inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 24, 2017 22:40:13 GMT
Every complaint I listed is a different way of saying that the game is designed with little or no regard to player suspension of disbelief. Since most of what you said has to with combat and power, I will respond to that. Why is that Ryder can learn 5 different biotic power, but can't deploy more than 3 different one without enduring a arbitrary cool down timer. Maybe it is nitpicking, but I wish the developer had thought about this as much as I had, and come up with in-game reason for this. Lets say this current system is the best combat system and the most balanced way to do gun fights, it might not the the best system for a Mass Effect game. For such a narrative heavy, story based RPG, you got to weigh every feature you throw at it against what it does to the suspension of disbelief. And that's the crux of my bitching and moaning, not the features that I may or may not like, but how the design process leads to such a feature. This is an ongoing Bioware trend, that I suspect reveals a desire to move away, far away, from the rpg model. Take for example, DA:O, in which, our character is given the chance to learn, through experience and level up, a plethora of skills and abilities, all of which, we have access to at any given time, during any given engagement. It requires Bioware to pay very close attention (and alot of resources, manpower, time, money...) into making a very capable combat AI and carefully arranged enemy placements, to present sufficient challenge to a broad range of PC character builds. Time and manpower and money, that could be spent better on shiny armour sets, or a tacked on crafting system (gotta have one, cos so does that other game that recent data shows was VERY popular) or someother checklist feature that is sure to appeal to some heretofore, uncaptivated demographic with a wallet full of cash, burning a hole in a pocket that isn't Bioware's/EA's Gotta right that wrong! So we get a trend that, with each iteration of the series, the number of skills we can aquire, is reduced, but more than that, the number of skills that can be utilised at a given time is also restricted, because then, they can cut corners on making capable AI, with indepth combat mechanics incorporated into the other arching design philosophy of the game, in favour of something more frantic, click tastic and "visceral" and incidently, much simpler to program, thereby making available more resources for the checklist of random "popular" features and perhaps even some day one weapons pack dlcs (cos that wallet is fat and needs to lose some weight in Bioware's/Ea's direction) Added bonus is that the developer can tout this trend as being an effort to introduce, tactical decision making into the product, by making the player prioritise which abilities are "loaded" at any given time, introducing the false concept of challenge and false "complexity", where none actually exists.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 24, 2017 22:52:36 GMT
You know what all these issue comes down to? Laziness or indifference. This is what you get when your product are designed and optimized against a checklist of items that the marketing department gives you. I bet the higher ups at EA gave them a directive to include larger world, so they did. But like in any corporate setting, they are just meeting goals and agenda by doing the least amount of work to get by. The boss said bigger world and more NPCs, they never said the NPCs have to be as good as before. Same thing with inventory and crafting, they just know that have to throw one in, they never spend the time needed to make those features improve the game or conform the the lore. Ditto for the abilities capped at 3. They know they wanted to scrapped the class system, but they don't want to bother invest in a new innovative system that is actually better and more fluid, so they just import the MP system into SP. These laziness arguments never make much sense. You're not actually saying that the devs just put in a couple of hours a day and spent the rest of their time playing Overwatch, of course. So how would "doing the least amount of work to get by" work in practice? You can play underinvestment by EA here, but that's a different kind of discussion. It's limited resources, If you want an engaging combat system, you have a variety of options as a developer, you can go technical, with strategic planning, slower pace, greater variety of actionable decisions during combat, you have the more action based, limited abilities, masses opponents over intelligent opponents, combat button mash. Now both are valid and serve a particular purpose, but one requires far more resources in order to make it work well, as it requires more robust and complex systems to support it. The other is less of a drain on resources, allowing those resources to be focused on other aspects of the game design. For a triple A game, the percieved demand for "feature X" or "must have mechanic Y" can lead a developer to avoid over investment of time and resources in a rewarding yet complex combat system, that requires rigorous balancing and careful implementaion, in favour of a more, fundamentally, basic, yet alternately satisfying, even if superfically so, system. Since that simpler system is more basic, it's easier to no pay it much attention. It's a cake walk in theory, can't go wrong, until it does, becuase the developer has been too busy focusing on a feature that scored well on a recent survey about the "other" rpg that got a goty last year.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 24, 2017 23:02:01 GMT
So yes, it's not the game, its what the game represents. It's a design philosophy that has infected the gaming industry and Bioware is in no way immune and I suspect that even those who find games to love, and even things to love about THIS game, would have a hard time trying to deny, even if only to themselves, that the gaming industry, is walking down a dark alley. One in which the one time priorities of creating engaging media with a consistant direction and focus, has been waylaid by the vagrants and vagaries of hodge podge feature demand and percieved market trends, in order to appeal to the broadet range of people, thereby justifiying the massive price tag that developement now comes with (especially true for AAA gaming)
|
|
inherit
115
0
2,714
capn233
1,708
August 2016
capn233
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by capn233 on Mar 24, 2017 23:16:52 GMT
There are really two things I wanted to comment on in OP. Seriously, the conclusion I can reach is that this game is the prime example of "design by committee" and how that can go wrong. It does seem this way. Or at the least it is feature creep. It was as if they tried to cram every single idea and suggestion anybody ever had into the game and lost focus. The Galaxy Map is what stands out to me. It isn't that it doesn't look nice, or isn't beautiful. The real question is why was so much time spent on this in a game that is a third person shooter and not a space flight sim? Will side-step the question of whether or not it was a committee of Halo fans doing a Halo fan fiction cross over for the time being. I wouldn't mind the "favorites" and 3 power limit as much if there was any depth to squad mate management. Then again the fact that the save system is somewhat craptacular and I have to press "Space" for no reason in a lot of different places also diminishes the slack I would want to cut them for this change.
|
|
inherit
5526
0
May 29, 2019 17:35:30 GMT
298
jackdaniel
248
Mar 22, 2017 15:51:47 GMT
March 2017
jackdaniel
|
Post by jackdaniel on Mar 25, 2017 0:24:10 GMT
So you don't like the system, which is fine, but if there was a "throw away" line telling you it takes a moment for your body to adjust to an AI changing your abilities then you would be fine and dandy with it? That strikes me as odd.
I m not going suddenly like being restricted to 3 power no matter how its explained, but a with neat and thought out in game explanation I will just do what you did and get on playing the game without having to post a long forum post. that's why I title the thread "It's not the game, it's what the game represent." Personal preference over one feature or another is not what rage me, its what it represent about BioWare's development philosophy.
|
|
inherit
5526
0
May 29, 2019 17:35:30 GMT
298
jackdaniel
248
Mar 22, 2017 15:51:47 GMT
March 2017
jackdaniel
|
Post by jackdaniel on Mar 25, 2017 0:33:52 GMT
So yes, it's not the game, its what the game represents. It's a design philosophy that has infected the gaming industry and Bioware is in no way immune and I suspect that even those who find games to love, and even things to love about THIS game, would have a hard time trying to deny, even if only to themselves, that the gaming industry, is walking down a dark alley. One in which the one time priorities of creating engaging media with a consistant direction and focus, has been waylaid by the vagrants and vagaries of hodge podge feature demand and percieved market trends, in order to appeal to the broadet range of people, thereby justifiying the massive price tag that developement now comes with (especially true for AAA gaming) I agree with your sentiment. And I am not dead set against evolution in gaming and gameplay, some improvement and experimentation is always required. But the evolution has been very uneven tho, combat has seen massive evolution since ME1, and generally for the better. I can't say the same about story telling. Story quality will always vary between games and between personal preference, but the way the story is told is the same. Same conversation, same camera angle, pretty much same dialogue choices (nice/neutral/confrontational). In fact, you even argue some regression since ME:A couldn't even get animations/camera angle right. For me, the best outcome for a game design is that game play and story reinforces each other, like how the gravity gun was for Half-Life 2. If that's hard to manage, then at least not have them get in each other's way.
|
|
adrynbliss
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 61 Likes: 114
inherit
4172
0
114
adrynbliss
61
March 2017
adrynbliss
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by adrynbliss on Mar 25, 2017 0:47:06 GMT
I've been an ardent defender, strongly of the belief that any problems don't invalidate the game as a whole and that still certainly holds true but after about 30 hours the problems are a hell of a lot worse than I first realised, quests not completing (at least 5), dialogue not playing, at least one endless loadscreen, a crash to dashboard, character pop in (not at a distance, like right next to you), the extremely janky editing from one scene to another (none of it flows like a tv or movie or even other narrative driven games the scene will just freeze as the next loads up it's very jarring), many characters do not animate properly they will spin round or some other thing (the most notable is PB on the tempest who does a 360 when you talk to her and the spends her time leaning on an invisible railing.)
There's more people could add i'm sure, and still it doesn't invalidate the game as a whole, BUT we expected better, it should be better, it plays like it's a late alpha build, nothing is cleaned up, no rough edges smoothed over, it is disappointing.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 12,332 Likes: 20,317
inherit
2309
0
20,317
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
12,332
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Mar 25, 2017 1:21:41 GMT
I'm only a couple of hours in so I can't yet comment on most of what you said, but saying the characters are ugly? I disagree, Cora has a cute face and I like how Liam looks. So far the Asari are a little samey. As for the player character, yes the CC sucks but it's still possible to make good looking Ryders, if you can't then you're just not trying hard enough. My Ryder looks awesome (though it took me 10 hours to get there ) Yeah I've not started on MEA yet but I will very soon as I'm on the final mission of ME3 but yeah it's possible to make a fwe pretty Ryders yes the option in the CC are quite limited but to me the options that are available I think are better. I have played around with the CC and settled on a couple of looks for Ryders but I definitely plan on getting in and starting my first playthrough once I'm finished that last mission.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Mar 25, 2017 8:48:32 GMT
So yes, it's not the game, its what the game represents. It's a design philosophy that has infected the gaming industry and Bioware is in no way immune and I suspect that even those who find games to love, and even things to love about THIS game, would have a hard time trying to deny, even if only to themselves, that the gaming industry, is walking down a dark alley. One in which the one time priorities of creating engaging media with a consistant direction and focus, has been waylaid by the vagrants and vagaries of hodge podge feature demand and percieved market trends, in order to appeal to the broadet range of people, thereby justifiying the massive price tag that developement now comes with (especially true for AAA gaming) I agree with your sentiment. And I am not dead set against evolution in gaming and gameplay, some improvement and experimentation is always required. But the evolution has been very uneven tho, combat has seen massive evolution since ME1, and generally for the better. I can't say the same about story telling. Story quality will always vary between games and between personal preference, but the way the story is told is the same. Same conversation, same camera angle, pretty much same dialogue choices (nice/neutral/confrontational). In fact, you even argue some regression since ME:A couldn't even get animations/camera angle right. For me, the best outcome for a game design is that game play and story reinforces each other, like how the gravity gun was for Half-Life 2. If that's hard to manage, then at least not have them get in each other's way. Absolutely, evolution in gaming is essential and desirable and I think you hit the nail on the head, when you speak of the need for synergy in game design. From what I'm seeing so far, ME:A has some systems and design, that are not at all synergistic. Some of the games elements fly in the face of one another, detracting from the overall product in it's final state. A real shame. I guess DLC might improve things a little, but unless sales are huge, I'm not entirely convinced that a sequel is likely with the games current state. Bioware could do with going back to the drawing board, should a sequel be forthcoming, and getting a clear design and approach to any future installment, picking what features they really need and sticking with it, rather than throwing in so much that they end up having to cut corners just to get it all finalised in time for release. Sometimes game design is as much about what is left out as it is about, what gets included. Bioware seems to have lost sight of that. Hopefully they rediscover what it is that made their games so brilliant (in spite of their flaws)
|
|
inherit
5526
0
May 29, 2019 17:35:30 GMT
298
jackdaniel
248
Mar 22, 2017 15:51:47 GMT
March 2017
jackdaniel
|
Post by jackdaniel on Mar 25, 2017 14:10:00 GMT
I agree with your sentiment. And I am not dead set against evolution in gaming and gameplay, some improvement and experimentation is always required. But the evolution has been very uneven tho, combat has seen massive evolution since ME1, and generally for the better. I can't say the same about story telling. Story quality will always vary between games and between personal preference, but the way the story is told is the same. Same conversation, same camera angle, pretty much same dialogue choices (nice/neutral/confrontational). In fact, you even argue some regression since ME:A couldn't even get animations/camera angle right. For me, the best outcome for a game design is that game play and story reinforces each other, like how the gravity gun was for Half-Life 2. If that's hard to manage, then at least not have them get in each other's way. Absolutely, evolution in gaming is essential and desirable and I think you hit the nail on the head, when you speak of the need for synergy in game design. From what I'm seeing so far, ME:A has some systems and design, that are not at all synergistic. Some of the games elements fly in the face of one another, detracting from the overall product in it's final state. A real shame. I guess DLC might improve things a little, but unless sales are huge, I'm not entirely convinced that a sequel is likely with the games current state. Bioware could do with going back to the drawing board, should a sequel be forthcoming, and getting a clear design and approach to any future installment, picking what features they really need and sticking with it, rather than throwing in so much that they end up having to cut corners just to get it all finalised in time for release. Sometimes game design is as much about what is left out as it is about, what gets included. Bioware seems to have lost sight of that. Hopefully they rediscover what it is that made their games so brilliant (in spite of their flaws) Dlc can fix the unpolishedbess, but I get the feeling that people who already like the game will benefit more than people who are turned off at the first impression. Second play through at a better game is still second play through, there are just something you can't undo. But like you said, DLC could be the place where they show that they can still design game with with narrative as the foremost objective, where game play is there to serve rather than to shine. That will give hope to me.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Sept 16, 2024 15:46:24 GMT
9,324
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,875
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Mar 25, 2017 16:25:45 GMT
These laziness arguments never make much sense. You're not actually saying that the devs just put in a couple of hours a day and spent the rest of their time playing Overwatch, of course. So how would "doing the least amount of work to get by" work in practice? You can play underinvestment by EA here, but that's a different kind of discussion. It's limited resources, If you want an engaging combat system, you have a variety of options as a developer, you can go technical, with strategic planning, slower pace, greater variety of actionable decisions during combat, you have the more action based, limited abilities, masses opponents over intelligent opponents, combat button mash. Now both are valid and serve a particular purpose, but one requires far more resources in order to make it work well, as it requires more robust and complex systems to support it. The other is less of a drain on resources, allowing those resources to be focused on other aspects of the game design. For a triple A game, the percieved demand for "feature X" or "must have mechanic Y" can lead a developer to avoid over investment of time and resources in a rewarding yet complex combat system, that requires rigorous balancing and careful implementaion, in favour of a more, fundamentally, basic, yet alternately satisfying, even if superfically so, system. Since that simpler system is more basic, it's easier to no pay it much attention. It's a cake walk in theory, can't go wrong, until it does, becuase the developer has been too busy focusing on a feature that scored well on a recent survey about the "other" rpg that got a goty last year. It's not an unreasonable perspective. The only problem is that there's no evidence that the devs made the wrong call here even if we posit that ME:A is simpler than previous games in the series. (Plot the series' combat complexity on a graph and I don't think we get a downward slope.) Whenever I hear ranting about ME:A's problems, the combat isn't making the list. If anything, the reception shows me that Bio maybe should have diverted even more resources away from combat and to other things.
|
|
inherit
5526
0
May 29, 2019 17:35:30 GMT
298
jackdaniel
248
Mar 22, 2017 15:51:47 GMT
March 2017
jackdaniel
|
Post by jackdaniel on Mar 27, 2017 14:31:17 GMT
These laziness arguments never make much sense. You're not actually saying that the devs just put in a couple of hours a day and spent the rest of their time playing Overwatch, of course. So how would "doing the least amount of work to get by" work in practice? You can play underinvestment by EA here, but that's a different kind of discussion. Laziness in design, and story telling. I lay the blames on the leads designers and lead writers. Stuff that I want to get fixed requires much less practical effort than building a massive open world, but would require much more time thinking and developing a coherent world and self-consistent story. Given what I hear about how the BioWare employee are constantly put on crunch (there are some articles linking the Glassdoor review of BioWare studio), I have not doubt people sank tons of time into the game. But all the effort doesn't show when design issues and story holes are easily spotted.
|
|
inherit
3307
0
May 18, 2017 21:36:13 GMT
228
shroomofdoom
165
February 2017
shroomofdoom
|
Post by shroomofdoom on Apr 1, 2017 13:35:53 GMT
It's limited resources, If you want an engaging combat system, you have a variety of options as a developer, you can go technical, with strategic planning, slower pace, greater variety of actionable decisions during combat, you have the more action based, limited abilities, masses opponents over intelligent opponents, combat button mash. Now both are valid and serve a particular purpose, but one requires far more resources in order to make it work well, as it requires more robust and complex systems to support it. The other is less of a drain on resources, allowing those resources to be focused on other aspects of the game design. For a triple A game, the percieved demand for "feature X" or "must have mechanic Y" can lead a developer to avoid over investment of time and resources in a rewarding yet complex combat system, that requires rigorous balancing and careful implementaion, in favour of a more, fundamentally, basic, yet alternately satisfying, even if superfically so, system. Since that simpler system is more basic, it's easier to no pay it much attention. It's a cake walk in theory, can't go wrong, until it does, becuase the developer has been too busy focusing on a feature that scored well on a recent survey about the "other" rpg that got a goty last year. It's not an unreasonable perspective. The only problem is that there's no evidence that the devs made the wrong call here even if we posit that ME:A is simpler than previous games in the series. (Plot the series' combat complexity on a graph and I don't think we get a downward slope.) Whenever I hear ranting about ME:A's problems, the combat isn't making the list. If anything, the reception shows me that Bio maybe should have diverted even more resources away from combat and to other things. It's worth me pointing out, I don't think the combat system is bad. It's certainly different from Biowares roots. Again not a bad thing. It will appeal to some and not to others. I use this particluar feature, more as a case in point. How some features evolve over time, within a franchise and development company. Streamlining, is another way of saying simplification (not always a bad thing) it becomes a detractor, when the whole project isn't being led with a clear and concise design philosophy from the get go, due to market demands and expectations (included features, "player empowerment" is big right now, how can we make the player feel empowered? *groan*) resource shortages and investment risk inherent in big budget Trip A titles, meaning the pressure to get all those check boxes for "needed" game features, ticked, so the game sells well, regardless of whether or not the game is a solid outing or not, to recoup the investment and justify the expanse. I'm not bashing ME:A, I'm taking exception to the way trip A titles in general get managed and how the nature of that management, ultimately leads to lower quality product. I think we all know deep down, that this is generally the case. Who hasn't found themelves wondering what that awesome indie developer might be able to do with a budget and resources to rival the big Trip A games developers? Can we be surprised, when cherished franchises, that have more modest means (and lower risks and oversight by corporate money men) eventually find their IP's quality sliding in the face of the current development and publishing trends brought about by the way in which the game industry currently operates, once they reach the point at which, they then have to either be beholden to that same business model or manacled to a publisher that promotes said model. Can we be surprised, when gamers, aware of this issue, even if only tangentially, but in many ways powerless to affect it, then come to forums for said cherished game franchises and gripe endlessly, at what they percieve to be failings in the games they love, when in fact it's a problem inherent to the industry as a whole? I still love the ME and DA franchises, I can't say I will love every incarnation of it, that is likely to come about, as I suspect, eventually, it will creep into territory, I find less rewarding and seek my gaming satisfaction elsewhere. I do however empathise with those gamers, for whom this may already have happened and I do feel, that despite my love of the franchises and my appreciation to Bioware for providing them to me, that many of the criticisms of broken or mismatched (or poorly chosen) features are valid also. Which kinda leaves me sitting on the fence, I suppose! I do think that, just with other mediums of entertainment and art, games are equally subjective in many ways, but have underpinning mechanical aspects, that one can judge definitively. I think that if one enjoys the game, regardless of it's technical shortcomings, thats great, but I can understand and empathise with those that can't see past those shortcomings, particularly when the don't feel the the subjective aspects of the game, aren't speaking to them. It's okay for people to express dissatisfaction with the game, just as it's okay to express ones enjoyment of the game. It's a sad reality however, that those who take one or the other position, feel the need for their interpretation to be the "correct" one, such that those who hate it, refuse to accept that it might have redeeming or laudable qualities for others and those that love the game, refuse to acknowledge, that there are any problems with it whatsoever, be they technical, or not. All of which, serves only to distract from the true underlying issue and finding ways, we as consumers and gamers both, can help to facilitate changes in teh industry we are invested in as fans and customers. Give me a lever and I shall move the world... sadly, we are to busy argueing over what a lever should look like and how it ought to function, to actually work together to find said lever and get things moving in the right direction.
|
|
inherit
62
0
2,051
flyingovertrout
toxically positive
778
August 2016
flyingovertrout
|
Post by flyingovertrout on Apr 1, 2017 14:51:23 GMT
this game is the prime example of "design by committee" In other words, it's a non-indie video game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
3327
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 16:56:49 GMT
All I know is I will wait for the next game to come out and be fully reviewed before I get it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
3082
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 17:06:21 GMT
All I know is I will wait for the next game to come out and be fully reviewed before I get it. I'm waiting on this one. I don't preorder games and hardly ever buy at release. No offense to anyone out there that feels their purchase was money well spent on MEA, but to me personally, this game is not worth the current asking price from what I've gathered.
|
|
inherit
231
0
Jan 20, 2022 14:46:14 GMT
1,840
goishen
twitch.tv/goishen
2,360
August 2016
goishen
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
goishen
|
Post by goishen on Apr 1, 2017 17:11:10 GMT
It sounds to me like they need to start having if not open betas, more open betas. Every game has a beta phase, we don't hear about it, because they have certain people they like to select. These select few will test the game, and if they're happy everybody else will be.
Well, not quite. I'm not sure if they have a board that the beta testers can post to, or if it's all done through the /bug system. Either way, the beta testers of this game were shit.
They should've caught this shit very early on. The fact that they didn't, simply mind blowing. It either tells me BioWare is picking favorites for beta testing, or BioWare is simply not listening to the feedback that beta testers are giving. Maybe, and quite possibly, both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
3327
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 17:31:39 GMT
All I know is I will wait for the next game to come out and be fully reviewed before I get it. I'm waiting on this one. I don't preorder games and hardly ever buy at release. No offense to anyone out there that feels their purchase was money well spent on MEA, but to me personally, this game is not worth the current asking price from what I've gathered. No you did it right. I should have waited until the game was patched as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
3327
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 17:33:43 GMT
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. That is my attitude going forward haha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
3327
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 17:40:44 GMT
Just loaded into the game. In the hanger area, all of the doors leading to the rest of the Tempest had the loading icon, I couldn't open them. I fell through the floor trying to go through the main one in the front. I loaded another save to have the infinite loading things happen. I love this game.
|
|