I forgot about that. I remember being dumbfounded because all of the advertisements I saw for it I never would have thought it was an RTS. In fact, I remember it being called a Tower Defense game in complaints that I saw.
It was false advertising effectively, the trailers showed the first 2 or so hours of gameplay where it seems like it'll be an open world action game, then you suddenly get this RTS mini game section which was kind of neat but then you realize that it is almost the entire game after that point. Tim said EA screwed him by lying in trailers to hide the truth about what the game was, but that's probably because advertisers know that metal heads aren't strategists.
I feel Watch Dogs 2 subverts this trope. Weird from a Ubisoft game. There's multiple activities in WD2's San Francisco: taxi, racing, photography, side missions, scattered collectibles, co-op, character trees.
What ruined unlockables were DLCs, bro. Not achievements.
I believe what he's trying to say is that there's no in game reward FOR 100% completion in some games. Just, bloop, achievement and done.
They scratch an itch for me every couple of years, but I'd never deny that they're mindless and repetitive.
The basic idea is that a series sets standards and expectations to what the game should be and that a series should improve on what people want from the series or at least take it in a new direction that feels familiar without abandoning too much. DmC: Devil May Cry is a perfect example. DmC as a purely a game from the action genre isn't terrible, but it receives its constant mockery and hatred because it fails at being a DMC game among other outside things, like the developer saying old Dante looked like a gay cowboy and that his new Dante is "cool". It breaks a series standard up to this point of being a game about style and freely using everything you have and letting the defeat of every enemy be up to the player's tastes and freedom of expression, by adding retarded shit like color coded enemies that force you to use certain weapons to hurt them.
I think it can be valid, but I've seen it used most frequently by "journalists" carrying water for big publishers and attempting to own the chuds who dare to criticize their corporate overlords.
It really depends a lot on the game IMO, but over all I'd say it really doesn't hold much validity.
Mostly because a lot of them use the weird system of "you walk when you click close to your character and run when you click far." Titan Quest is the worst example since in order to dodge most shit you just have to hold the left mouse button to continuously move in its direction and then swing it around wildly to change directions.
A good example of this is DmC Devil May Cry. The game itself is pretty good. Thanks to the name and how hostile the devs were to the fans, it's next to impossible to not compare it to the rest of the series. Ninja Theory brought it on themselves the second they threw up slides that basically said "Dante is not a goofy faggot. He is a cool punk rocker." No, seriously.
no wonder Donte was such an unlikeable retard
Yes. Sometimes games are declared as part of a series strictly for marketing purposes. Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 is the first Wario Land game, but subtitled as a Super Mario Land sequel so customers know it's not just another puzzle game. Same goes for Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Or on the other hand, Journey to Silius for NES was designed to be a Terminator game, but they didn't have the license, so it was reworked as its own thing. It's very well regarded, and would have been considered the best Terminator game, if it had that license.
Yes, because Kojima is a wannabe movie maker, not a good video game creator.
Unlockables and percent completion metrics are merely Jewish schemes to make people addicted to games that are not actually fun to play
