BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
BMaker11 said:
twesterm said:
Not every game has to be revolutionary (and there have been a lot this generation alone) but we do also want something different. Why do I want to pay $60 for a game I've already played over and over again? There's nothing that's wrong with an overly generic game that's cheap, but if you expect me to pay full price for a game give me a good reason to want to pay full price. |
|
Ah, but see Gears 2 has shown me things I like from something I already really liked. I loved the gameplay in Gears so I don't mind paying for it again. From what I've seen so far they've also improved the look of the game (hooray for color), there will be even more enemies during the combat, and some of the new mechanics like meat shields look pretty awesome. If the trailer had just been Gears with different levels then yes, you would be right. With something like Haze, it's copying other games and not giving me anything new that actually looks interesting. |
So, you're syaing that you WOULDN'T pay for something "you already played before", but since Gears 2 will have gameplay like Gears 1, you don't mind paying for it...as you so eloquently put it, AGAIN? |
Read the entire post.
Gears = a game I know is good, a game I enjoyed, and adds more things that actually looks good.
Haze = a game that feels only generic, tries to do what almost every other FPS has done, adds nothing that actually looks interesting.
One of those two games is good and is alright to buy again until it actually becomes old (kind of like the single player in Halo 3), the other game is a copy of meh games that have been done a hundred times before.
