MFTWrecks

I think this looks cool af. But then, I liked Gigantic back in the day and love 3rd person MOBAs, so... I'm clearly in the minority when it comes to enjoying devs working outside their comfort zones.

At one point in time, Mario was only 2D and GTA was a top down perspective. Heaven forbid devs try something new, right?

Don't @ me.

"Why is no one talking about this cool game?"

• One of the people who's job it is to inform people on this site about cool games

I loved The Ascent. It was like a twin stick scifi Diablo. It was like it was made for me.

It and Ruiner really punched above their weight imo.

Looking forward to what this team puts together.

I got Lego Horizon on Switch for my kids. So it's really KF3 for me. Maybe Neon White.

Ubisoft's encroaching enshittification of such a core franchise is part of the reason it has, for many years, only made sense to buy Ubisoft games when they hit $20 for a complete edition.

It happened! I just bought Lego Horizon on Switch for my daughter. And, of course, now I get it free.

But I'm stoked for KF3!

This game will die (again) the moment Halo multiplayer becomes available on PS5. The best thing it had going for it was its general feel being so close to Halo lite. The portal gimmick got stale quickly.

I want this to be good so badly. I don't hold water for Bungie, I simply love the art direction and want it to be as fun to play as it is to look at.

At this point, I have little faith in it living up to anyone's expectations, but hopefully we can all be happily surprised by it. I'm just real worried with it not (afaik) incorporating any sort of meta progression, which I think helped make Arc Raiders the hit that it is.

Uh... wrong art in the Game Profile methinks.

This looks awesome. This is right up my alley.

If anyone was to topple COD, I didn't think it'd be Microsoft, I'll say that much.

If you expect your software to be developed with 0 AI usage nowadays, you don't understand the transformation that is happening/has arguably already happened throughout software development around the globe.

It's everywhere, people, whether you like it or not. Vote with your wallet, you are free to, but sooner rather than later software developed with 0 AI will be as rare as brand new NES carts.

If you don't like AI in your software, go grab yourself a rotary phone, a paper map, and get your pen and paper ready to be writing letters to your friends. It's everywhere, y'all. Simple as.

• someone in software development at a company where its usage is literally mandatory

It can't possibly play worse than Forbidden West. If it has full controller support I'll have no reason not to at least give it a shot.

Yes. Very much yes.

Sony straight up shouldn't allow this.

I don't trust a single thing any Microsoft dev says. And I trust Halo devs even less. They've shown no true vision for a single project for years. They're so disjointed and scattered. They completely lack a cohesive vision for their IP.

It is phenomenal at what it is trying to do. Few games absolutely nail their atmosphere, let alone marry it to the proper gameplay mechanics and general loop. Arc Raiders makes it look easy.

Love the idea. That's why I just strapped a Bluetooth controller around my ipad mini and saved myself a ton of money and got more functionality.

These feel like the evolution of the animated pet backblings from years back. I'm willing to bet they will be annoying as hell in-match and most people will turn them off because they will inevitably give away your location or block your line of site/bullets at extremely inopportune times, making them a simple cash grab and battlepass filler and literally nothing more.

Kids will love them, they'll sell a ton, but the hardcore players will loathe them and Epic will give up on the concept in a few seasons.

No one gonna point out how poorly animated these hand-keyed animations are?? Looked rough as hell, though I love the concept of these sort of casual sports games.

This is the stupidest argument. Everything you do competes with everything else. It all competes with the limited, finite, unknown amount of time we have in life. Period.

What you choose to do at any moment has won against everything else you could have done. Period.

So very literally: yes. They compete. There is no argument.

I've played a bunch of this on PC and it is VERY good if you like the genre or just like ARPGs. (I will die on the hill that Survivors-likes are just arcade versions of "full" ARPGs, like Diablo on crack.)

I still can't believe how badly Sony failed to take advantage of their franchises this generation. They have so many great multiplayer modes across franchises and not a single one was able to become a game worth releasing. An abject failure of development and leadership across the board.

@Toot1st Yeah, thanks. I'm new to the series, as you can tell... SMH

Never in a million years would I only want the campaign of a shooter known for its multiplayer.

And no, I'm not a Halo hater. My first Xbox was the translucent green Halo edition and I played every Halo game up until Infinite because I don't own a Series X, but I did try the multiplayer on PC.

I just don't like being asked to pay, again, for less of the content I enjoy.

Anyone else think a business adjustment such as tweaking GP as a service to more closely resemble PS+, where first party titles don't appear for months, would have been smarter than what they did?

They basically spent billions only to turn around and immediately undercut their ability to output content that can help them recoup that investment. It's like they shot themselves in the foot twice.

Now, they remain on the hook for software that excites consumers, but have fewer titles to offer AND they added a bunch of sunk costs to their bottom line.

Meanwhile, Sony is improving margins and selling gangbusters on their software and are able to continue to invest in their subscription platform.

Xbox should have simply pushed 1st party releases back from day one release on GP to entice the biggest fans to spend money. Maybe give them a 10% discount on all purchases or something as a benefit to subscribers. That would help soften the blow of having to buy more, but the hardcore would pay and margins would have improved. I feel pissing off hardcore GP subs and potentially sacrificing subs after what is essentially a price hike would act more like what streaming services suffer through: a few lost subs, but most just continue on.

They could have always then just kept tweaking GP in ways that enticed more purchases and retained their software teams - again, the personnel responsible for creating product in which to buy in the first place.

What's sad is, I don't think this is a hindsight 20/20 situation. I feel like it was the clear path forward. Unfortunately, Microsoft, like most software companies, is extremely poorly run and continues to simply fail upward.

@Mikeg1965 It was weird, but GTA had appeared on Nintendo consoles before, it was just that they were all Gameboy/handheld versions of the titles iirc.

I've always kicked myself that I never finished Scarface. I got it on Wii but then shortly after getting it, I got a PS3 and pretty much abandoned my Wii and ended up selling it without ever finishing Scarface (among many other non-classic Wii titles). Big whiff on my part!

@ItsAlwaysSunnyyy Scarface and Deathrow are my dream re-releases.

The Wii edition of Scarface used motion controls to let you hack people to pieces with the chainsaw. It was friggin AWESOME. Makes me want to track down a Wii and a copy of the game. It was that much fun to me.

I was in the market for one after my buddy told me how much he liked his, but I slapped a new Bluetooth controller onto the iPad mini we already had in the house and saved myself a bunch of money. Wasn't willing to go all in for a streaming-only device when I don't use it all that frequently as a function.

Excited for the 6's rumored handheld, though!

It's a 3v3 MOBA. I don't understand why companies shy away from descriptors that succinctly describe what players should expect.

Battleborn did the same thing by inviting comparison to Overwatch, which it did not resemble in gameplay nearly as much as people claimed, and it muddied the entire discussion about what it actually was, which certainly helped kill the game by not attracting the players it should have (MOBA fans).

While playing Control (a personal favorite of this generation), I literally couldn't stop thinking about how fun it would be to play with others. It subtly captured the feeling of having legitimate super powers in a game world that reacted to you in fun, dynamic ways (combat-wise). I wanted to experience that with buddies! I wanted an X-Men Danger Room-like setup or something.

I was stoked when this was announced, but why they made it a boring FPS with rote L4D-like gameplay without really doing anything to innovate or excite is beyond me. The general "weirdness" was never going to carry the game and that's literally all it had to set itself apart. The whole release and "vision" of it makes no sense.

Just a huge fumble all around.

@kyleforrester87 Well, I don't buy those, either 😂

This one stings for me. I have been so excited to see this come together. I love the art, love the genre, the gameplay looked good to me... I just don't purchase EA games. I was waiting for 1.0

@Oram77 If ND started to develop a live service version of their multiplayer game and did not have the foresight to comprehend and properly scope for the work needed post-launch, then ND is arguably more stupid than Bungie.

@Juanalf The fact no one at ND, Bungie, or Sony could figure out how to make Factions both viable and profitable after so many years of development is mind boggling to me.

The fact they (apparently) left the decision up to BUNGIE of all clusterf***s is just numbingly stupid.

The idea of playing this with Smash Bros-like controls actually puts this on my radar. I loathe traditional fighting games, but being able to pick it up and have some wild fun definitely appeals.

I've said this is their endgame for years. They will create "halo" devices like the Surface line, but an Xbox, and then let other OEMs also create Xboxes to bring the videogame division in line with their PC one. Doesn't surprise me at all.

I hope someone calculates how many GP subscribers leave the service and end up getting COD games on Playstation or Nintendo. Maybe they make more money per player that way and part of their strategy is to drive sales onto the platforms they stand to make more money per player on.

How tf does John Wick literally show up? He even does his reload animations and "Yeah" delivery. Everyone will sue this company lol.

Honestly, what they need to do to make it a forever game is have a small team start working on a total engine conversion into something built for what they are doing. Their chosen engine is already unsupported. They're one of, like, 2 devs in the world who even use it. The skill set(s) needed to work on it and keep it running will disappear or they will be required to train developers on an obsolete engine, the skills developing for which will not help that dev in the future, which is a hard sell to potential talent.

If they overhauled the backend from the ground up and rebuilt the game, I actually think they could pull it off. But without taking that admittedly drastic step, I think the game will eventually break under the pressure they put upon it.

EDIT: I should have read the comments. Seems I'm not the only person who recognizes the need for a new engine! Lol

@clvr But it's not even consistent anymore. Activision sometimes lets stuff carry over, sometimes doesn't. They don't have a design philosophy or stance anymore, they cater to the whims of the loudest detractors (for better or worse) and it creates a worse situation for their consumers. How they even have any anymore is beyond me.

I love that instead of doing a pro-consuner move by simply developing a switch to let players turn off the unsightly content but still openly selling it (or simply making better skins lol), they managed to do a completely anti-consumer move by effectively negating player purchases from the last few years.

Say what you will about other games with these sort of skins, but at least Fortnite doesn't really just wipe away the ability to use content you paid for (outside of a few very rare circumstances I've heard of).

Activision has the ability to make CoD soooo much better than it is, especially with this sort of content and as a general platform, but it's like they're allergic to good ideas. Why would anyone hand then money for a skin that may end up being literally worthless in a year? It's so so dumb.

My understanding is that Marathon doesn't have much of a meta progression system. Without it, I don't think it will take hold with casual players the way they'll need it to to survive in the market.

I also think they couldn't have been more unlucky with their timing. They went YEARS without making a peep and then ended up re-revealing it right when Arc Raiders also came out of the shadows and basically ate Marathon's lunch.

Now with the delay, Arc Raiders will have bee in the market for at least a few months, making it even harder for Marathon to peel players away from other titles.

If Sony wanted their live service push to work, they should have embraced Early Access releases on PS5 so their titles could be literally field tested before they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on games that never saw the light of day or outright flopped entirely. They wanted to develop a huge hit but didn't give these GaaS games a chance to grow into games fans would want to play.

That small tweak to releasing them could have possibly salvaged Factions, Concord, Twisted Metal and more. Instead, we the consumer are left wondering wtf Sony is even spending our money on.

@Jrs1 Oh. Konami develops or publishes every game mentioned that has had awful or zero support for the system? Didn't realize that. Wow. They've really grown.

It often pays better to purchase based on realities than promises and dreams.

This looks really cool and I'm not even a fan of anime as an art style. But this looks fun and diverse enough to give it a shot.

Maybe the characters will be what you pay for and then their abilities change what you mechanics you can take advantage of? Or everyone can do everything but characters have bonuses for certain mechanics, encouraging you spend money to get access to their bonuses?

Will be interesting to see develop.

@captainsandman COD has characters? I think you mean "nameless chump [X]" where X is whatever C-tier actor they chose to model them off of.

Am I the only player who literally never bothers to memorize the names of multiplayer maps? The only COD map(s) I know by name are Nuketown and Shipment (if that is the tiny one on a boat) and only because they tend to make such a fit about that those when they are included.

Otherwise... map names mean nothing to me.

@Logonogo Oh thank goodness. I assumed since I didn't hear about that in reviews that they abandoned that from Tiny Tina's. Thanks for the correction!

I just played this a few weeks ago and it hit all the right notes for me. Really liked it, but it certainly had some areas it could improve. Excited to see how they move the formula forward.