I really don't you guys at all...when a game ships, like Assassins Creed Unity, which is un-runnable even on the highest end hardware, you **** that it's a poor console port, and that they did a terrible job with optimization. When a game ships like Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, with graphics capable of running even on $400 gaming PCs with APUs, you call it a terrible console port with dated graphics with a game engine form 10 years ago...listen guys, the reason we get crap like Assassins Creed Unity is because nobody can figure out what you F#$% want, do you want a game that stresses your multi thousand dollar extreme core i7 gaming PC until it chokes, or do you want a game that is perfectly playable on your mid-range budget PC and can push it to 4k no problem. At what point does your opinion balance out? or are you just trolling?... At least Sledgehammer is smart and knows a LOT of people are going to buy this game and be able to run it on modest hardware. There are those of us, a lot more than you, that just want to play a game. If you want to choke you overclocked multi $$$ PC until it dies and lags out, that's you, you should go buy Assassins Creed Unity, that might be the game for you.
Let me begin by saying that Ubisoft did not mess up, everyone has the impression that they did, but no. They did this intentionally, and let's get to the root of the problem, why did they do it? Who are we kidding, we all know why they did this, come on. Do you know why they did this? Do you?...I **** should not be a secret...... PIRACY. That's **** this happened because Ubisoft is trying to throw the pirates off it's trail. It is painfully obvious, in fact, the over-bloated graphics are a part of it's very strategy to recover revenue lost to rampant online piracy, as well as the included micro/macro transactions and the generic gameplay. I will outline three valid points: 1) why bother to make a good game, and innovate, spending time and money, when they are just going to pirate anyway? 2) We should over-bloat the graphics, that way, when pirates flock to buy a new shiny Nvidia GPU, Nvidia will pull in revenue from which Nvidia will pay us commission, that is one way of recovering revenue lost to piracy. 3) We should cripple the game at release, that way we can release patches later that will fix it for those who legitimately buy it, those who pirated it will never get those updates. 4) Let's put in micro transactions to unlock game content, that way pirates get freemium access, as well as get some extra revenue from legitimate buyers. 5) Let's over hype the game, that way we get more preorders, the more preorders, the better off against those who will pirate it. Yep, this is it. Remember EA and Sim City and all it's online problems, well, this is the same. I myself will not be buying this game no matter **** BTW I pirated it.
I feel sorry for all the Nvidia/Intel fanboys. The game runs with perfect 60 fps all maxed out on my AMD FX-8350 and r9 280x, I also have 24GB ram, but I don't think RAM matters much anyway, I use my computer for video encoding and Sony Vegas, so that's why I have so much ram. All the whiners have Nvidia cards and intel processors. Well. Remember what Nvidia did with Watch Dogs, now you know how it feels buddies, enjoy the lag on your mighty Nvidia cards, not so mighty after all.
You can't even run this, game with a Core i7 4770k, 32GB RAM and 2x GTX Titan Black SLI on Maximum, which I do not own and probably never will...I actually own An FX-8350, 16GB RAM and an AMD R9 280x which costed me barely $700. and it performs like mad Sh@t. Here's the link to the page that says it all: ****/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide. Imagine if you had more modest settings than mine and bought this game, like a 7850 or 7870, which is pretty decent still, but you would not be able to play this game, even on low. My suggestion to you all **** try the game out, and I don't mean the demo....I mean THE PIRATE BAY. I would give you the link to the torrent, but it's easy enough to just go to the pirate bay and search for it yourself. Have fun. You don't to buy this POS if you don't want too.
Not only does this game go up to just 1080p as I've heard, it's not real 1080p, it's up-scaled 720p, so if you're expecting that you could max out the game just like any PC game, you will not. 1080p looks choppy because it is stretched 720p to fit a 1920x1080 resolution, and you will have two big black bars at the bottom and on to the right of your screen, the image does not cover the whole monitor, because it is console 1080p meant for TVs not the full 1920x1080 pixels for a computer monitor!!!!
In short this game is about pirates (I know, you already knew that)...that is the game that Ubisoft made, and they want to send a message: they want to outsmart YOU. Over at Ubisoft, The CEO thinks he's a pirate, along with the investors and their crew of henchmen, the board of directors, YAAAR! Every year they bring in their pirate booty from the poor fools who pay them for pre-orders. All they have to do is force the poor crew (the programmers, the artists, the musicians, the historians, and all other people who actually do the work, but is never appreciated for it) to retouch a template from the previous year, then put it out as a new product...YAAAR! Me so Clever Boi. They plunder millions of poor fools and kids every year; AND apparently they've been to every bay in the seven seas, OR so it seems... BUT YET, They have NOT.... they missed one very important bay. One that makes them cringe, and their skinny feet tremble with fear. The one that makes them yell for their momma. The one that makes Electronic Arts seem like little babies crying for a penny. The one that makes the RIAA and the MPAA cower in fear. The one that makes them wonder why their share price tumbled last week. The one, the **** PIRATE BAY...Thanks THE PIRATE BAY, you are a life saver, YAAAR!!
You are absolutely absurd. You down rate the game for such reasons as you don't like the thematic, it's not realistic enough, or just to be a troll. Do you realize how many years ago this game started to be advertised, and yet here you are having bought it, IF you don't like these kinds of games why do you buy them in the first place. Take for example, I don't like Guild Wars 2, I don't play it, but most people say it's an excellent **** am I going to go troll about it and give the game a bad rating since I already know beforehand I am not going to like it? Moreover, if you want a game that's tailored to your every need and desire, why don't you go make your own game? exactly! You don't have to sit here and be a troll and ruin it for others who would have probably liked the game. They weren't making the game only for you, like your very own personalized version or something like that. You do not gain anything by trolling, if a person want to buy the game they will do it regardless of what you post here, because it is their choice that they can make, and no matter what some troll on the internet says is going to stop them ok. By have a nice day.
There are two types of computer gamers out there. There are the people simply called "gamers" who just want to play a great game, with lots of challenge and many things to do. Then there are "computer enthusiasts," the people who want to benchmark their super-expensive, quad graphics card computer until it either slows down to a crawl or burns out from excessive overclocking. I am not here to preach ,people, but the next couple of words are going to be the basis for a sermon. Maybe you've heard them somewhere before, but today I am going to explain my take on those two words, and I know the latter of you are not going to like this at all. I am not attacking you, or insulting your super expensive 16 core, quad graphics, quad monitor mega rig, I simply want you to see things my way. Those two words are "Graphics Efficiency." There are two definitions. On one hand, it means being able to run very good looking games at very little performance penalty, but also and most importantly, being able to run state of the art graphics with little performance penalty on lower end hardware. There several game engines that lend themselves to graphics efficiency, most famously the Unreal Engine. Gamers love Unreal Engine games because they look so good, but are not obligated to spend their hard earned money on an ubermaschine. They can enjoy Unreal Engine game no problem with what they have, modest computer specs. An example of the opposite would be Crysis 3, which offers an interactive benchmark for your computer to choke on, but little in the Game play or interesting story department (the reason why I will never buy it). Tomb Raider, on the other hand is one of those games that lends itself very well to graphics efficiency. I cannot even believe a game this good looking is even running on my four year old computer, and better yet, it is hitting 60fps. This is one reason it's currently giving me a good impression, but also the gritty survival horror/survival action elements (it even reminds me of Dead Space 2 in some parts), but mostly because it's doing so well running on my computer. This is one reason I love Square Enix games. I played Just Cause 2 to death back in the day, but also Deus Ex HR and Sleeping Dogs, and great graphics on all of these games. The art style in Tomb Raider is amazing. The story is great so farm as Lara interacts with other characters, but also how the environment affects their relationship. This is a linear game yes, but it is closer to the survival horror and action adventure, as opposed to open world, which is what people mostly want these days. IN my honest opinion mostly anyone would be having a decent time with this game, even those with lower to mid-range PCs. Some of you might not be able to max it out I can), but that's why they included a "Normal" settings choice as a last resort. Well done Square Enix.
Never trust your initial reaction...some people just don't have any patience and tend to blow things off immediately for little to no reason at all. Back in the day, I blew the first Witcher off because the genre and the thematic didn't interest me. I said "oh no, fantasy games are for nerdy effeminate geeks" I had just heard about it on the internet, but never looked into it, or ever imagined I would be playing it. 2011 came up, The Witcher 2 came out. Back then, I was playing Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2 and was never interested in role-playing games or the like. What I first heard about this game was the whole hype about the graphics about one month before it was released. Back then I was already the proud owner of my first computer I ever assembled myself, and it consisted of an AMD Phenom II x4 965 (now 4 years old), 8GB DDR3 RAM, and two ATI HD5770's (which have since been replaced by two AMD HD7770's). And I said why not, I'll give it a try. So I drove to Kmart and bought this game (Another reason I heard about it was because it was a gift to Obama form a Polish delegate, so that caught my attention too, because it was all over the news). I was eager to see the reason why the media was hyping this game so much. The game play was confusing at first, I was not used to that type of difficulty in a game ever, but that was my fault, it took some time to figure it all out. At first I tried to hack and slash, but that failed miserably. Gearalt kept dying on me in like two hits. I wanted to give up, but then I started to look things up on the internet (that's how I basically got through the game the first time). I discovered you had to combine the signs, sword fighting and potions to beat monsters and bosses. What I most enjoyed about this game is you can craft armor and swords, because not only do they help you in the game, it gives Geralt a very elegant and slick appearance. I like the art style in general, it is an improvement over the first Witcher (sadly I am playing the first Witcher now and it's 2013, I was obligated to go back and play it). I can say almost everything was an improvement from the first Witcher. In the Witcher 1, you constantly draw the wrong sword, like for example when fighting humans I accidentally draw the silver sword which is not effective against them, I have to sit there and wait until he draws the correct sword to be able to beat them. This is not a problem in The Witcher 2. Another improvement is the signs. In the Witcher 1, you get the signs through exploration and quests. If you miss a quest or a place where a sign stone is located, you can never get that sign. For example to get Igni, you have to explore a cave in the first chapter, but if you never do for whatever reason, you will never get igni. In the Witcher 2 you already have all the sighs by default. Quen is by far the most useful because it gives you impenetrable armor for 30 seconds. The story in the Witcher 1 is superb, however I beleive The witcher 2 surpases it. The facial expressions and body movements and character animation help get the point across very well (this is one reason the graphics help). Decision making is also an improvement, but it can be confusing at first. A couple of times I found myself reloading saves because I said, "oh no I didn't want to do that, I wanted to do this instead" or "oh no, I didn't like how that turned out." But then I discovered that was not a bad thing at all. Unlike the first Witcher, The Witcher 2 doesn't penalize you for decisions. In the Witcher 1, you can fail or miss whole quests by making other decisions. For example if you make Kalkstein mad, you can never finish the tower quest (reloading saves for the 10th time lol) you have to finish certain quests before you go on to others. Not in the Witcher 2. In the Witcher 1, If you never talk to Vaska in the swamp, then you cannot finish the tower quest, because she gives you a stone and also sends you to fight the golem, who has the other stone. You see, these kinds for things are easy for noobs like me to miss. I really hope the devs take note of this for The Witcher 3, because there are similar quests in The Witcher 2, for example the medallion quest Meliteles Heart. If you don't talk to the Crinfrid Reavers at the beginning, you will never get that quest. So overall this game was an honor to play. It is my all time favorite video game, and I showed my devotion to it by buying the XBOX360 version too. I bought a whole XBOX360 system just to buy this game again. Now that should be devotion lol
Here are a couple of reasons Crytek is setting itself up for bankruptcy. First and foremost, lets talk about the game. I understand Crytek wanting to play it safe by not changing the formula of the game much, maybe they think "well if we changed it too much people may not like it anymore and it will be a flop. We will just add to the story and that should be enough to appease most people." From my understanding, Crysis 2 was already a flop, since they changed the formula and made Crysis into a generic average joe FPS. I'm not trying to compare Crysis 3 to the previous games, but it definitely shows how much more effort went to into making Crysis and Crysis Warhead compared to these two newer games. They justified it by saying because it was "console limitations," but why cater to consoles in the first place? one reason is because they probably wanted to make more profit by making the game more accessible to average joes. The other reason is because EA most likely forced them to ,under threats of being closed down, because they weren't profitable enough. It's really sad to see independent developers like Crytek get **** in by corporate giants and milked for cash by corporate businessmen. They are probably like, "put this into the game because it attracts 12 year olds and put this other feature that a grandmother would like, oh and write the story this way because this is what most people like. We want to reach the broadest audience possible so we can maximize profit. And if you're game doesn't make the quota, you will be closed down and your assets liquidated for every dollar you were short." Ok, now to my second point, the graphics: we understand they want to maximize profit, so why in the world would they bloat up a game with the worse graphical effects, so almost no one is able to run it. Think about it. Why would someone buy a game they can't run...they probably won't once they hear this game is not even playable on a GTX680. Well one reason is they probably did so to make up for the failed game play and story line. No, that would probably make things even worse.
If you were a professional reviewer how would you rate this game and why? that is a good question. Most people posting here either like it or they don't. People are not like professional reviewers, they don't waste time in every single detail of the game. In fact, what most people do is to log in and start playing and they don't care about anything else. Also, people are not like reviewers in the sense that they are biased by everything around them: those things might include other games, other people, the media, or they might even go along with what everyone else is saying, just because everybody else is saying it...they don't want to be the oddball who actually liked the game, while everyone else said they didn't. But you don't have to be! Nobody is forcing you to not play a game just because they think it's bad, ultimately it is your choice because you can do whatever you wish with your own computer and you answer to nobody. You never know the truth about a game, until you install it and play it yourself. With that said, I believe Blacklight Retribution is a great game: 1) The graphics are awesome, this game runs on the Unreal Engine with DX11. We all know Unreal Engine, it runs great on many varieties of computers. It has many choices, among them tessellation, bokeh, and depth of field. But that is nothing to be worried about, because entry level cards can max out this game, no problem. 2) Dedicated Servers are amazing, the ping is below 100 (on a basic AT&T connection) and there is always plenty of people to play with at any time of the day. You can filter out servers, and find your place in a game easy as 1,2,3 (Well, at least I haven't had any problem with that). 3)I like the maps, they are great. They are medium sized and are designed so that you never spawn in the same place twice. They are also colorful and shiny, but you may need to turn the brightness up on some. 4)Contrary to popular belief, the "wall-hack" visor doesn't really change anything. You can't shoot through the walls, and you can't even shoot while using it anyway. 3) Everyone dies. IF you are new to the game, no worries, because higher level players can be killed just as easily as you, no one has an advantage, even if they paid (I've killed dozens of them no problem, head-shots even) . 4) There no advertising in this game. That is amazing, considering it's F2P and all. A couple of cons, yeah you have to rent things with GP which only last 2 or 3 days and you also have to dish out a lot of GP for weapon parts, but I believe that is a small price to pay, because in real money you have the chance to pay $0 = )
They should start naming Call of Duty games after the year they are made. For example, Call of Duty 2012 would be a more appropriate name, rather than Black Ops II, as Call of Duty 2012 denotes the yearly "updates" the call of duty franchise receives. As far as Call of Duty Black Ops II is concerned, everything has devolved. The graphics are like those found in internet flash games, the story is nowhere to be found. In the single player, you will be thrown straight into an action shooting gallery, with so many things happening in seconds, you will not be able to follow or to figure out what the hell is going on. People burn, but you can't figure out why some dude is getting burned in a furnace. They don't even tell you anything about the setting or what war your fighting or anything about anything. As far as I can tell, the single player is just there as filler, to justify the $60 price tag. The multilayer is the same, nothing is ever going to change it . If you've played Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, you've played them all. Now, I will take advantage of this page to recommend to you other games: Blacklight Retribution, Tribes Ascend or the upcoming game Warface by Crytek. All of these are free to play games available on Steam, or are going to be available in the future (Warface) that are better than Call of Duty and cost $0 dollars. It's time to start looking for alternatives, and fight the evil monopoly called Activision, pushing the name Call of Duty down our throats. If we keep paying them, they are going to be making quick cash out of the public: what's next, a cardboard box with the name "Call of Duty" slapped on it, but filled with rocks?!!
First of all, I never finished brotherhood, so I had to go back and play it again. Then I had to Play Revelations because I had never played it, just finished that one 2 days ago. First of all, let's start comparing Assassin's Creed III to Brotherhood. In Brotherhood, you were practically thrown into the city of Rome, with no armor, limited weapons, and no money. But, you had the opportunity to go around exploring and climbing viewpoints. The viewpoints revealed Borgia Towers, which after liberated, would reveal new shops to renew, thus you would make more money. By contrast Assassin's Creed III is set in Boston, and although there are viewpoints to climb, there is no reason to climb them, because there is nothing to do. All the viewpoints do is reveal the map and that is it. Don't expect the familiar areas to liberate, shops to renew, weapons and armor to buy, assassins to recruit type of deal. All I have been doing so far in this game is finishing one main mission, watching a cut scene, then going to another main mission and watching another cut scene, then once again going to another main mission with a huge cut scene. There are only two side missions: collecting almanac pages and courier missions. The courier missions give you money, but it is useless, because there is nothing to buy and no shops to buy anything from. All you have is a pistol, your assassin's blade and a sword, which you buy at the begging and that is it, that's pretty much all you get. For the past few cut scenes, the story line is centers on Conway liberating other dudes, although he says he's going to explain why, he still hasn't...hopefully I will find that out after I watch a little bit more cut scenes. If you are planning to buy this game, I warn you, it's mostly just an interactive cut scene as far as I can tell. The element's that make Assassin's Creed are missing thus far ( I am still in the Haytham Conway part of the game) there's nothing to do on the map, except walk to the next main mission.
I am going to be honest about this game's graphics, they are terrible. Not only does it look worse that the previous game, Far Cry 2, it looks like they actually did cell shading, after which they added a bunch of DOF, SSAO, Motion Blur, MSAA and DX11 just to attempt to appease computer snobs who like to brag about their systems. These effects do nothing to improve the already mediocre textures, bad cartoonish looking **** the water and water effects look like they were done with the Windows paint program. Let's take a look at a game like Dirt Showdown, for example, and compare it to this game. When you max out Dirt Showdown, you can really tell the difference, in Far Cry 3 you can't, but your computer takes a huge performance hit for no reason at all. Another game, The Witcher 2 (which is only directx9) the water effects in the Witcher 2 are absolutely stunning, because it looks like real water and when you step in water, there are ripple effects in the puddles, and that is only DX9! Another prominent example is Skyrim, the new textures they added are absolutely stunning, both The Witcher 2 and Skyrim look like they would be DX11, although they are not. When you are playing Skyrim and walking through Solitude, it feels as though you are actually in a real village, your character model looks impressive and you can see the detail on your armor and weapons. The rocks on the trails in Skyrim are impressive, and the water, though not as impressive as in The Witcher 2, still looks better than the 2D "DX11" water in Far Cry 3. Like I said, compare Far Cry 3 to any of these other games, and you will see what I mean. (P.S. compare it with the 2-3 year old Just Cause 2, and you'll definitely see what I mean).
Face it, many critics downrated this game simply because it isn't palatable to Americans. They can make it palatable to Americans, but something else will result, and it will not be a lucha libre video game anymore. You cannot Americanize Lucha Libre, because then it looses it's cultural value, the largest obstacle in this game being the language barrier, some things just don't translate form Spanish very **** it would have been better to just adapt it to English and had English commentators do the talking just like they do for WWE. I would imagine subtitles don't help much either, nevertheless I can say native Spanish speakers do not have as much trouble understanding the game. Anyway, if they ever make a second game, it's probably going to be better than this **** then again every single video game out there is meant for Americans.
I can confirm most negative opinions about the graphics, no graphical options, no AA, no shadows. The GUI is absolute garbage, the fonts are just plain font like the one you type every day on Microsoft Word. There was a story about a guy at THQ who got fired for **** the time, I didn't agree with him being fired and all, but now I can see why he got fired, he really did a crappy job. Ok so you set the resolution to 1920x1080, but it's not really 1920x1080, it's upscaled 720p from the consoles. Deaths shadow looks like a bunch of giant pixels, the screen tearing is terrible. Vsync is forced with two HD7770 cards in Catalyst Control Center, but it still doesn't work. Comparing Darksiders I and Darksiders II side by side, the first Darksiders is way better on the graphics. But the game has been fun so far, I can't complain about that. But it is a terrible mess **** which should have been released on the Wii too. Nevertheless, I like the gameplay despite it's graphical setbacks, considering there are few games like these for PC, I'd rather have it than not have it so I can show my console friends that I can play the same games as they do on my PC. Graphics could have been a lot better.
Simply put, if you think this game is boring, then you should not be playing video games (anymore). You are either too old to be playing video games or played so many video games that you need to see a counselor for video game addiction. And if that is not the case, you will need to see a counselor for video game addiction after you buy Skyrim anyway haha This game is more of a dungeon crawl hack and slash game, like DIABLO, and is bound to make some nerds unhappy, because according to them "it's not a proper CRPG" with all that cliche fantasy, king, princess, mage, warrior, decision making and dialogue **** that they love. The graphics are decent, and they run really really good. it is just as smooth at 32 fps as it is at 60fps with a mainstream graphics card like an HD5770, and if you have a bigger card than an HD5770, you will be a happy camper. The major beef everyone has with the game are the bugs, and that displeases me too, but now that it is patched, I have no complaints, except that the High Res Textures stutter, but I know that will get fixed as the AMD graphics driver is updated. Anyway, you get the picture, make your choice.
I am going to describe this game as accurately as I possibly can. First up I am going to say that this game is not an RPG anymore. They are describing it as an Action RPG, but you cannot roam around anymore (like around the Normandy, speaking to crew members, mining planets, commander Shepard's room ect ect). It is your standard third person shooter with upgrade elements from hoard games such as Bulletstorm or or The Darkness. I would in fact compare the game mechanics to The Darkness, because as you shoot and kill you gain points to upgrade. This game is more action adventure/third person shooter, and not an RPG by any scope of the imagination. You would not compare this game to something like The Witcher 2 or even Skyrim, as this game is more along the lines of Bulletstorm, I don't think it can even be considered a free roam game (like the Assasin's Creed ) This is a third person shooter with upgrade elements, such as, like I said, Bulletstorm or The Darkness II or even Red Faction Armageddon. Second of all the graphics look really bad. Mass Effect 2 looks better than this. The textures are all smeared and blury, and it runs so good on my computer that the characters look like and move as if they were made out of paper. Mass effect 1 probably looks better than this, probably, but most likely, I have all three games and can make a comparison. This is a really bad game and the reviewers did not give it a more just review because they were obviously paid off. This company just made it's money out of your impulse. What you bought ladies and gentlemen, was the mere illusion that this game was going to live up to it's predecessors. They fooled you by making you place pre orders with false advertising, and now you won't get back your money they technically stole. We commonly know ploys like this as "Scams."
