Options

Rocksteady's [Suicide Squad] and WB Montreal's [Gotham Knights]

1131416181935

Posts

  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Nah, the point was to Me Too! Avengers until it became clear that was a horrible error and then they tried to dig up from that.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    I enjoyed AVENGERS and what was wrong with that game had nothing to do with how it was fundamentally set up (hero co-op mission based shooter). There were definitely lessons to be learned from AVENGERS and a game in its mold could have been arisen out of that, but it seems the focus was on no monetization instead of making sure the city felt alive and that the combat and progression was as tight and solid as it could be (the characters and how they play are easily the best thing about AVENGERS). Seeing some of these non-embargoed video reviews though. . .

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Sure, this isn't an Arkham game the same way Back4Blood wasn't a Left 4 Dead game... And made all the worse for it

  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Yea avengers minus the live service baggage would have been pretty rad honestly.

    And as far as I can tell for people who could look past that they seemed to enjoy what was there.

    It was just a little too front and center for me to look past.

  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Sure, this isn't an Arkham game the same way Back4Blood wasn't a Left 4 Dead game... And made all the worse for it

    I dont know enough about b4b but isn't that the same kind of game as left 4 dead?

    If so that comparison does not work at all.

    DemonStacey on
  • Options
    SeGaTaiSeGaTai Registered User regular
    My problem with avengers and the thing that will probably keep me from getting this until a sale is the amount of gear and skills that provide +5% crit dmg or +3% attack dmg, that never amount to changing break points in how any fight actually plays out

    PSN SeGaTai
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Avengers biggest problem to me was they were a live service game with literally no end game. I played the title at release enjoyed the content and story, and then there was zero reason to play it beyond that aside from numbers go up.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    vamenvamen Registered User regular
    I've played a disgusting amount of Avengers. Every char is maxed.
    ...sooooo I'll probably enjoy this, even if I am disappointed in some aspects of it.

  • Options
    ED!ED! Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Avengers biggest problem to me was they were a live service game with literally no end game. I played the title at release enjoyed the content and story, and then there was zero reason to play it beyond that aside from numbers go up.

    That and the lack of content to support the live service model. The hero roster at launch was robust and you legit had to have VERY specific play styles in mind to find an Avenger that you didn't vibe with. And, even through the campaign, you could clearly see where they were going (or should have been going) with the endgame for Avengers. Its just when you got there you realized: yes, Abomination, Task Master and this giant Spider Bot are all you're getting for bosses. Yes AIM is the only faction you're getting for enemies.

    This is sounding like the exact same situation GK is running up against (at least they have a true end-game grind setup, but that's not coming until later and from the sounds of things isn't even the focus of the game). Here now we've got, out of the ENTIRETY of Batman's rogues gallery. . .THREE villains? Really? How is this possible? And what kind of possible end-game could they have with that limited selection of boss encounters. I don't know what this end-game mode is going to be, but I can't imagine they're holding back on villains for post-launch content in this end-game mode.

    It's just crazy, they build these game worlds that clearly are setup for a certain kind of content, and only actually give the bare minimum. I haven't read any of the story related reviews so not sure how is this is as big a problem as it feels like, but just hearing that there are only the three main side missions leaves me cold for this games longevity.

    "Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
  • Options
    DragkoniasDragkonias That Guy Who Does Stuff You Know, There. Registered User regular
    I think the Arkham team just wanted to do something else after spending so long with the series. Which is understandable

    I think Knights is more of less something to tide people over in the mean time

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I don't even need longevity, if the game is like 20 to 30 hours of fun? Great give that to me. I'm kind of at the point where games that are hundreds of hours can be a turn off.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Sure, this isn't an Arkham game the same way Back4Blood wasn't a Left 4 Dead game... And made all the worse for it

    I dont know enough about b4b but isn't that the same kind of game as left 4 dead?

    If so that comparison does not work at all.

    My meaning is that both games tried to be spiritual successors to a popular franchise and formula, and both failed by adding unneeded layers of shit, terrible UI and middling combat.

  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Dragkonias wrote: »
    I think the Arkham team just wanted to do something else after spending so long with the series. Which is understandable

    I think Knights is more of less something to tide people over in the mean time

    For the record, this is WB Montreal, whose only original entry in the series is Origins. They've only handled ports of other Arkham games otherwise, and Origins is probably largely running on a version of the Arkham City engine

  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Here's the Digital Foundry review of the game:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Vno8r4cN8&t=1s


    Yes, they make a LOT of comparisons to Arkham Knight. But in this case, those comparisons are a lot more on the technical side, and not as much on the gameplay. They do touch gameplay in the review, but the focus overall is much higher on the technical aspects of both titles.

    Maybe it's not fair to compare the gameplay of Gotham to Arkham because they're trying to do different things. But doing a graphical comparison of a game from now vs a game from 7 years ago is absolutely a fair thing to do, and it's honestly kind of sad how much better AK looks than GK.

  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Sure, this isn't an Arkham game the same way Back4Blood wasn't a Left 4 Dead game... And made all the worse for it

    I dont know enough about b4b but isn't that the same kind of game as left 4 dead?

    If so that comparison does not work at all.

    My meaning is that both games tried to be spiritual successors to a popular franchise and formula, and both failed by adding unneeded layers of shit, terrible UI and middling combat.

    But this isn't trying to be that. They are still making games in the arkham universe.

    This is not one of those games.

  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't even need longevity, if the game is like 20 to 30 hours of fun? Great give that to me. I'm kind of at the point where games that are hundreds of hours can be a turn off.


    Hell i like long games but I'm also only interested in games that end. I'm not doing any kind of on going grinding or anything. I want to play to the end of the story and have that give me access to everything the game has to offer and move on afterwards haha.

    And ill gladly play a shorter game if it provides that.

    Like that new ratchet and Clank was like... 20ish hours to do everything?

    And it was fantastic! $70 well spent and ill never touch it again.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    I don't even need longevity, if the game is like 20 to 30 hours of fun? Great give that to me. I'm kind of at the point where games that are hundreds of hours can be a turn off.


    Hell i like long games but I'm also only interested in games that end. I'm not doing any kind of on going grinding or anything. I want to play to the end of the story and have that give me access to everything the game has to offer and move on afterwards haha.

    And ill gladly play a shorter game if it provides that.

    Like that new ratchet and Clank was like... 20ish hours to do everything?

    And it was fantastic! $70 well spent and ill never touch it again.

    I mean I enjoyed the shit out of grounded for like 100 hours and it was 40 dollars, but the game also like ate my time and had such an investment playing it was daunting at times.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    DragkoniasDragkonias That Guy Who Does Stuff You Know, There. Registered User regular
    Dragkonias wrote: »
    I think the Arkham team just wanted to do something else after spending so long with the series. Which is understandable

    I think Knights is more of less something to tide people over in the mean time

    For the record, this is WB Montreal, whose only original entry in the series is Origins. They've only handled ports of other Arkham games otherwise, and Origins is probably largely running on a version of the Arkham City engine

    That's what I'm saying the Arkham team is doing Suicide Squad rn.

  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I mean they provide gameplay footage of them spamming attacks, at this point it's just like, what's the point of this game if it's not courting the Arkham crowd

    The point is to make an action RPG for fans of action RPG in the setting of Gotham.

    Someone not interested in an action RPG was never the target market of the game. Which certainly includes plenty of Arkham fans and likely a large reason this *wasnt* an Arkham game.

    Sure, this isn't an Arkham game the same way Back4Blood wasn't a Left 4 Dead game... And made all the worse for it

    I dont know enough about b4b but isn't that the same kind of game as left 4 dead?

    If so that comparison does not work at all.

    My meaning is that both games tried to be spiritual successors to a popular franchise and formula, and both failed by adding unneeded layers of shit, terrible UI and middling combat.

    But this isn't trying to be that. They are still making games in the arkham universe.

    This is not one of those games.

    Then I'd say they poorly managed expectations because most people I know assumed it was co-op Arkham and when I told my roommate it wasn't he was very let down

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Well, poop.

    I don't necessarily mind loot, and I don't necessarily mind some grinding as long as it's at least attempting to weave into the plot progression. Or at least has some silly flavor text. I mean, I can do Borderlands. (At least the bits connected with the plot.) But this... ugh. Just sounds like it would annoy the crap out of me.

    Here's hoping Suicide Squad is better thought out and not as GaaSy as the Internet has decided it is.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    I disagree that this is meant to 'tide people over', though. that's what Origins was, and it was good. Not a technical leap from City, but they took city, re-heated it, changed the recipe if not the ingredients, and came up with something worthwhile.

    If that was what they were trying for this time, I'd expect them to start from Knight and build on it like last time.

    They're clearly trying something new with this, it's just running into inevitable comparisons to the previous Batman games because you can't tell people not to make the obvious connection.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    ED! wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Avengers biggest problem to me was they were a live service game with literally no end game. I played the title at release enjoyed the content and story, and then there was zero reason to play it beyond that aside from numbers go up.

    That and the lack of content to support the live service model. The hero roster at launch was robust and you legit had to have VERY specific play styles in mind to find an Avenger that you didn't vibe with. And, even through the campaign, you could clearly see where they were going (or should have been going) with the endgame for Avengers. Its just when you got there you realized: yes, Abomination, Task Master and this giant Spider Bot are all you're getting for bosses. Yes AIM is the only faction you're getting for enemies.

    This is sounding like the exact same situation GK is running up against (at least they have a true end-game grind setup, but that's not coming until later and from the sounds of things isn't even the focus of the game). Here now we've got, out of the ENTIRETY of Batman's rogues gallery. . .THREE villains? Really? How is this possible? And what kind of possible end-game could they have with that limited selection of boss encounters. I don't know what this end-game mode is going to be, but I can't imagine they're holding back on villains for post-launch content in this end-game mode.

    It's just crazy, they build these game worlds that clearly are setup for a certain kind of content, and only actually give the bare minimum. I haven't read any of the story related reviews so not sure how is this is as big a problem as it feels like, but just hearing that there are only the three main side missions leaves me cold for this games longevity.

    They probably have at least one Court of Owls boss as well, and adding boss stories as DLC would seem to be pretty straightforward to me, but I'm not a dev so maybe not.

    But then, I like b4b, so who knows.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    So in all honesty, I've come into this thread several times and asked "Is this a GaaS?" because I honestly couldn't tell. Everything I saw indicated to me it was, because GaaS games have very particular design decisions that somewhat give them away. From everything I've read this game isn't a GaaS, but it was clearly supposed to be one. It's disappointing and somewhat baffling that if you want to character switch, you need to regrind what appears to be 40 open world crimes to unlock these abilities across all characters. That's 160 crimes in total! That's DEFINITELY GaaS like design, which is purely there to frustrate the player into buying microtransactions. It's how they work. RPG mechanics are one of those things that have increasingly become a danger signal instead of a meaningful, fun and satisfying addition to a game. It looks like this game has 20 hours of unnecessary grinding when the actual mechanics have ceased making your character feel meaningfully more interesting to play well before that - very poor design.

    Looking at the multiplayer set up and a few other things, I can't help but wonder if this game was supposed to be a DC Avongers and then that game completely failed in a spectacular ball of fire. Then there was a deep gutting of the "Service" part of the "Games as a Service" without removing the grindy mechanics or whatever. A 20 hour game that doesn't outstay it's welcome is far better than a 40 hour game that has. Even the Arkham Games IMO suffered from this. Arkham Knight has a lot of boring open world cruft with the Batmobile and some AC like mechanics (clearing outposts, checkpoints) but they're still tempered by the fact Arkham Knight is built on an incredible fun combat system that never gets old no matter how many people you punch (so I got through it). Grinding for grinding sake doesn't appeal to me anymore, because I have things to do and definitely better things to do than this.

    I'm also incredibly disappointed this game is locked at 30 FPS while Digital Foundries analysis indicates it looks a lot worse than Arkham Knight and runs worse in a lot of ways. It really feels like there was a lot of confused development here and I'm sure post-mortems on this game will be very interesting to read about.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    Doesn't change my suspicions at all. Pointless RPG mechanics are still a pointless addition. They're one of numerous reasons - aside from Ubisoft being terrible - that I've never touched any of the recent AC games. Again, I bet there will be a post-mortem on this at some point and I guarantee you it started as a GaaS, then was gutted when Avongers fell over. Either way, there are so many great games coming out and a couple that already have, that I am just glad I didn't preorder this. Had Morninglord actually been getting this game on PS5 I would have committed to getting it as well, which I'm very glad I didn't.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Origins was fantastic, probably my favorite AC game and it has RPG mechanics

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    It's a shame that the game turned out as it did.

    I looked up some cutscenes and they really nailed the Bat family aspect, which you rarely see outside of comics

  • Options
    Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    I don't see how it would have been hard to include a classic Arkham style mode with counters and such, but maybe I'm naive

  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    Doesn't change my suspicions at all. Pointless RPG mechanics are still a pointless addition. They're one of numerous reasons - aside from Ubisoft being terrible - that I've never touched any of the recent AC games. Again, I bet there will be a post-mortem on this at some point and I guarantee you it started as a GaaS, then was gutted when Avongers fell over. Either way, there are so many great games coming out and a couple that already have, that I am just glad I didn't preorder this. Had Morninglord actually been getting this game on PS5 I would have committed to getting it as well, which I'm very glad I didn't.

    Again calling mechanics you don't enjoy pointless doesn't make much sense.

    They are things that are enjoyed by plenty of people. If you don't enjoy them thats cool! Like you say there are plenty of games out there for everyone.

    But you give me a choice between a game with the tightest combat ever and no progression and a game with decent combat and meaningful progression... I'm taking the latter 9/10 times. That is the fun of video games for me.

    And given that there are plenty of games with this stuff that sell absolutely gangbusters year after year says that it isn't just some kinda fringe opinion either.

  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

    I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound optional. Do X crime patrols before you can hunt Mr. Freeze, that sort of thing.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    Preacher wrote: »
    Origins was fantastic, probably my favorite AC game and it has RPG mechanics

    All of the Arkham games do, but they feel like a natural part of the games progression and not a barrier. There is a significant and important difference between these two things. They also feel incredibly meaningful, like when you unlock the triple batarang and the longer knockdown for batarangs in Arkham Asylum - completely changes gameplay. Don't believe me? Try doing Shock and Awe extreme without those upgrades.

    There is an important, but subtle, distinction between these two things. Everything I've read from reviews of this indicates it's the latter - with progression just feeling like numbers for numbers sake without meaningfully making the gameplay feel better or that you're genuinely getting stronger. The exact opposite of the original Arkham games.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

    I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound optional. Do X crime patrols before you can hunt Mr. Freeze, that sort of thing.

    People might be talking about different things here.

    But regardless if you can beat the game in 20 hours... then there is certainly not 20 hours of any kind of required "grinding".

  • Options
    SeGaTaiSeGaTai Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

    I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound optional. Do X crime patrols before you can hunt Mr. Freeze, that sort of thing.

    One of the reviews linked on here earlier said basically that - as the game went on you had to do more and more filler fights that all kinda felt the same before you got to do the next interesting bit

    PSN SeGaTai
  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

    I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound optional. Do X crime patrols before you can hunt Mr. Freeze, that sort of thing.

    People might be talking about different things here.

    But regardless if you can beat the game in 20 hours... then there is certainly not 20 hours of any kind of required "grinding".

    "Beat the game" and "See all the content" are different things. For example, if you want to use all of the characters in multiplayer with their traversal abilities unlocked, you would need to do 160 total crimes first.

    Edit: And yes, I 100% think calling that pointless is more than fair.

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    You also have to do patrols to unlock your "Knighthood" stuff which includes primary mobility, the skill tree, and your ultimate. And each of those is supposedly about 90 minutes of grinding. So if you want to meaningfully play all 4 characters, you have to do the same 90 minute grind 4 times so you unlock all the goodies for all 4 characters.

  • Options
    AegeriAegeri Tiny wee bacteriums Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    And I want to point out the grinding between characters being required for each one was not the way the previews were presenting things. They made it sound like you could just play as Batgirl for however long you wanted, then just switch to Red Hood and play as him for a while at roughly the same place.

    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
  • Options
    DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Well I cant really speak to any of the timing stuff as I have not played yet.

    But ill know soon and ill be glad to share my findings at that time!

    Maybe it's a disaster maybe it's not!

    Either way ill be playing tomorrow morning and it should be a good time filler on the way to Ragnarok.

  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Single player games have had piles of optional grindy content like that forever and long before GaaS ever existed.

    And if people are beating the game in 20 hours it seems like you can get by just fine without spending 20 hours of unnecessary grinding?

    I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound optional. Do X crime patrols before you can hunt Mr. Freeze, that sort of thing.

    People might be talking about different things here.

    But regardless if you can beat the game in 20 hours... then there is certainly not 20 hours of any kind of required "grinding".

    "Beat the game" and "See all the content" are different things. For example, if you want to use all of the characters in multiplayer with their traversal abilities unlocked, you would need to do 160 total crimes first.

    Edit: And yes, I 100% think calling that pointless is more than fair.

    From what I understand, that math isn't correct. It's 10 special crimes per character, meaning a total of 40. If the requirement to spawning a special crime is 10 "regular" crimes, then I guess that number is right, but I don't know if that is an accurate requirement to playing a special crime mission.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Well I cant really speak to any of the timing stuff as I have not played yet.

    But ill know soon and ill be glad to share my findings at that time!

    Maybe it's a disaster maybe it's not!

    Either way ill be playing tomorrow morning and it should be a good time filler on the way to Ragnarok.

    I'll be playing it tonight live on stream even! To my zeroes of fans!

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    See I dont mind pointless grind if the combat is fun and from what Ive seen the combat does look pretty fun.
    Its not arkham but that was super clear: in arkham every landed power attack knocks down. Theyve showed off enough combat that claiming it was marketted as arkham is very much not their fault territory.

    I quite enjoyed the rpgness of Odyssey, it wasnt a major fault of the game for me.

    However my funds are low, bayo 3 is out in a week, my hands are precious resources whose usage must be metered(take care of your hands folks, take breaks), and I cant play with Aegeri, since the coop system sounds fun with friends.

    Ill probably enjoy it when I eventually get it, its just not gonna be soon.

    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Sign In or Register to comment.