But all people have said is that it's buggy on switch (with screenshot proof) and that there weren't enough servers for hours after launch. Is it you that's overblowing it?
Believe it or not it's possible to gather information about things without directly experiencing it and I tend to do this with new games. I also already have the originals on steam.
Yes and it's a multiplayer classic that they couldn't play multiplayer in. It doesn't ruin the game, it didn't destroy the experience permanently, it's not the end of the world, but it's shit and only happened because of the publisher's greed. No clue why you feel the need to defend it really.
[Edit] I also haven't said a single word that even implies I'm an expert on it. I mentioned bugginess that I said I saw in a comment and talked about servers being unavailable. What level of star wars battlefront expert do you think I need to be to discuss specific star wars battlefront things like...bugs and servers?
I don't own the game. It's not a problem for me at all. It's a principle, and a reflection of a publisher's greed and disrespect towards its customers.
Do you know that people bought the game, downloaded it, installed it, sat to play it, and couldn't because the publisher didn't want to pay for the required servers for their most loyal customers to do so?
Sure, it's good that there are servers now, but that's the minimum I expect and I expect them there at launch. You know, so people who have paid money to play their game actually can. Far be it for me to think an online multiplayer game should have servers to play online multiplayer in when it's available to buy.
I recall there being plenty of talk about Helldivers servers. About a month's worth. Meanwhile I haven't seen a single person say this is the worst thing that's ever happened or that it's never happened before with other games, just that releasing a multiplayer game and only having three servers available is absurd. That and the apparently poor port at least on Switch detailed in another comment.
Believe it or not, shit happening before doesn't change anything. Shit's still shit. And we all already know the only actual obstacle to ensuring a smooth multiplayer launch (assuming a competently made game, of course) is paying for enough servers to handle the initial surge. They just prefer not to spend that money and present a poor experience to customers who buy the game at launch instead, because fuck them right.
...but not before launch? The game launched and they weren't there? So they released a game and there were only three servers available? Hours later they added a bunch of servers? AFTER LAUNCH? Is there another way I can phrase this so you realise how stupid it is that you're defending it?
You can't get any trans care that isn't reversible until you're an adult who can legally consent to it. Puberty blockers are reversible, you just stop taking them and go through puberty. This change is completely anti-scientific and pro-bigotry. It's indefensible.
That's just always online. Live Service is milking customers for more money on top of the already full priced game, because just releasing a product that's good and is the best selling game of that year wasn't profitable enough for the vampires at the top of the company.
I'm not talking for anyone, so you seem to have gotten a little lost again. It's ok, go back and re-read, do it slowly and sound the hard words out loud so you can work out what they are. Maybe you'll extract some of the actual meaning from the word, then you can finally make a comment that actually follows a conversation instead of this weird straw man about someone "not made for the internet."
And dude, the conversations I'm responding to are literally right there above my comments, where is it you think that stupid line of thought is going? Everyone can see what you said. Are you struggling with object permanence as well?
That isn't what I said at all, but I can't expect you to understand that I suppose. What I actually said was that if you were even slightly smarter you be so embarrassed by them that you'd delete your comments. Not sure why you think I'd want them deleted, the longer they're here the more embarrassing it is. Or would be, if you weren't so dense.
Practice some reading comprehension, judging by your comments you should start with Mr Men books, that'll be about the right level for you.
If ignorance is bliss you must be literally the happiest being in all of existence. If you were even a touch smarter you'd be embarrassed enough by this exchange you're losing to delete your comments, but you're not.
That first paragraph is the most cringe inducing thing I've ever read. If you had written guttural sounds and whines you'd have sounded less stupid. Go and learn something you embarrassment.
You don't think the body count reinforces revenge being bad? With the looks of terror on their faces as Ellie slices their throat, the cries of "Sheila!" or whatever when you blow Sheila or whatever up, the dogs whining at their dead owners' sides, seems to me that all of this feeds into revenge being bad. You see the cost of those actions too, whole settlement aflame as Ellie hunts down Abby, slaughtering everyone in her way whilst Abby is trying to walk away from it.
You're a killing machine in that game, but everywhere you go the violence is always extremely messy, upsetting, and visceral, and Ellie has pretty severe reactions to it as well in cutscenes. Both Ellie and Abby even say hateful and petty things under her breath whilst you're taking them out, hardly presenting them in the best light whilst they're slaughtering people in their pursuit of revenge. Enemies beg for their life when you grab them, Ellie has to be talked down from murdering a pregnant woman. At one point she tortured, brutally, a woman who looks a bit like Dina. I'm not sure the ludo-narrative dissonance argument applies here, surprisingly, despite basically being Rambo from a gameplay perspective.
Now Uncharted? I love those games, but you destroy legions worth of bad guys, it's ridiculous, and in a serious narrative Drake's charming affableness whilst doing it would have to be a cover for a full on psychopath or something. There aren't many action games, especially shooting, where this argument doesn't apply really. It's just somewhere you need to suspend your disbelief. That or only play games where you kill a reasonable amount of people? What would that be? 15? Even that seems high, but 12 hour game a game where you only defeat 15 people isn't an action game.
But all people have said is that it's buggy on switch (with screenshot proof) and that there weren't enough servers for hours after launch. Is it you that's overblowing it?