Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Video games are dead *rant*


Toolbox

Recommended Posts

So now we have arrived to the point where games that cost $60 have fuging microtransactions and loot crates in them.. the free to play model has now infected AAA games now.. latest example is shadow of war mordor game where you have to grind like crazy to get the true ending and if you don't want to you can just pay like $5 instead... fuging cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SOJA said:

that's truly disappointing to hear about Shadow of Mordor. would you mind expanding on the $5 end game a bit more?

Ok here is some info from game reviewers..

 

GAMESPOT:
In the game's actual final act, you cycle through the four fortresses you explored previously for a total of 20 more defending siege battles. If you haven't upgraded the Orcs you met early in the game--and up until this point, there was no reason to--you have to replace and upgrade your entire retinue of Orcs to match this more powerful invading force. The enemies you face level up with each encounter, so you're also forced into upgrading each castle over and over again, either by building up your current Orc army or finding new fighters and replacing the old. This Sisyphean quest has no corresponding significant characters to keep you company or explain why it's important to tackle the defense missions in the order you do. It's not even clear, exactly, why you want to do them at all.

More than once I felt like giving up on this quest thinking I'd stumbled onto some optional side content that was clearly only made for obsessed completionists. But enduring on, I found that finishing every stage unlocks the final cutscene and credits. It did not feel worth it.

POLYGON:
When you run out of in-game money, you have two choices: Make a huge time investment by hunting down orcs in your game world and earning chests via vendetta missions, or spend some real money to get the more powerful orcs you need now. Does the game ever force you to spend money? No. I’m sure you can get to the end of Shadow Wars without spending a dime, as long as you’re patient and persistent. But locking progress through this mode (and, again, toward the game’s true ending) behind either spending more money or doing tons of tedious busywork feels at least greedy if not predatory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, SOJA said:

yikes that sounds awful

 

Yup another game I used to really enjoy playing has gone down this horrible road.. nba 2k18 has turned into a fulltime job trying to earn credits to pay for everything.. the games industry is rapidly killing itself in the name of greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t encountered this but it sounds sh*tty.  I don’t have much time to play I haven’t played Madden or NBA in years the last things I played were the Witcher wild hunt and Uncharted (I just DL the new content for that).

The Witcher DLC was a good amount of content for the price, IMO

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurityControl said:

I haven’t encountered this but it sounds sh*tty.  I don’t have much time to play I haven’t played Madden or NBA in years the last things I played were the Witcher wild hunt and Uncharted (I just DL the new content for that).

The Witcher DLC was a good amount of content for the price, IMO

 

 

 

The witcher devs are awesome.. unfortunately they are a rapidly dying breed in the industry. I really enjoyed witcher 3 and gwent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
    • These are the three deep throw attempts that Will Levis made in week 12. His first one is a beauty; Levis and Westbrook-Ikhine gets the safety to bite on a deep dig only to go over the top for the score. His second throw is another beauty: a crosser to Calvin Ridley reminiscent of Bryce to XL (though Ridley has noticeably more separation on his route). His third and final deep shot was an incompletion from his own endzone on 3rd & 14 with pressure coming down on him (to me, this seems like a solid throw).   Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-02.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-01.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro.mp4 Film Room Playlist NFL Pro-01.mp4 Levis took half of the deep shots that Young did. The differences are: Ridley had much better separation than XL, which is why his deep crosser turned into a 63yd play since he was able to scamper for another 15+ after the catch. Westbrook-Ikhine holds on to his TD pass. Bryce had to throw one away to preserve time for a field goal. Bryce had two more throws that were incomplete due to the WR Are we really holding the three WR errors and clock management decision against Bryce in order to say that Will was better throwing deep in week 12? That's not passing the eye test nor is it confirmed by the data.
×
×
  • Create New...