A bunch of door mines, a hero Su-76 and good ol' shock rifle. |
To be fair, the ones Rita made were tasteful and respectful of the setting. If they stick to the same mindset for the contest, then we've got nothing to lose.
Anyways, either one of those example textures is better than the bloodsplatter skins. |
It's (still) useless in 1v1. |
There's absolutely nothing wrong with paying a lot of money for a game you enjoy. But I don't place much value in hearing some guy rant about how games are broken up in many expensive pieces these days. Or how the same game keeps coming out year after year with small cosmetic changes, jetpacks and bugs.
I already know that. So to me, his commentary falls flat.
Here, I'm going to be constructive and suggest more in-depth topics for future videos:
-Explore the cost of video games over time while taking inflation into account.
-Explore the cost of game development over time, consumer buying power, consumer pool size.
-How is it that people are willing to pay 120$ or more for a shallow game like SW Battlefront and play it for 10 hours? If the monetary value of entertainment is not the same for everyone, how much can it vary?
-What percent of consumers buy games they never even play? Are there any scientific studies on the topic (or related) exploring their motivations? (Hell, I know I'm guilty of this one)
-Paying upfront for a game is often viewed as dishonest because expectations rarely match reality. So what would a fairer system look like? A subscription service? A few exist, are they getting traction?
|
Meh.
It basically boils down to him repeating how bad DLCs and preorders are for the overall quality of the game and segmentation of game populations and how no one should buy them. How the same game keeps coming out over and over and console gamers gobble it up so there's no incentive for innovation.
But he got BF4 and all the DLC and that's alright cause he played it for over 600hrs. GTFO.
Really he's just another angry middle aged gamer, quick to condemn the industry practices he simultaneously supports. |
Vetoes are pretty stupid when you think about it.
We wouldn't need vetoes at all if maps didn't favor certain factions and play styles. |
Balance issues aside:
- infantry crush is a mechanic that allows a tank to extend its usefulness outside of its usual boundaries at increased risk.
- it adds depth to gameplay that would otherwise be more linear (AT infantry > tanks). Eg. An M10 can counter a single AT squad, by charging at it. But the situation can be turned into a trap with more AT hiding beyond line of sight. Without crush, there is no reason for the M10 to engage at all. Units become locked into their set roles and the game turns a little more stale.
- it works in synergy with suppression units, favoring a combined-arms approach for better results. |
This happens when Steam doesn't check for updates before launching the game.
Restart Steam, you should see a patch queue up. |
I strongly disagree with the removal of infantry crush on medium tanks.
I think it's important for units to be able to step out of their main role in certain situations and challenge the conventional rules of gameplay. To me, it's one of the pillars of what makes COH great.
It's a mechanic that rewards skill and planning on both sides (because tanks can be baited into a crush to overextend). Without it, units become a little more boxed in to their roles and the game gets a little more shallow.
If the mechanic creates efficiency issues with specific units (M10 and Cromwell for example), then I'm sure those units can be dealt with individually and avoid sweeping changes. |
So much arrogance and contempt here.
I for one am happy that DICE had the balls to deviate from the race to the futur-er-er warfare trend going on in the industry. The trailer's great even if it reveals only bits and pieces.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions about the French not being part of the game just yet. Although I wouldn't be surprised at some anglo-saxon cultural washing either. |