Grand Theft Auto V
10 days 14 hours
4 days 7 hours
44 days 5 hours
Day of Defeat: Source
35 days 23 hours
Mass Effect 2
16 days 12 hours
Life is Feudal: Your Own
15 days 23 hours
its called linking your steam account to uplay. I actually have all 3 accts stea origin and uplay linked through uplay
I played it for a few hours with some friends. Didn't overly enjoy it. It's just your typical modern battlefield game. No team work involved. I, too, am baffled as to when that went out the window.
The only thing that comes to mind is that they changed the game to be more in line with Call of Duty. Faster paced, minimum recoil on weapons so fully automatic is by far more deadly than carefully placed shots in semi automatic because there's little to no penalty in accuracy which leads to anyone firing in full auto drastically outdamaging anyone firing slower.
Maps are getting smaller so you don't need to rely on anyone for transportation. All classes become a sort of jack of all trades to tackle any combat situation, so you don't need anyone else to do something.
Whatever, I just haven't truly enjoyed battlefield games since before BF3.
In closing, the WW1 theme, whilst interesting is poorly executed. I get it, it's supposed to be fun, but BF1 is beyond inauthentic and sliding into realms of ridiculous. Even in WW2 the vast majority of troops were issued bolt action rifles. In BF1 the only bolt action rifles you can find are on the recon class. Everyone else has fully automatic weapons or semi auto carbines. And then there's the 'anti-tank' biplane with an artillery cannon mounted in the nose. First of all, planes in those days were constructed of wood and canvas and had fairly low powered engines. A plane with an artillery cannon mounted would not get off the ground. Second, if by some miracle you got it airborne, it would shatter into a million pieces as soon as it fired the cannon.
In conclusion, Battlefield 1 is simply not for me. I'd say the franchise itself is not for me anymore. Whether it's due to my tastes as a gamer having shifted over time or simply because the franchise has turned into a soulless husk of its former self, I don't know. Maybe a combination of the two.
No, they didn't. It was initially only going to be on consoles but they decided to build a pc version after quite a few petitions, etc.
That makes more sense then. Still, yikes. What a mistake to make.
They're riding the train hype generated by the movie, resurrecting dead projects that have "star wars" anywhere in the description. And yes, it's Disney.
So ... I'm not very optimistic, although I guess this gives a glitter of hope that maybe they can put out a good Star Wars game that isn't aimed at the youngest audience.
Rome was my introduction to the series when I was a wee general growing into his armchair so I'll always have a soft spot for it. There are some things that no other Total War game has been able to replicate yet (the impact of a cavalry charge to name one).
But I honestly feel like Medieval 2 is my favorite. There's a wide variety of mods available that completely change the game.
The more modern titles started to streamline and strip features that I greatly enjoy whilst adding nothing interesting to me. With Shogun 2 the map started to feel smaller with the proximity of settlements to one another, in some cases you could just hop from one castle to the next each turn, but I let that go simply because Japan is a fairly small country. Overall, I still had fun with it.
Then came Rome II and despite desperate attempts to enjoy it, I cannot. The world they created with Rome II is vast as an ocean but only as deep as the most shallow puddle on a sidewalk. The campaign map is large but feels very cramped because the settlements are over-inflated in size and take up so much room and to top it off are given a huge aura of influence that the enemy can't cross, thus taking away even more space for armies to maneuver on. Speaking of armies, you are no restricted to only a handful. An arbitrary restriction for no other reason than.. well. Because the game says so. Casualties from battle don't matter anymore short of having a unit completely obliterated because they just regenerate the next turn. Even your General is simply replaced by the next nameless (ok, they have names but do you care?) face if he is killed in battle.
Sieges are almost non-existent because you're either assaulting the same little village over and over with the same generic garrison. By the time you finally find a walled settlement there's no one left aside from the weak garrison because the ai tends to run away from you and leave its cities undefended.
Then I just don't know what they did with battles. Either they sped up unit movement or their morale breaks much quicker, but in the older games a lot of the fun was from watching armies slug it out. Now they just blob up for a few seconds and then one side runs away. It happens so fast and so 'blobby' I can't even see the motion captured fighting unfold.
Unfortunately, I think it's another franchise I'm going to have to step away from. I don't know if it's because my interests as a gamer are shifting as I get older or if games are moving away from what I like.
See, I reckon Japan's relatively small size compared to the other TW maps is one of the reasons that Shogun 2 is the best. Everything is simply more focused.
"This is just the beginning - big plans for achievements and Origin Points are in the works, so stay tuned" EA 2+ years ago