My army has marched into paris, I have wiped out the enforcer corps. I have fought the same battle on the same map twice. Why then, Ubisoft, DO I HAVE TO FIGHT THE IMPOSSIBLE THIRD VERSION?! The siege is meant to be the desperate last stand of a flagging enemy, not a mission where the defenders just sit tight and let the drones do all the work. I know you can't make the sieges too hard for the defenders, otherwise angry bloggers like me would be bitching about that. You need a balance. And Ubisoft, you have failed to have that balance. Why, for example, do the enemy start with all the uplinks? Alpha already gives you everything you need in terms of supports, so what's the point. It just means that I have to waste precious minutes capturing the bloody things for my own means. Every time I fight a siege I feel tired. I feel physically tired after a siege, especially when I've lost by a nanometer.
It's 7 o'clock in the morning and I'm sitting on my couch trying not to wake everyone up while playing endwar (it's a difficult skill, trust me). Playing as the russians, the battle winds down and only one enemy is left with nothing else around it. I could easily just use an airstrike, but airstrikes are boring. A themobaric warhead rains down on them instead. Massive explosions follow and I try not to laugh as the enemy gets blown to bits.
This is a scenario that I relive almost every morning. I could easily just kill them some other way, so why do I use a WMD instead? It's probably the same reason that I give my engineers and tanks flamethrowers before I give them armour. Guns and cannons are boring. Fire and explosions? They're much more fun. Who cares if I'm contributing to the destruction of the globe? The Europeans should have considered that before I forced them into a . . . hang on. The Americans should have considered that before they attacked the motherland.
In conclusion: FOR THE EXPLOSIONS! - I mean uh . . . .motherland, yeah.
(Sane part of me's note: I sincerely hope I don't end up in control of WMDs or I'll probably end up blowing up the world for giggles).
I have a question for you, fellow dtoiders. Which game should I get? I personally can never decide and don't want to waste all my money. I have, however, managed to whittle it down to a couple of choices:
Battlefield: Bad Company*
Mirror's Edge*
Fable II
Prince of Persia
(the * means I have played it before)
I'll probably end up going to game (yeah, that's the name of my local game shop) on the weekend, so I need some recommendations by then.
G'day. My real name's Tom and I'm a 13-year old Sydneyan. As to what games I like, I like games. That basically sums it up. As long as it's a good game I don't really mind what type of game it is, although sports games have been fairly uninspiring to me. I also tend to be more of a lone wolf, my parents don't let me get online multiplayer (unfortunately). Right now I'm switching between Endwar and whatever catches my attention when I get bored of blowing up the Spetznaz. I'm in the market for a new one, if anybody has any recommendations to make.
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press living the dream since March 16, 2006