By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Is this the one that they announced with PSMove then decided to post-pone it forever?



Around the Network
pezus said:
NintendoPie said:
Is this the one that they announced with PSMove then decided to post-pone it forever?

No, they decided to make it a more fleshed out game. It is now out (or coming out), so they did not postpone forever

They waited too long in my opinion. This was the game that made my borther actually want the Move when it came out. Now it's been too long and he doesn't even care anymore. I'm sensing a lot of people feel that way...



pezus said:
Runa216 said:
oldschoolfool said:
game looks boring and uninspiring and it's no reason for me to get a move,especially with a 6 hour campaign.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's campaign was only 5 hours, and its followup Modern Warfare 3 was only 3.5 hours, and yet that game cost 50% more and got stellar reviews. 

Sorcery has no multiplayer :*

The multiplayer on Modern Warfare 3 is basically the exact same as Modern Warfare 1.  The changes are so minimal it's basically an expansion pack, not worthy of the 60 dollars.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

pezus said:
NintendoPie said:
Is this the one that they announced with PSMove then decided to post-pone it forever?

No, they decided to make it a more fleshed out game. It is now out (or coming out), so they did not postpone forever

DNF came out as well eventually, might as well not have though...

*endofhitandrun*



pezus said:
Runa216 said:
pezus said:
Runa216 said:
oldschoolfool said:
game looks boring and uninspiring and it's no reason for me to get a move,especially with a 6 hour campaign.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's campaign was only 5 hours, and its followup Modern Warfare 3 was only 3.5 hours, and yet that game cost 50% more and got stellar reviews. 

Sorcery has no multiplayer :*

The multiplayer on Modern Warfare 3 is basically the exact same as Modern Warfare 1.  The changes are so minimal it's basically an expansion pack, not worthy of the 60 dollars.  

Still, 5 hour campaign AND an expansion pack for the multiplayer. Beats 6/7 hour single player only. Just sayin'

yeah, but Sorcery is only 40 bucks.  tht 20 dollar difference is more than fair for the exclusion of multiplayer.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
pezus said:

Still, 5 hour campaign AND an expansion pack for the multiplayer. Beats 6/7 hour single player only. Just sayin'

yeah, but Sorcery is only 40 bucks.  tht 20 dollar difference is more than fair for the exclusion of multiplayer.  

I agree.  I think many forget that Sorcery is $20 less than most retail games.  I bet it has better value than quite a few, even with it being cheaper.



mantlepiecek said:
WiiBox3 said:
adriane23 said:

The length of the game is the only issue I have, but it's only $40, so I still plan on getting it. I don't read reviews (I'm such a liar) or take scores into consideration when I buy games. It's pointless to me.

Off Topic: Dragon's Dogma is getting points taken off by many "official" reviewers for things that were ignored when Skyrim was reviewed, so it's hard for me to take gaming sites seriously when there are blatant double-standards.


That is strange since it hasn't even been a year since Skyrim came out. No developer would have the time to take any of Skyrims pros or cons into acount for an RPG coming out this year.

He meant skyrim had the same issues but the reviewers ignored it.

Exactly.



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

adriane23 said:
mantlepiecek said:

He meant skyrim had the same issues but the reviewers ignored it.

Exactly.

Reviewers didn't ignore it, they factored it in but thanks to the fact that there was so much GOOD in skyrim, the bad (glitches, bugs, poor animations) got steamrolled.  No reviewer I know will say Skyrim is without bugs, no gamer will say that either, but they will say that the game was so fun, so expansive, so immersive, and so ambitious that the shortcomings had next to no effect on their overall enjoyment of it. 

if I play a 6 hour game and encounter a half hour of buggy gameplay, I'd be furious.  if I play a 250 hour game and encounter an hour of buggy gamepaly, it barely registers.  it's all about scope, scale, and relativity.  Skyrim had gitches, they sucked, but the game was so good that we kinda collectively got over it.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 said:
adriane23 said:
mantlepiecek said:

He meant skyrim had the same issues but the reviewers ignored it.

Exactly.

Reviewers didn't ignore it, they factored it in but thanks to the fact that there was so much GOOD in skyrim, the bad (glitches, bugs, poor animations) got steamrolled.  No reviewer I know will say Skyrim is without bugs, no gamer will say that either, but they will say that the game was so fun, so expansive, so immersive, and so ambitious that the shortcomings had next to no effect on their overall enjoyment of it. 

if I play a 6 hour game and encounter a half hour of buggy gameplay, I'd be furious.  if I play a 250 hour game and encounter an hour of buggy gamepaly, it barely registers.  it's all about scope, scale, and relativity.  Skyrim had gitches, they sucked, but the game was so good that we kinda collectively got over it.  

Most of these "250 hours" gameplay involves walking around, right? I know because in oblivion the "400 hour" game I completed the majority of the subquests in under 100 hours, majority of which I was walking around doing nothing.

Unlike those 6 hours games where majority of your time is usually spent fighting, or something.



mantlepiecek said:

Most of these "250 hours" gameplay involves walking around, right? I know because in oblivion the "400 hour" game I completed the majority of the subquests in under 100 hours, majority of which I was walking around doing nothing.

Unlike those 6 hours games where majority of your time is usually spent fighting, or something.

if you want it to be 250 hours of walking, you're entitled to do so...I quick-travel.  With all the dungeons I go into, all the shouts I claim, all the dragons I kill, people I fight...etc...well, it's a lot.  my current game I'm only half done and I've got 250 hours, and I only walk when I'm not in a hurry or want to sniff the roses. 

As an aside, Skyrim is in many ways about immersion, walking from place to place to get a feel for the land, seeing random peeps on the road and random missions/occurences is part of the game.  It may not be as exciting as Call of duty "as done by michael bay" modern warfare 2 and 3 action-all-the-time testrosterone fest that's all style, no substance, but there's plenty of action.  



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android