Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by JakeTucker, 7 Oct 2015.
I was a big fan of this.
I had a really fun time during the beta, my friends and I played about 2-3 games of Terrorist Hunt and settled on the PvP instead... some really nice moments coordinating breaches and using them as distractions for assaults on other sides of the room.
I wasn't completely taken with having different Operators, I'd rather have a mix-and-match approach, but I understand how this way they can limit the number of items in a game to a set amount, rather than everyone taking Thermite or Smoke Grenades etc...
Overall, I definitely think i'll be picking it up at launch .
I'm well aware that this is ridiculous, but I won't buy another Ubisoft title until they get rid of uPlay. I hate everything about it.
I've read this a few times and can't get my head around it!
Me neither, m1lez. That sentence needs a few breaks at the least, and a rewording is definitely needed.
This game is going to live and die on the strength of it's single player experience.
You mean multiplayer? Because its way more fun in co-op.
Am I the only person who was terribly disappointed with the beta?
I got a free copy of this with a GPU upgrade recently. I'm sure it will be nothing like the classic R6 experience and It was disappointing to see a real money shop as has sadly become common in many games these days but I am hoping for a bit of intense close team based fun. I shan't complain too hard if it's crappy given it was free
I've been playing the game for the past couple of days (although am reviewing for another site) and i'm impressed.
Real money shop is kind of okay here - it's just for skins and experience boosters. I'm okay with paying for cosmetic upgrades considering the new maps will be free and you have to pay for dev time somehow, right?
I'm certainly looking forward to giving it a go that's for sure.
True, cosmetics and exp booster are the lesser of the two evils for sure but we always used to (and still do) pay for the dev time by buying the game in the first place... I don't believe that they need the extra income to survive. If their cost have gone up so drastically, while in many cases the quality of the games has not gone up, it just comes across as bad financial management to me!
Or to put it another way, CD project don't seem to have a problem selling the Wild Hunt without needing a store to pay for Dev time. Hell, Wargaming.net offer a similar experience with World of Tanks & Warships, with optional payments to speed up the grind but the difference is, these two games are free.
R6S is a full retail release.
That sounds fine doesn't it. No issues with charging for cosmetics. I completely understand they there are shareholders to please etc etc, and it doesn't effect the underlying gameplay. Experiences boosters too - fine - good way for those working 40 hour weeks with cash to burn vs students with heaps of time but not much cash.
If only it wasn't Uplay!
That's the key for me, if the design decision impacts the gameplay. I'm also good with the choice to pay to speed up progress for the reasons you just mentioned, I do it myself with world of warships from time to time. But there is a very thin line between it as an option and an inherent part of the games design.
Uplays most recent update has made it vastly better than ever, even though, I have always hated it the most out of all the clients! It also now has a few redeeming features, like not only the ability to set up a default install location, but on a per game install to separately choose where if not wanting the default and it also pro-actively detected the game files for anno 2070, that were not in uplays 'installed games' list (as I had only the backup files) and it did an auto verify, picked up a few missing files and then shunted it into the installed list, while also removing another game, that was incorrectly showing as install (splinter cell) even though the files are long gone.
It's getting better, with way more options and to my surprise, Anno 2205 had a really good launch in terms of server stability compared to previous ubi titles. Arguably, this should be expected, and not something to commend them for however!
Had a good go on this last night, not in MP but in the SP training missions, which you have to do before you are unleashed into the MP side of it. I actually think that's a great idea, Wargaming.net should implement a 100 match or similar training for their games!
But back on topic.
Playing on hard difficulty, I love how brutal it is. The AI seem pretty good and weapons quite lethal.
Not sure about the graphics, it's not an ugly game but in max settings, at 1920 by 1200 in 16:10, it just does not feel very 'sharp'. Thought it was something like Ambient Occlusion but on the 359 drivers anyway that just seems to be how it looks. It does run perfectly but weirdly, in max settings it uses 3.3 gig of video memory!I will try the game ready drivers for it later today and see if it changes the looks.
Obviously the key here is how it plays over how it looks and from early reviews, it seems people enjoy it but because it's such a team focused game, being on an obviously weaker team can spoil the experience.
Ive got choice of this or the new Assassins Creed with my new 970, any opinions?
Personally I decided to opt for something new, the last AC I played the the Pirate one, which had some character but as always with AC games, the repetition kicks in rapidly and the mashed stories are not enough to keep me interested enough to keep playing.
But really it depends, do you want a mostly SP game like AC or one that is mostly MP focused like R6S?
It's absolutely not ridiculous.
Segmenting the PC market by having so many ubiquitous platforms turns me off (and I know i'm not the only one) buying from anywhere but Steam.
I've bought from Origin in the past, only for BF3 and 4, but I won't go back there. I WON'T GO BACK DAMMIT!
That, and being semi-burnt on the Tom Clancy Humble Bundle (all the games only ran on Uplay, not Steam) means I won't be going there again without fastidious reading of the description.
Bottom line; I'm not having Steam, Origin, Uplay, and Galaxy all running on my PC, eating those precious resources.
On the other hand, when Steam was the dominant platform, they rarely innovated. It took valve ages to add multi drive install support into steam for example.
Also what precious resources? Look at your system spec, even with all 4 clients open at the same time, the CPU and Memory resources taken are very small...
One thing I do agree on, it's very annoying to have to have 4 different clients and login/password combinations or worse, buying games on steam that then also need uplay running to launch!
The obscene pricing, especially on origin and uplay, although now steam seems to be falling in-line are a big problem as well now.
Gog offer a less intrusive platform with Galaxy, or even DRM free Games like the Witcher 3, but I ended up using galaxy anyway to manage the patches/updates.
This is one Pandoras box that won't be closed now though, especially given how few games are available without a connected client.
Separate names with a comma.