The more I play of it the more this feels like the most flexible Open World game as far as gameplay goes ever; Mordor was up there but in Mordor 2 there's such a ludicrous number of options available to you for murder/MC or watching something/someone else murder something for you; which means its probably like top 3 in terms of open world gameplay period; maybe just the best (only real competition I can think of is the Witcher 2; which has various issues that Mordor 2 doesn't have). Sure the story missions are kind of boring (though they do have interesting characters) and the overall story arc is real dumb but that's kind of immaterial to the core experience. There's also lots of ways to speed up how you get around the world which means its probably a pretty good speed game (which the first game was as well); though a bit on the long side I imagine.
@belegorm: DmC Dante looks way better in MvCI, though both are hideous compared to their 4 year old and 9 year old renditions (and probably 11/12 year old as well, DMC3 is a decent looking game).
No one finished it, they just gave it 10th on GoTY due to knowing that it was probably the best game (but realizing that they didn't play it, a conundrum for the ages); it was a dumb, dumb situation; they should have just put Bloodborne on since that was the game they played. Witcher was the best game unquestionably but who cares if it gets 10th on a site that doesn't care about it when it already has like 500 billion GoTY awards.
@mrcaptain: You don't really balance it you just kind of let it rock and then make adjustments to gameplay mechanics along the way; no need for a ridiculously grindy system like HS's legend ladder or whatever (which is only loosely influenced by MMR but still has the same problems). People get ranked up by winning and have a moderate chance of playing against better players but it doesn't always happen to the point of tedium. Alternatively you have no matchmaking whatsoever and as the game's population goes down players get better over time and sort of get forged in the fire like old school Brood War players or whatever. Most people are never going to put in the time to be good with or without matchmaking so it doesn't really impact their experience much (they lose 10-20% more or something); but the skillful players get to feel like they played well in some way that produced results; moreso than just having a different icon that also means you win 50% of the time just like everyone else. Tekken's ranking system is a really solid one and various games have decent enough matchmaking to where it shakes out perfectly fine without having an asinine requirement that everyone loses half their games.
Nothing wrong with ranks conceptually; but the MMR/Elo design philosophy that everyone should be winning 50% of the time is hot garbage that only appeals to people that suck at games. However most matchmaking systems aren't that deeply flawed and you can still get your 70-80%+ or whatever makes you feel skillful (as opposed to losing half the time).
Not an issue with PUBG at all since its really just a big clusterfuck; a big clusterfuck with slightly better players doesn't reduce the funsies.
@tennmuerti: Thanks. I do have an Olog with Olog Super Gang and so on; was trying to save him but if this happens with some regularity it might not be a bad idea to make him a bodyguard.
@ares42: Arrows are in plentiful supply for warlord fights so simple enough to just dump a bunch of headshots or teleport stabbys into them and then pick up some more; albeit that might just cause him to adapt quicker.
Log in to comment