But let me take a far better example. Assassins Creed Origins from Ubisoft. Wdely described as a Witcher 3 rip-off, by the devs. Bigger world. Better land and cities. Better horses and boats. And in these mechanical ways, the game that brings us 1 century BC romanised Egypt does a fantastic job. But why then do I and 50% of discerning games think AC:O stinks, and is a terrible game?
I think it is even single player only, but maybe it has limited co-op- that certainly isn't the problem. No, what kills AC:O, and makes it a horrid joke compared to Witcher 3 is monetisation. All game mechanisms in AC:O have been coded to support monetisation. Oh you can play the game without spending a penny more, but your experience is chocked to death by the fact that every choice made in the game was made to extract more money from a certain class of gamer.
I didn't spend a penny on Assassin's Creed Origins microtransactions and finished it without issue, at no point did I feel the need to open my wallet, and yes I had plenty of outfits. The next one is going to be a full blown RPG with dialogue choices and a branching story among other things, are you going to miss out on that because they monitise a few things you don't even need? I really think you need to take a step back and calm down, what's the point in getting angry about this? if you don't like it keep your money in your pocket because money is the only language they understand. Think of the last Star Wars movie, you can bet Disney are busy rethinking things and rumour has it crazy Kathleen Kennedy is going to be replaced, it wasn't people complaining about things on the internet that caused this, it was people keeping their money in their pocket.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like what Bethesda are doing and made my point when I posted this however I don't see any point in going on and on about it, if it's bad then it'll flop and we can point and laugh, if not then there are plenty of other games out there including the older Fallouts.
I think his point was Ubi locked away the majority of the higher quality weapons/gear DLC behind a paywall. Yes you could some better gear. Or the pay wall dlc were just re-textures of existing equipment with a few combat bonus tweaks in defense/offensive stats.
But the bottom line was: no matter how much you grinded, you couldn't own ALL of the armor/gear/weapons etc. in the game WITHOUT opening up your pocketbook first......
Which is a complete ripoff for the collection and completionist driven players who DON'T want to pay for the achievement of finding all the content in the game. Very dirty Exceptional [email protected]!es move on part by Ubisoft with that aggressive push to force micro transactions on to the player.
Wonder if they've learned from this and if they're going to focus on making this feature less invasive in Odyssey? This iteration of AC franchise is the first in it's RPG copy cat Witcher design. And so looks like it may end up being the best AC to date (over Brotherhood) because it has kept the best of prior popular AC features i.e Naval warfare, female protagonist option, land/sea sandbox exploration, extensive SP campaign, no multiplayer mode etc. Adding a dedicated RPG quest component should put it over the top. Too bad this wasn't being released as AC Brotherhood
You didn't need all the weapons in AC:O, it wasn't designed that way, you found the ones you liked and upgraded them to keep them useful, at no point was I ever underpowered and sheer number of weapons that drop give the player a huge choice, more than you'll find in the likes of Skyrim. You need to play the game before commenting, you obviously haven't