneTech AR challenges, if you don't you are going to have a very hard time when you finally get to Spoiler Talia & Ra's Al Ghul .
How's that looking for BF3? I have BBC2, and I didn't care for the destructible environments because if my memory serves me buildings were too easy to destroy. If I'm hiding in a building with stone walls small arms fire shouldn't be able to bring the building down on top of me. Have they made it more realistic in BF3?
Honestly couldn't say, the beta only had the one map, and there wasn't alot of buildings to test it out on. You could blast tiles off the walls and take out trees, but that was about it.
I posted this on the CoD threat. I'm pretty excited about this. Huge game changer in the culture of MW3. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/10/20/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-multiplayer-strike-packages-bts-vignette?objectid=69474" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/10/20/ca ... ctid=69474</a>
Ha, wow thank you. I feel both stupid and relieved. I don't know if this is much of an Arkham City spoiler but: Spoiler HOLY SHIT that Ra's Al Ghoul level was fucking awesome
Just beat the main Arkham City story. Spoiler The end came pretty suddenly to me. I also wasn't expecting the final boss to be so easy. Overall it was enjoyable. I'll probably go back to finish a few of the side missions, but I absolutely hate doing the Riddler stuff. His main side mission is cool, but I'll never finish it since it requires finding trophies to continue it. That shit may be fun for some people, but I can't stand it. With Catwoman, did anyone choose to abandon Batman and leave Arkham City during her mission in the vault? If so, what happens differently? I was kind of surprised that you had the choice to save Batman or say fuck it and walk off with the loot.
Same here. Spoiler I had Catwoman drop the loot and save Batman, I'll do the opposite in my NG+. Wonder how they are gonna use Harley's baby in the next game...
I'm a moderate fan of shooters, but I really think it's overkill to buy more than one "realistic shooter" every few years. New gameplay elements aren't added fast enough to justify a turnover quicker than that when there are so many other genres available to enjoy as well.
Haven't really read the last couple pages, trying to avoid spoilers, but Arkham City is in every way a worthy heir to the first one. I love free-flow fighting, the new movement system around the city is sweet balls, and the story has been great so far. I'm only 29% in to story, but I've been rocking side missions a lot. I'm sort of a completist.
Over time, exploits become common knowledge and are often abused, which leads most of the community to migrate. I switched from MW2 to BO to get away from things like one man army, commando and grenade launchers. I switched from BO to Crysis because of ghost pro campers and poor hit detection. I'm moving on to Battlefield because of the lag and balance issues in Crysis.
I think that means that the whole game is 29% completed, like the side missions, riddler trophies etc. etc. so those percentages can be kind of deceiving. I'm making sure to do all the side missions and all of the extra features as well just because I don't want the game to end yet. I'm excited to see what they have in store for DLC, hopefully some solid predator challenges. I love acting as a ninja and trying to take out 9 armed guards without being seen.
I fucking hate it when games do this. There should be a 'main story' progress percentage and an all-around one. That reminded me of a game I used to play, don't remember which one though. I was really having fun playing through the storyline, checking the progress, seeing 35%, thinking 'Man, still that much awesome to go? Sweet.' then having the game end abruptly. It sucked. I will be buying MW3 though, but I probably won't play as much.* */sarcasm
That is absolutely what it means. I finished Arkham Asylum with 79% completion, because I still had a lot of Riddler trophies and riddles to get. I'd assume it is the same in Arkham City. Unfortunately, I am still heavily invested in Dark Souls. 55 hours in, and I still have a LOT of game to go (plus a lot of stuff I have apparently missed). This holiday season is going to be an excellent time to be a gamer. Arkham City, Uncharted 3, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and Zelda: Skyward Sword. That doesn't even take into account the FPS games that I can't play. Seriously, I plan to spend the entirety of my Christmas Break parked in front of the TV playing the fuck out of some video games.
And don't forget Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. Due out on November 11. I figure between that and Dark Souls, my wife will be filing for divorce around November 22.