Because the cutscenes are similar and tell a story between the gameplay segments just like HFW or any other game but I get it this is a MS game so we have to pretend it's different just because its production sucks.
I loved the first one but here's a thought, when showing a game that we ALREADY KNOW has great facial motion capture, how about you focus on something else that you have innovated on in the new game with a trailer. Like combat, traversal, etc. The reveal for this game was crazy! That giant encounter looks awesome! Hint at more of that!
I wouldn't buy it for $70 after the first one, but I will be giving the sequel a shot. I just hope they've improved it. I do like some cinematic games. I just don't need MS to focus on this. Just a couple is good enough for me. Ninja Theory definitely can do better combat and gameplay, just depends on if they want to I guess.
343 isn't the greatest obviously. But some of that seems like a fairly deliberate choice to prioritize gameplay over graphics and animations first. But that's just my guess. I think they are trying to make it look similar to the original games also.
In that case, games like Returnal, Demon's Souls, and Sackboy would be selling 10s of millions of copies.
Those are also third person and have cutscenes so there is no difference apparently.
That's the Jim Ryan mentality. Similar to the Disney mentality.
Exactly.Hellblade 2 am cry
You must not have played gears then. Every 5 minutes this happens.
The thread is going to be fun when it finally launches, in retrospect to this one.
I played Gears 5, but i skiped anything. I'm fine with a 3 sentence summary for those genres. Not intereseted in the bloated, 99% badly written rest. Don't remember (too much) forced walk + talk.
That's a good point. Putting something like The last of us or Horizon on GamePass doesn't make economic sense.
They're not pivoting, they're adding to. They even increased their tradition single player games budgets along with it.
But it makes sense for my wallet. I'd play almost every cinematic game if they didn't cost $70. Guardians of the Galaxy was a ton of fun at $30. Mostly cutscenes and some casual combat, but it was funny.
That's the 3rd time he's made his baseless take. He won't reply and move on to the next one.
Ah yes, the infamous out of context bar graph.
I’d say they’re definitely moving when Live Service goes from 12% of their business model to 55% in 2023 and increasing to 60% by 2025. It’s eating into their single player output.
Keep in mind they’ve also got a couple of their top traditional game making teams doing Live Service games. Even if we’re to say it’s not a pivot, it’s definitely a step away from their traditional games and towards Live Service.
mckmas8808
I believe is more privy and should have the text data.
Games made by the manufacturer you hate it seems
Look at the true values of traditional. Even if it's 40% vs 45% it's still a higher amount.
I’d say they’re definitely moving when Live Service goes from 12% of their business model to 55% in 2023 and increasing to 60% by 2025. It’s eating into their single player output.
Keep in mind they’ve also got a couple of their top traditional game making teams doing Live Service games. Even if we’re to say it’s not a pivot, it’s definitely a step away from their traditional games and towards Live Service.
It's just the unfortunate reality of the gaming industry that the overwhelming majority of gamers prefer GaaS games and spend money on in-game transactions and add-ons.
Sony didn't embrace it.if they did they would have released a sequal for order 1886 which was exactly a real cinematic experience.
