artur-fernand said:
Samus Aran said:
artur-fernand said:
burninmylight said:
BraLoD said:
So when AC does it it's milking and ridiculous, but if it's Pokémon it's great and all ok? Lol.
And Pokémon actually comes in two games every new gen... so annual and actually twice a year most of the times and that's ok?
Really, I think it's okay for ANY game to be annual IF they can do a good game every year.
Assassin's Creed was having great games every year and was so massacred because of it, so who thinks it's okay with Pokémon, it's just like this with any other game that someone likes, so no more massacres, ok?
Really hard to try to back it up with the disaster Unity was, but it's the same principle.
When someone likes a game/franchise it's okay for him to want it every year, just like some of you are doing right now 
|
1) As you can see if you read this thread, most fans don't want an annual Pokemon game and would like for Game Freak to shake up the formula.
2) Two versions of the same game =/= two different games. The only differences are a few version exclusive Pokemon and sometimes small changes to the plot in single player.
3) Assassin's Creed and Ubisoft get massacred because Ubisoft keeps releasing buggy, unoptimized pieces of shit that it tries to pass off as AAA blockbuster efforts worthy of $60. AC3 was the biggest piece of turd I played in years. You're obviously aware of AC: Unity, yet you dare to compare it to an effort that was at least an attempt at being polished like Pokemon.
|
Unity was arguably broken, but AC3 was just a matter of preferences. The game worked fine.
|
Unity "arguably" broken?
|
Yes? What, did I use the word "arguably" wrong? I meant "there's no question the game is broken" =P
|
Arguably means that it is debatable. You mean certainly.
