I am curious to know, what makes you think JC2 is the better game? Besides it being a little more impactful at release? From what I've seen this just seems like JC2 but more.
I am curious to know, what makes you think JC2 is the better game? Besides it being a little more impactful at release? From what I've seen this just seems like JC2 but more.
Wasn't Just Cause 2 all about killing the red things too?
I had fun with that.
Just Cause has a surprising fanbase. I'm confused, too. It's not a fun game to play mechanic wise and I guess it offers a lot of freedom to make your own fun after you get over the shitty combat, driving, story, missions, etc.
It's basically JC2 but with a much more integrated, skill-required version of the Superman mod and a bigger effort to emphasize maneuverability. I find it hard to imagine anyone liking JC2 not liking JC3 unless it's a matter of the novelty having worn out (which is understandable as the series has always been fairly shallow) or the performance issues putting a damper on the fun (which is an incredibly valid point to make since many people expected better from Avalanche).
It's fairly understandable that this didn't get as good of a critical reception since it's not doing much to actively blow apart the formula. It's generally more of the same but more streamlined and with some fun new additions.
The original Just Cause was merely okay. I liked it more than most, but it was a bit ho-hum. Then Just Cause 2 came along and it blew me away. The parachute/grappling hook/skydiving combo was amazing. It was also a hell of a lot of fun; one of the most enjoyable games I've played to be honest.
Sure, it was repetitive, but it was a lot of fun until it became too similar at the end. (It took forever to unlock the last two missions, because you had to cause so much chaos)
Just Cause 3 is fun and enjoyable, but it feels very similar and the core gameplay doesn't feel like it's improved. It doesn't feel as tight as I remember, and the technical issues also affect it.
The objectives also don't show forward thinking.
It's NOT a bad game, but it's also not a great game like JC2 was.
Just Cause 3 is fun and enjoyable, but it feels very similar and the core gameplay doesn't feel like it's improved. It doesn't feel as tight as I remember, and the technical issues also affect it.
So it's really just the fact that JC2 blew you away, and JC3 is more of the same? That's fine and all, and like I said earlier I understand the lowet review scores because of redundancy, but I don't see how that makes it a worse game. If it's JC2 with more options, it will almost certainly be a better game to me unless they've severely fucked up something.
Weird, i haven't played much, but the first thing I thought, is how much better it feels to control Rico.
I do miss the roll though, as useless as it was.
I like that now you don't grapple people to yourself, but yourself to them (kicking them in the process) it's so useful to move around.
As I said, it's not bad. But it's not as impressive as Just Cause 2 was, outside of its world's size. The gameplay hasn't evolved enough, and actually feels a bit worse in ways, and it feels dated. Yes, it's quite similar, but I don't think it's an improvement.
I wanted this to be so good that it'd be my GOTY, but it's not that good and I'm disappointed. It's fun enough, but it's technically flawed and its gunplay mechanics are lacking.
Dang. That opening paragraph is brutal.
The explosions in Just Cause 3 are really, really good. Theyre elaborate, extravagant eruptions of fire, debris, and smoke. And when you blow something up, the ensuing fireball spreads to other objects around it, triggering a massive, destructive chain reaction. Its a brand of fiery devastation that Michael Bay would describe as too much. But thats about it. When the fires burn out, the smoke clears, and the dust settles, youre left with a simplistic, one-note, and strangely dull open-world action game.
The only thing that drew me into JC2 was the multiplayer mod. So much fun.
You would think the dev team would have played the JC2 multiplayer mod and realized how important multiplayer was. Can't imagine why it wasn't added.
aka the Bethesda methodDev A: Should we add multiplayer? JC2 multiplayer mod was thriving, we should add it to JC3 this time.
Dev B: Why bother? Waste of time and money. Modders will make the JC3 version anyway.
Dev C: Good point.
I've been playing Mad Max on pc and having a lot of fun it's a pretty solid game. Love the explosions this dev does a decent job with fire effectsStill thorn between Mad Max and Just Cause 3. But since Im playing on consoles I guess Mad max is the better option.
Ya, and those storms were quite a sight to behold, as well.I've been playing Mad Max on pc and having a lot of fun it's a pretty solid game. Love the explosions this dev does a decent job with fire effects
What I find really weird is that the game has improved on JC2 in almost every way...yet it's getting lower scores... Steam reviews aren't looking so good either..
That's right also the draw distance is great it is awesome to see far away structures and chimneys blowing out smoke and fire...Ya, and those storms were quite a sight to behold, as well.
The way you can see them quickly rolling in from the distance before everything goes to complete chaos never got old.
Mad Max really could have been something if it wasn't so held back by its strict adherence to the generic open-world collectathon formula.
Dev A: Should we add multiplayer? JC2 multiplayer mod was thriving, we should add it to JC3 this time.
Dev B: Why bother? Waste of time and money. Modders will make the JC3 version anyway.
Dev C: Good point.
I guess I just don't understand the joke! (I'm guessing it's a joke?)
That's just your opinion.
Question for anyone playing the game, how's the ammo quantity or availability? I hated the fact the you ran out of ammo so easily on JC2.
Critics have finally learned how to utilize the 1/10 scale for games.Whys it feel every game is an 7.5/10 lately.
How the hell does disliking mashed potato happens
Critics are harsher than they used to, you don't get an automatic 8.5 if your game is loading up like it used to be.Whys it feel every game is an 7.5/10 lately.
Whys it feel every game is an 7.5/10 lately.
Scores are all over thus far. Sounds like I should wait for a patch or two.
PC version is the one that already runs great, haven't seen any issues mentioned about it and I get 60-90FPS depending on the situation despite not meeting the recommended CPU (3770k vs my 3570)Agreed. I'll be waiting on a few performance patches for the PC version before I take the plunge.
I'd like to ask the audience, Regis.a) Games haven't improved much from the past generation
b) Same ole shit, new paint?
c) Critics are harsher
d) Blowback from not using the entire scale so they are using it now?
e) All of the above
Yea I'm tired of this shit, can't wait for Uncharted 4 already, don't want to play open world games for years at this point, I would've bought TR if i had an XB1, really missing focus and pacing in games, and actually a good mission design, interesting objectives and some scripting and set pieces god forbid, open world is indeed this gen's generic military shooter :/Fucking preach, Jim
These kind of games are this gen's "generic military shooter".