Wyniki wyszukiwania

I'm sure that was on purpose, a "do you really want to play?" due to the caveats explained about the demo.

its like 1-2 hours long and is medium difficulty

Sent

Początkowo opublikowane przez 《H☆lløwZ》:

quickplay would end 5cp even on a stalemate after maximum of 45 min.

Then you'd get people complaining about how their matches get forced to end. There's literally no winning.

Hopefully so with cutscenes and I hope video was real. It seemed so as it showcased all the games and looked like Kombat Tour event.

Początkowo opublikowane przez B〄F Altonator:

Początkowo opublikowane przez D Zero:

it might be harder but you can still do it if you are good and play smart

Well there you go, you just answered your own thread. It might be harder to kill a shield without AP etc but you just have to play smart and outmanoeuvre him. It might be harder to kill a dozer with a shotgun for example but there are ways around it. Sure it takes longer, just like killing a shield without AP might take a bit longer, but the point is if you want to kill something effectively then ideally you want the loadout which is going to counter them.

yeah its true, but the question is still open for new answers because i still dont see a way to kill a shield while he is moving with perfect tracking without all those unnecessary tools

corporate graverobbers couldn't even get the most iconic part, the eyes, 0/10 cash grab will not fall for

Pulling out the Brainwashgang energy with the nothing

Jkjk can’t wait!

Then why the ♥♥♥♥ did you treat fans like ♥♥♥♥ for 7 years if we mean 'so much' ?


Seriously - they 'why' behind all this is almost, for me anyway, as important as to the actual freaking release.

The weirdness behind all this just boggles my mind.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Ness_and_Sonic:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Tanoomba:

Non sequitur. A toggle wouldn't affect player experience, sure, but it would directly undermine the entire reasoning behind the update.

Skullgirls, their game, which they changed for their personal reasons to better reflect their own personally-held values. It wasn't a decision made for us and it had nothing to do with our play experience.

Incorrect. We don't see "intent". We don't see "vision". These are intangible concepts that exist exclusively in the mind of the artist.

I call bull on that. People do play games for the story and the art. Example, Point & Click adventure games like Loom are an example of that. Plus there are people that buy games for their art style. Sonic 4 and Sonic Mania both try to appeal to classic Sonic fans, but Sonic Mania had a better reception outside of the initial Steam release where they tried to trick customers with DRM without telling gamers about it. As for it undermining the developers vision, that's a lie and you know. If the developers didn't want the content they had altered in the game, they wouldn't have sent the game to ratings boards such as the ESRB with that stuff.

And the way they made the changes show that those values don't include the customers. If they can remove the art that people paid for on a whim, it's only fair that they offer paying customers full refunds so they can remove their funding on a whim.

It made it into the version that was submitted to the ESRB. If that wasn't their vision, they wouldn't have asked for it rated. It's as simple as that.

Yes if such things were so intangible and only exist in the mind of the artist then we wouldn't see a concentrated effort down the line of what can and cannot be. We wouldn't see a concentrated effort of censorship. The economic pressures are absolutely clear and the trends are very much there and now it is revealed of what's going on. And that there is a question of death of the artist here. But it seems that you're interlocutor is incredibly stubborn and also misrepresent a few things