Apex Legends (PC, Xbone, PS4)

#27
#27
Incidentally, Respawn's last game Titanfall 2 Deluxe Edition is on sale for 8 bucks on the PS Store. This is a steal as the game is absolutely awesome!
 
#30
#30
So y’all are saying this is basically just like fortnite right?
 
#33
#33
Freak said:
It's interesting to watch these game compete with each other back and forth. No doubt the fortnite free season pass was in response to the popularity of Apex.

As for the game, I think it's pretty fun. I kinda like the 3v3 and I feel like I spend less time running across the map than in most BR games.
Click to expand...
I am just an old crumdegon when it comes to games. I want something that will last. Which means great single player/story. And if it has multiplayer, cool. But that is never a selling feature to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rishvol and tweezervol
#35
#35
LouderVol said:
I am just an old crumdegon when it comes to games. I want something that will last. Which means great single player/story. And if it has multiplayer, cool. But that is never a selling feature to me
Click to expand...
A great single player story doesnt equal to "something that will last" for everyone and I would argue that you are in the vast minority (at least in the last 5 to 6 years). GoW has a wonderful story and one of my favorite games in the last couple of years and I have finished it and put about 50 hours into it. Compare that to Division 1 where I have over 150 hours into and continue to play. Multiplayer and looter/shooter games are built to last longer than single player story games.....its their draw. BR games like this are made to last a long time as well because you are always chasing something instead of finishing a story and are left with nothing to do other than restart the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LucidZ and tweezervol
#36
#36
K-town Vol Fan said:
Sounds like Battle Royale isnt for you.
Click to expand...
I agree it isn't. I enjoy multiplayer, but it gets old fast. I usually lag a couple behind because its not worth dropping money for it. I know Apex is free for now.

my issue is always, why should I play THIS one. I can wait 6 months and the next best BR will be out.
 
#37
#37
LouderVol said:
my issue is always, why should I play THIS one. I can wait 6 months and the next best BR will be out.
Click to expand...

Why play your next story game when you can wait 6 months for the next story game? Because it's fun.

Just taste really. You prefer story driven single player games. Lots of people don't care at all about stories and just like to compete online with friends.
 
#38
#38
BearCat204 said:
A great single player story doesnt equal to "something that will last" for everyone and I would argue that you are in the vast minority (at least in the last 5 to 6 years). GoW has a wonderful story and one of my favorite games in the last couple of years and I have finished it and put about 50 hours into it. Compare that to Division 1 where I have over 150 hours into and continue to play. Multiplayer and looter/shooter games are built to last longer than single player story games.....its their draw. BR games like this are made to last a long time as well because you are always chasing something instead of finishing a story and are left with nothing to do other than restart the story.
Click to expand...
I doubt I am in the vast minority. There is a very large silent crowd that wants good games, not the next hot thing. we still play the hot games, but we drop more hours into something that is good from 5 years ago rather than the new. PC in particular tends to stick around, think the Starcraft/WoW crowds.

150 hours wouldn't even be worth 60 bucks in my opinion. I am spending hundreds of hours in games. I have at least 12 games on steam I have put more than 200hours in that I can think of off the top of my head. and thats not counting any cross over I have on Mass Effect(s) or Dragon Age(s). Got a couple other non steam games I would reckon have more than 200 hours into, but I doubt it will tell me. I have two games I probably put 5-10 hours a month into games from 2007, and I talk with a group (50+) that play the same games still.

how long has any shooter really lasted? If a game NEEDs new content 2 months after launch for people to still be playing, its a crap game. period.

looters/shooters are built to last longer to stuff the developers pockets, not because they are better. Look at any modern game, as soon as it stops making money it gets dropped hard, even if things haven't been finished.
 
#39
#39
DrRosenRosen said:
Why play your next story game when you can wait 6 months for the next story game? Because it's fun.

Just taste really. You prefer story driven single player games. Lots of people don't care at all about stories and just like to compete online with friends.
Click to expand...
No I play because I care, if its a continuation. or if its a spin off because it has a good hook.

and a good game can have that. Halo was that way until it went to crap. Go down the list of any franchise that has made the switch, most of them read the same way. the community's play of a game has dropped as single player has been abandoned or became secondary.

not saying people are wrong to like something else. heck there are plenty of games I would consider good/great/some of the best that I didn't enjoy. just saying I don't see the need to make the switch constantly.
 
#40
#40
LouderVol said:
I agree it isn't. I enjoy multiplayer, but it gets old fast. I usually lag a couple behind because its not worth dropping money for it. I know Apex is free for now.

my issue is always, why should I play THIS one. I can wait 6 months and the next best BR will be out.
Click to expand...

Your issue could be resolved by just playing or looking into said game to see why you should or shouldn't. I actually have never played a BR game, in fact...I used to be like,"Can we stop making BR games?". And then this game came out and it's the first time I've ever given a BR game a try and actually enjoy my time.

Don't really agree with a game being crap either if they add more content to it. Rarely does a game do that based on need to keep people playing it after 2 months. Usually these types of games have a plan or content plan. If we're talking MMO's, this is just a given. People expect there to be a road map of improvements and content. You also named two games WoW and Starcraft who have both done this. And it wasn't based on need, it was based on players desires to have more content added. Maybe a map, maybe a new raid, maybe a new playable race or class. The games that do have updates over time or a road map by your definition...is a "crap game. period.". Even though there is usually more to it than that, so no, not "period". It's not that black & white.

How long has any shooter really lasted? Well, there are plenty of examples to go by off of that. I'll just go ahead and name one example: Quake III Arena. I played it for years. People are still playing it, they even reproduced it a couple of times. So...quite a while? Not to mention all the shooter series that have been going on since I was pretty much a kid. Doom, Quake, Halo, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein, Far Cry...the list goes on. And still other more modern series that have followups too. Apex you could even kind consider, since it's from the Titanfall series/universe. One could even argue that shooters are the kings of longevity given how many series manage to last for so many years and continue to grow or draw interest.

Also, the person said 150 hours and counting. As in they still play it. That's not worth $60 to you? But the games you played for 200 hours are? Only 50 hours of difference there. People pay way more than that for a pay-per-view boxing match or UFC match for way less time. Are you not entertained?

To me you sound kinda biased towards old games just because they are already proven or something. "we drop more hours into something that is good from 5 years ago rather than the new."...so even if that new game is good, you'd rather play the old one is what you just said. I guess you're right,"old curmudgeon" or bad-tempered old man. At least you're honest.

At least this old guy isn't biased towards old games and gives things a try: He's really good too.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
You are indeed in the vast minority whether or not you choose to believe that, just look at the numbers. Also, not sure the need for you to start this conversation in games that don’t fit your likes here lately. I agree to a point with you, but the industry moved a long time ago.

And you keep saying you are in the group that “wants good games”, looter/shooter games and BR games are good games......
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
Apex hit 25M downloads by the end of their first week. Compare that to fortnite which was 10M (fortnite after they brought it BR mode).
 
#43
#43
After watching the gramps video, I'll probably download it after my surgery. Im going to have 30 days off lol
 
#45
#45
LucidZ said:
Your issue could be resolved by just playing or looking into said game to see why you should or shouldn't. I actually have never played a BR game, in fact...I used to be like,"Can we stop making BR games?". And then this game came out and it's the first time I've ever given a BR game a try and actually enjoy my time.

Don't really agree with a game being crap either if they add more content to it. Rarely does a game do that based on need to keep people playing it after 2 months. Usually these types of games have a plan or content plan. If we're talking MMO's, this is just a given. People expect there to be a road map of improvements and content. You also named two games WoW and Starcraft who have both done this. And it wasn't based on need, it was based on players desires to have more content added. Maybe a map, maybe a new raid, maybe a new playable race or class. The games that do have updates over time or a road map by your definition...is a "crap game. period.". Even though there is usually more to it than that, so no, not "period". It's not that black & white.

How long has any shooter really lasted? Well, there are plenty of examples to go by off of that. I'll just go ahead and name one example: Quake III Arena. I played it for years. People are still playing it, they even reproduced it a couple of times. So...quite a while? Not to mention all the shooter series that have been going on since I was pretty much a kid. Doom, Quake, Halo, Battlefield, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Wolfenstein, Far Cry...the list goes on. And still other more modern series that have followups too. Apex you could even kind consider, since it's from the Titanfall series/universe. One could even argue that shooters are the kings of longevity given how many series manage to last for so many years and continue to grow or draw interest.

Also, the person said 150 hours and counting. As in they still play it. That's not worth $60 to you? But the games you played for 200 hours are? Only 50 hours of difference there. People pay way more than that for a pay-per-view boxing match or UFC match for way less time. Are you not entertained?

To me you sound kinda biased towards old games just because they are already proven or something. "we drop more hours into something that is good from 5 years ago rather than the new."...so even if that new game is good, you'd rather play the old one is what you just said. I guess you're right,"old curmudgeon" or bad-tempered old man. At least you're honest.

At least this old guy isn't biased towards old games and gives things a try: He's really good too.
Click to expand...

I am not making most of these arguments. I love new games just as much as old games. plenty of crap old games too.

the way I get around crap games needing content to be playable is wait 6 months to a year for all the content to come out, and then I buy it all at once for full retail. I get the whole experience at once, and don't have to pay for the extra content they feed you along the way. Maybe its more the business model than anything. I think its the difference between why I enjoyed Destiny 1 (full content) and was over Destiny 2 (launch) before I finished the storyline. I considered 2 crap because of the lack of content when I played, lesson learned.

the games you mention that lasted are still part of a series. Halo 1 has more replayability than Halo 4. Doom never lost itself to multiplayer, and is still something I enjoy and I will get the next one. Never got into Quake or Battlefield. CoD, MoH, Far Cry, are interchangeable, and suffer from what I was talking about with being forgettable, why play one of those over the other? Wolfenstein is similar to Halo, give me the older ones over the newer ones. The last one I played in that series felt like a 1/3 of a game. I enjoyed what was there. But I wasn't singling out shooters, it was the shooter/looter (Destiny and Anthem types) that I am referring to.

that 50 hour difference, was the entire amount of time he put into what he considered a great game (not arguing it isn't a great game). So its a significant enough portion of time. The reason that 50 hours matters is because that is a full game, or two with some of these, I can skip.

To me a good game is something you don't mind missing other games for. Or at least waiting. All these others just seem like place holders/time wasters until the next.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top