defunct_punk
FKA
PP_BOY_/GIRL_
NotANaziIWasJustBornIn1988
Mommykink
- 1 Post
- 110 Comments
I understand what you’re saying (I think) but you know that… you can kill everyone, right? The worst the game does is throw a few more enemies at you (to kill) and some moral characters say mean things to you. Pretty standard RPG mechanics, IMO. It’s just a choice and like I said, the narrative framing sets you up to be a highly-trained stealthy assassin, not some mass-murdering juggernaut. But you can do that if you want
Similarly I could not use the tools the game gives me
Offers* you. There’s even an achievement for completing the game with just a sword and pistol, no upgrades or powers ;) Choices!!
IIRC you still get the low-chaos ending if you only kill the targets. It’s just by going wild and killing everyone that you get high-chaos, and I think this fits in the moral framing of the game.
I do agree with your gripe that D1 gives you a lot of fun ways to kill people and challenges you not to use them, while at the same time giving you very little nonlethal tools. They addressed this well in the sequel IMO, but I did also love the challenge and the temptation knowing that these enemies would be so easy to defeat with a rat swarm but I just shouldn’t. Like I said, keeps with the moral framing about the slippery slope of mindless revenge IMO
It’s possible and FWIW, that would be a damn fine game to be remembered for. RDR2 was phenomenal and made even better by the fact that online never really caught on so it could just exist as its own thing, unlike GTA V which is also a great game but also inseparable from GTO:O at this point that no one even bothers talking about the great single player of the game
But I’d still argue the solution is to cut costs, not increase prices.
This is the solution moving forward and is probably what most studios are doing right now (see: publishers shelving low-profit studios, massive layoffs, etc.), but the issue is that the games launching right now with $70-100 price tags have been in development for years. Their budgets were written under contract during the boom a few years ago, they can’t just “unspend” that money, but at the same time, they’re probably seeing that gamers are being a lot tighter with their wallets these days.
I’m obviously never one to praise higher prices for the same thing, but I at least get why major releases are feeling justified to charge a higher door fee for the base game than to gamble on the freemium market (See: Concord).
Wut? We’re mad now about not getting DLC? GTA V was a great game that’s still a blast today. I spent many evenings in front of my PS3 playing the single player for years, never touched GTA: O once and never felt the need to and still believe I got my $60 back in 2013 out of it.
Similar story with RDR 2. Unless GTA 6 is a huge step down from both those games in single-player playability (I’ll wait for reviews obv), I’m not going to lose much sleep over spending $20 more than I spent 13 years ago for the previous game.
Funny because I noticed the haptic feedback for the first time recently after owning my PS5 for over a year and was instantly looking for ways to disable it. I don’t trust an unnecessary vibrating motor not to fuck up the parts of the controller I actually care about keeping functional and the Dualsense battery life is abysmal enough as it is
Man, I’m glad that people are enjoying the game as much as they say they are but I tried my first play through earlier this year and it was terrible. I saw almost no difference in the amount/type of glitches between what I experienced back in January and what I saw online when the game first released a few years ago.
Its gonna happen bro