![]() Yeah play those cra.ppy excuses for multi for 5 minute and you will see what I complainng. Nobody ask for those and developers made that as I quote Tomb Raider creators : "we wanted players to play this game a bit longer". Even worse - they are all the same - TPP shooter arena with clunky mechanic and amazingly library of DLC and micro. Trust me, I was maybe too harsh for Overlord multi (which are just 2 maps of skirmish) but Uncharted, Max Pain and Tomb Raider have awful, AWFUL multi. MG never was a good concept for multiplayer and thank God that Konami/ Platinum know about that. Not forgething the fact that nobody was played it even after premiere cos Quake 3 was doing just fine. ![]() Wasnt that bad but there wasnt anything good also in that from Quake 3, no "trophies", bots, local, mods support. Multi in Quake 4 was just lazy copypaste from Quake 3 with just few maps and less game modes. I am right because since the single player was already great adding a multi would make it beyond amazing for us MSGR fans. Which would have been a good example for your point since EA loves demanding micro transactions in any of there games. Those other game's multiplayer were probably on par with dead space 2's multi mode. ![]() Also I'm not sure if the multi was that impressive in those games excluding Quake. The only thing I can possibly imagine that folks would buy would be skins and accessories which are easily avoidable if you don't want to spend cash on worthless items like such, there was a metal gear online multiplayer for MSG4 and even though it was created by a seperate company it was still the same concept for that specific game series which didn't force anyone to do any microtransactions to win. They already focused on single player and there'd be no need for anyone to bother with microtransactions because it would be a 1v1 sword fight. Imagine how Skyrim would end with such thing. Max Pain 3, Fear series, Quake 4, Tomb Raider, Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Origins, Overlord 1 and 2.those games maybe have amazing singleplayer mode but still what ruined those games in term of whole content? If you would say half a.ss, cheap, full of microtransactions, pointless multiplayer then you would be right. I'd love to see it happen.įocusing on multi = less focus on singleplayer Rising would be amazing and I think great for 1 vs 1 battles using bosses and Raiden as fighters seeing as it is a sword fighting game it would be amazing and the finishing KO would let you slice others? or over time like an arm depending on their health. If they don't like multi then they shouldn't use it, but aside from that multi helps keep games being played after finishing the story. ![]() Originally posted by NeoCross:I'm really in love with the game, some people bring multiplayer for rising up in other forums and others complain that "multi ruins games" I think that's a bit harsh seeing as multiplayer is a bonus and doesn't bother anything. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |