Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Video games are dead *rant*


Toolbox

Recommended Posts

So now we have arrived to the point where games that cost $60 have fuging microtransactions and loot crates in them.. the free to play model has now infected AAA games now.. latest example is shadow of war mordor game where you have to grind like crazy to get the true ending and if you don't want to you can just pay like $5 instead... fuging cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SOJA said:

that's truly disappointing to hear about Shadow of Mordor. would you mind expanding on the $5 end game a bit more?

Ok here is some info from game reviewers..

 

GAMESPOT:
In the game's actual final act, you cycle through the four fortresses you explored previously for a total of 20 more defending siege battles. If you haven't upgraded the Orcs you met early in the game--and up until this point, there was no reason to--you have to replace and upgrade your entire retinue of Orcs to match this more powerful invading force. The enemies you face level up with each encounter, so you're also forced into upgrading each castle over and over again, either by building up your current Orc army or finding new fighters and replacing the old. This Sisyphean quest has no corresponding significant characters to keep you company or explain why it's important to tackle the defense missions in the order you do. It's not even clear, exactly, why you want to do them at all.

More than once I felt like giving up on this quest thinking I'd stumbled onto some optional side content that was clearly only made for obsessed completionists. But enduring on, I found that finishing every stage unlocks the final cutscene and credits. It did not feel worth it.

POLYGON:
When you run out of in-game money, you have two choices: Make a huge time investment by hunting down orcs in your game world and earning chests via vendetta missions, or spend some real money to get the more powerful orcs you need now. Does the game ever force you to spend money? No. I’m sure you can get to the end of Shadow Wars without spending a dime, as long as you’re patient and persistent. But locking progress through this mode (and, again, toward the game’s true ending) behind either spending more money or doing tons of tedious busywork feels at least greedy if not predatory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SOJA said:

yikes that sounds awful

 

Yup another game I used to really enjoy playing has gone down this horrible road.. nba 2k18 has turned into a fulltime job trying to earn credits to pay for everything.. the games industry is rapidly killing itself in the name of greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t encountered this but it sounds sh*tty.  I don’t have much time to play I haven’t played Madden or NBA in years the last things I played were the Witcher wild hunt and Uncharted (I just DL the new content for that).

The Witcher DLC was a good amount of content for the price, IMO

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurityControl said:

I haven’t encountered this but it sounds sh*tty.  I don’t have much time to play I haven’t played Madden or NBA in years the last things I played were the Witcher wild hunt and Uncharted (I just DL the new content for that).

The Witcher DLC was a good amount of content for the price, IMO

 

 

 

The witcher devs are awesome.. unfortunately they are a rapidly dying breed in the industry. I really enjoyed witcher 3 and gwent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
    • I’m hoping SMU messes it all up and wins out. Imagine the SEC & BI0 would crap themselves trying to “fix” the problem.
×
×
  • Create New...