Gaming News

Sephiroth_dude

Two week delay for watch dogs, Not sure if its just the pc version or all versions.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/10/18/ubisoft-announces-two-week-delay-specifications-for-pc-version-of-watch-dogs-2.aspx

Venom

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Two week delay for watch dogs, Not sure if its just the pc version or all versions.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2016/10/18/ubisoft-announces-two-week-delay-specifications-for-pc-version-of-watch-dogs-2.aspx

Haven't Ubisoft delayed the PC version of their releases a few times now to polish them up ?

Canis Lupus

Venom wrote: »

Haven't Ubisoft delayed the PC version of their releases a few times now to polish them up ?

*snickers*

SeantheMan

Why is Watch Dogs being given such a 2nd chance after the farce with the 1st game ?

From memory they completely dumbed the game and graphics down from the preview footage...and then when it was released, it was just an average game, yet there is still hype about it's sequel.

raze_them_all_

SeantheMan wrote: »

Why is Watch Dogs being given such a 2nd chance after the farce with the 1st game ?

From memory they completely dumbed the game and graphics down from the preview footage...and then when it was released, it was just an average game, yet there is still hype about it's sequel.

Every ubi game released ever

Penn

SeantheMan wrote: »

Why is Watch Dogs being given such a 2nd chance after the farce with the 1st game ?

From memory they completely dumbed the game and graphics down from the preview footage...and then when it was released, it was just an average game, yet there is still hype about it's sequel.

Assassin's Creed 2.

They gave Assassin's Creed a 2nd chance after the complete blandness and disappointment of the first game, and Assassin's Creed 2 not only fixed all the issues of the first game, it improved all the good things about it, and threw in a bunch of new things which were all brilliant too.

I'm still hugely skeptical of whether or not this will be good, but hopefully the fact they know they messed the f*ck up with the first game means they'll Assassin's Creed II the hell out of it.

SeantheMan

Penn wrote: »

Assassin's Creed 2.

They gave Assassin's Creed a 2nd chance after the complete blandness and disappointment of the first game,

I'm nearly sure the first game was universally praised and gained critical acclaim. It was very good back when it was released and brought some new ideas to the table.
I can't remember anyone who played it being disappointed with it.

I remember the combat getting a bit repetitive though. But to say a 'completely bland and disappointing game' ....I think you're memory is a bit off compared to mine...else I'm remembering it too fondly.

Anyone else here chime in please with their memories of AC ?

Sephiroth_dude

SeantheMan wrote: »

Why is Watch Dogs being given such a 2nd chance after the farce with the 1st game ?

From memory they completely dumbed the game and graphics down from the preview footage...and then when it was released, it was just an average game, yet there is still hype about it's sequel.

I enjoyed the first so i am looking forward too this one.

johnny_ultimate

Assassin's Creed was definitely the subject of much criticism on release, once you filter through the hyperbolic nature of much of the game press (sadly, ten years later, there's as much if not more hyperbole surrounding all new AAA releases, even for underwhelming franchises). Many of the more respectable publications were quick to point out its dearth of variety, disappointing 'modern' sections, surplus of busywork etc... even while acknowledging the originality of the setting, confidence of movement (albeit heavily automated) and at the time peerless graphical fidelity. Think that was widely echoed by players themselves.

Benzino

SeantheMan wrote: »

I'm nearly sure the first game was universally praised and gained critical acclaim. It was very good back when it was released and brought some new ideas to the table.
I can't remember anyone who played it being disappointed with it.

I remember the combat getting a bit repetitive though. But to say a 'completely bland and disappointing game' ....I think you're memory is a bit off compared to mine...else I'm remembering it too fondly.

Anyone else here chime in please with their memories of AC ?

I found AC disappointing as it was very repetitive. It was sometimes frustrating as well due to the combat and, if I recall correctly, you started off at the top of hill or something and had to run to the objective at the start of every mission. I also found the modern sections to be frustrating and disrupt the flow.

It actually turned me off playing any of the other games until people kept recommending them.

New Wolfenstein semi-confirmed https://www.finder.com.au/b-j-blazkowicz-actor-all-but-confirms-wolfenstein-new-colossus

I just hope it's more New Order and less Old Blood.

SolvableKnave

Deleted User wrote: »

New Wolfenstein semi-confirmed https://www.finder.com.au/b-j-blazkowicz-actor-all-but-confirms-wolfenstein-new-colossus

I just hope it's more New Order and less Old Blood.

New Blood? Old Order?

Penn

SeantheMan wrote: »

I'm nearly sure the first game was universally praised and gained critical acclaim. It was very good back when it was released and brought some new ideas to the table.
I can't remember anyone who played it being disappointed with it.

I remember the combat getting a bit repetitive though. But to say a 'completely bland and disappointing game' ....I think you're memory is a bit off compared to mine...else I'm remembering it too fondly.

Anyone else here chime in please with their memories of AC ?

It essentially had 4 missions done 9 times (3 gathering intel on your target, then assassinating your target, repeat x9). The fighting was okay but lack of variety meant each fight was pretty much the same as the next. The modern day bits were uninteresting. Altair was pretty boring as a main character (though I like him more based on later games like Revelations).

It was an okay game. The graphics were great, the free-running was enjoyable and the core gameplay was a solid base. But it was just very repetitive, there was nothing enjoyable to do outside of missions, the story was presented poorly and the assassination missions pretty much just consisted of "Get to a high place above the target, drop down, kill them, fight for a bit, run away".

But my overall point is, all the negatives of AC were fixed with AC2, and all the positives were made better. Watch Dogs was a bit of a shambles, but it could be worth a second chance if they can replicate a leap in quality over the original like they did with AC2.

BlitzKrieg

Similar scenario with far cry 2 and far cry 3


Far cry 2 was the first far cry game by ubisoft without crytek and it had really interesting ideas but it was also flawed by some poorly thought out game mechanics

Far cry 3 took the same ideas and reworked them into an excellent setting with fun characters and improved pretty much every aspect.

Iseedeadpixels

Sure Devil may cry was all hack and slash for the whole game wasnt it? I agree it does get repetitive but I really enjoyed it when it came out......except the ending....**** the ending :mad::D

Robert ninja

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Far cry 3 took the same ideas and reworked them into an excellent setting with fun characters and improved pretty much every aspect.

I enjoyed and still enjoy FC2 much more than the FC3. The characters are definitely not 'fun' in FC3. Jersey shore rejects.Much preferred the survival and desperate theme of 2. The A.I and fire is a lot better. Only major flaw is respawning checkpoints. People mention the malaria but I think that's subjective. It wasn't nice to happen but it wasn't meant to be nice. I learned to deal with it. I bought FC2 on PS3, all the DLC, then again on GOG when I got my PC. I gave my UPLAY account away to a friend just to get rid of FC3.

wotzgoingon

Benzino wrote: »

I found AC disappointing as it was very repetitive. It was sometimes frustrating as well due to the combat and, if I recall correctly, you started off at the top of hill or something and had to run to the objective at the start of every mission. I also found the modern sections to be frustrating and disrupt the flow.

It actually turned me off playing any of the other games until people kept recommending them.

I'm like you I only played the first when it was released and wasn't overly impressed but unlike you I never bought any of the newer releases. I really should try out AC2.

Nailz

Robert ninja wrote: »

I enjoyed and still enjoy FC2 much more than the FC3. The characters are definitely not 'fun' in FC3. Jersey shore rejects.Much preferred the survival and desperate theme of 2. The A.I and fire is a lot better. Only major flaw is respawning checkpoints. People mention the malaria but I think that's subjective. It wasn't nice to happen but it wasn't meant to be nice. I learned to deal with it. I bought FC2 on PS3, all the DLC, then again on GOG when I got my PC. I gave my UPLAY account away to a friend just to get rid of FC3.

Here's a video that might interest you. The creator, Mark Brown, makes some good points regarding the difference in experience between FC2 and FC3/4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm5myQWcJxc

K.O.Kiki

Digital Solitude

Me and Kiki are hype for a console, PC Gaming is doomed.

Will SteamOS be supported?

kunst nugget

There's absolutely no way that I'd be able to use those mini controllers without having an horrendous flare up of my carpal tunnel syndrome…

A cheaper version without all the mobile gaming related stuff I'd never use or need would sell this to me. I'm too old for that sh"t

CiDeRmAn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A cheaper version without all the mobile gaming related stuff I'd never use or need would sell this to me. I'm too old for that sh"t

Looks like you can just drop it into its stand and use a normal controller instead.
The rest is part of the package.
If a success I can see Nintendo releasing a home only version.
If the games are as good as they seem though, it'll be worth the asking, which itself will have to be competitive given the PS4 and XB1 prices.

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Looks like you can just drop it into its stand and use a normal controller instead.
The rest is part of the package.
If a success I can see Nintendo releasing a home only version.
If the games are as good as they seem though, it'll be worth the asking, which itself will have to be competitive given the PS4 and XB1 prices.

On closer inspection thats exactly what it is . My neck and back couldn't handle gaming on anything other than a large screen and at desk with a good chair all properly positioned theses days

Makes my neck ache just to think of the amount of people who will likely play these on their lap looking down at them :eek:

dunworth1

I envisage bringing it into work and playing in the Jack's

Penn

dunworth1 wrote: »

I envisage bringing it into work and playing in the Jack's

Too bad they already used the name Wii

kunst nugget

Penn wrote: »

Too bad they already used the name Wii

I think to fully take advantage, it would have to be a Poo…

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

A cheaper version without all the mobile gaming related stuff I'd never use or need would sell this to me. I'm too old for that sh"t

Are you too old to sh*t? Coz this thing would be great on the sh*tter. :P

Sephiroth_dude

Penn wrote: »

Too bad they already used the name Wii

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHHRDxjw7hE

:pac:

kunst nugget

Kirby wrote: »

Are you too old to sh*t? Coz this thing would be great on the sh*tter. :P

I've paralysed myself with dead legs a couple of times playing the Vita on the bog. There is genuinely nothing more pathetic looking trying to get off the loo when your legs have stopped working…