"2 is considered the worst of the trilogy, but it's still a good game"
It is? I've never seen any consensus on this other than it's not as good as 1. It has a higher aggregate score than 3.
Legends and Underworld were much easier/less dangerous than the first 4 TRs and Anniversary though, which are the real points of comparison. Still, Underworld is way underrated and it offered more of what defines TR to me. than this new series does.
I bet this game is going to be a Cliff Notes versin of the original. How is episodic structure going to affect the overworld? Backtracking? Exploration? Will there even be an overworld? The structure of the original game is not comparable to Revelations 2.
The combat doesn't look interesting either way. The amount of options you had in FF7's combat were so few and so simplistc that the switch to real time is no big loss. However, this new combat looks shallow, boring, and shit so far. I expect digital whack-a-mole, nothing more.
Overall it looks like fans are being taken for a ride. The big retail segment of SE has not produced a compelling or thoughtful game design for two generations now, at least. Hacks.
It will be hard for CoP to capture the magic of the first time, methinks
It's not my favorite shmup by any stretch of the imagination (I prefer shmups that have different weapons and power ups), but I consider it a work of art in the genre and that's why I play it. It's just great spectacle.
Vanilla Civ 5 is the simplest of the games worth playing (I don't see the point in playing anything before 3). It was my first Civ, and I put 200 hours into it, without expansions.
Yes, and I find their take on post apocalypse more convincing than other games. The media should have been banging the drum for this series more than they did, but whatever.
I'm not surprised at all. The cynic in me says Bethesda games have that large fan base partly because of the media's hype and inflated review scores. And the media hype is due to such strong arm tactics by the publishers. Yes, I believe there are a lot of people who don't think for themselves but follow consensus or "authority". Call me elitist or arrogant, but that's how I see it based on certain evidence and patterns I've seen arise time and time again. Just go to any comments section of a review site and see how many people base their final decision on what that one review at that one site said, even if they've been anticipating the game all year. People follow a stranger's words more than their own gut or experience.
So yeah, today Bethesda games are practically critic proof, but that's because (maybe) the groundwork for that was laid early on, through actions like the Kotaku article describes.
PS3. Sells used for 29. Actually, your figure was a good estimate. MGSV still sells for about 45 used. RE5 Gold sells for about 17. If I undercut Gamestop by 5 dollars on each game, it comes to about 80. You got skillz bruh.
80 is higher than I was thinking actually. I figured half off for MGSV, which is 30, 15 for GTAV, and the last three combine for no more than 15. Basically trying to meet or undercut what a person would pay used at Gamestop. I'm really bad at pricing things though.
