>>323742476 because Tom Clancy games are pretty damn good. The same dev team is working on that game not ubisoft's dev team. So please let me know why you hate a game that you haven't seen a damn thing on since some shitty alpha stream with terrible quality?
is it because "Oh this game is becoming so populer better hate it know so I can fit in with all the other fags on /v/" or is it just because youre a faggot and alone
Because they don't yet realize that it's a piece of shit Destiny clone that makes that game look good by comparison. All the marketing and gameplay shown so far is not indicative of what the game actually is so no one is expecting it. I look forward to the shitstorm when everyone realizes what it is after they buy it.
>>323743185 siege is a good game apart from the net-coding but that is all but fix'd now.
I'm not on the hype train because it is a ubisoft train but you guys are talking out your ass about a game you havent even have a chance to play >implying alpha's aren't representative of the final product if you really think that your a fucking idiot
>trying to dismiss the fact that it's shit by saying it's on a shitty quality stream
I asked how do you know it is shit? Tell me how you know
>>323744130 >>323744303 /v/ is hell. The only places to have any good conversation are *some* threads, but mostly /vg/. Cause despite still having a pile of autists, at least they're focused on one idea/game, rather than shitposting for the sake of shitposting. That said, I am exceptionally surprised about Siege and may pick it up whenever it hits $30 American. Looking forward to Divide, but holding my decision until post-release. Still on the fence about Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare 2, but definitely buying it eventually.
>>323744540 >how is it okay to talk positively about a game that hasn't been released but not okay to criticize it
as you can see im not talking positive im only asking you why you think it is shit if you haven't even played it? Also there are plenty of games that were bad in alpha that got polished up. Look at FFXIV
>Buying games from EA or Ubisoft I don't even care about their business practices, it's more that everything they release now is disappointing. I can't handle the hype/disappointment cycle anymore, so I don't trust anything those two say.
>>323744814 >That lobby area If this shit is instanced instead of being an openworld, I will drop it completely. The base building looks cool though, of course I'll wait for the internet consensus first.
>>323744854 >Look at FFXIV Uhh, FFXIV is actually the exact opposite of that. The original 4.0 alpha was decent, the release was an absolute clusterfuck. In fact, it was so bad that they scrapped it and re-released it as ARR.
>>323744814 Some alpha players are saying it's basically a better version of Destiny, with the only difference being that you can't see other players in PvE zones unless they're in your party as they're instanced.
>>323744814 and what was the problem with destiny? If they would have done a better job with content and loot it would have been a solid game. Also just because they have a shooter mmo with a central hub doesn't make it a destiny clone.
>>323745405 I have no problem with Destiny, I was just responding to the anon saying the advertising is misleading, when it's very clearly not.
It was the same with Watch Dogs, all the trailers immediately pre-released showed the game exactly as it was released, everyone bought based off the 2012 E3 trailer though and didn't bother watching anything else.
>>323744814 I think it looks pretty cool. It's like Borderland and Destiny. I like the basebuilding idea, i like seeing 'progress'. But it looks like it's instanced, if it was open world, I'd be OK with it. Also, I saw that flamethrower 'boss' shoot fire at a wooden box and it didn't get set on fire.
>>323749998 I wouldn't say it's as good as Sleeping Dogs, the story kind of drags around the middle, unlike Sleeping Dogs which peaks in the middle. The setting is still awesome and the game has piles of content, where Sleeping Dogs didn't really.
>>323750282 I kinda liked that Sleeping Dogs didn't have as much of a focus on shitty side content and made a condensed world with a great plotline "Piles of content" usually doesn't bode well for me, especially when it's a Ubisoft game
>>323750503 Good point, the story was very strong in Sleeping Dogs. There's lot of repeatable content in Watch Dogs, probably a 1/3 is trash, some of it is quite enjoyable, like Criminal Convoys are great, even if they are completely without any kind of sensible story or relation to the main story missions.
>>323749431 Nah, Watch_Dogs, fundamentally speaking, was a mediocre game at best. A fucking third person cover-based shooter with shitty, contextual movement having no blind fire in 2014 should be a crime.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.