Okay, I never played FFA. Can I ask what's wrong with the multiplayer?
Okay, I never played FFA. Can I ask what's wrong with the multiplayer?
1) Lag: not just sound and frame lag…player lag. All the good players use that to their advantage. Sometimes the lag is so bad, the game just crashes.
2) Glitchable Maps: Every level has a glitchy way to get into a player's base. Some players use that when they are losing.
3) Ragequitters: If an agorian sees a lombax, boom! He's out! No one likes a sore loser.
4) Wait times: Oh, the wait times are soooo long! Longer than the actual game usually!
5) The community: Like almost every Multiplayer game, people have bad attitudes. Not everyone is a victim of this, but most are (no offense Catacysm, that's just what I observe from some players)
6) Heavy Weapons: The Warmonger, Sonic Erupter, and Plasma-Bomb are OP when upgraded, creating unbalanced and unfair advantages over some players.
Now, if everything (except #5) was addressed, FFA might actually be a good multiplayer game. That's another reason All 4 One was better: players work together, not against each other. Well, that, and it had a storyline to it :p
FFA's multiplayer, how they didn't spot how unbalanced the multiplayer was the moment they added the WM/PBL/currency I will never know.Probably because everyone who played the beta didn't know how to take advantage of the mechanics properly, so they thought it was fine.
A pistol that does 1 damage or a rocket launcer that does 15 damage? I think it would've been a glaring problem in the design phase let alone the beta.
players work together, not against each other.
Gonna have to disagree there, the problem with the game is that it has a grief mode and a kick button, people will kick you if you take more bolts than them or if you get any of the bonuses at the end of a mission and the grief mode means that people will well…grief. While not as flawed as FFA's competitive i'll give you that, I would say that FFA's co-op is better since it encourages teamwork through the fact that you'll both loose if you screw up.
Oh, thanks for the answer! Yeah, those are the main problems of most multiplayer games. Ragequitters, players with bad attitude, overpowered weapons, etc.
And for another missed opportunity, hmm… maybe they should take the chance to make more parodical stuff. Sure, SAC was a good 007 parody by HI, but I think IG might need to learn from them and make some more parodical games. The parodies in the games are just usually found in the dialogues and gameplay, but not the main story.
I mean REAL cutscenes–that one's not even pre-rendered!
Well the REAL pre-rendered cutscenes really do look amazing! But i thought you were also talking about in game graphics, which, like i said, aren't too satisfying for me.
Also, even in the pre-rendered cutscenes, some things look really bad. Most notably the 5 bolts smoke bomb.. 
Tbh i think IG should've scratched FFA completely, and used that time to make ItN better than it is now. It's like they were trying to squeeze Ratchet and Clank into a new format, which just doesn't work.
After A4O it all went downhill, and ItN kinda managed to grab the ledge.
Also, it's not really a missed opportunity, but a bad decision: Tell me exactly why IG decided to make the games run on 30fps? It's not like they made it possible for 60fps with equally good graphics.. (Future series) Because it really hurts my eyes sometimes.. 
I guess the smoke bomb is intended. It's the one excusable.
With ItN they managed to grab the ledge… well said. And I also have to agree with someone (Kubak, I guess) who said that ItN saved the PS3 series, because it would be a NOPE if the PS3 series ended by FFA.
(By the way, Aster, do you have a 9GAG account? I saw someone with your name liking my post)
Also, it's not really a missed opportunity, but a bad decision: Tell me exactly why IG decided to make the games run on 30fps? It's not like they made it possible for 60fps with equally good graphics.. (Future series) Because it really hurts my eyes sometimes..
They made a research, found out that most people put graphics over framerate and announced that ACiT will be their last game running in 60 FPS.
Now, the fact that the last two R&C games looked worse than the Future series and didn't even run at stable 30 FPS most of the time is a different story…
(Not a video game expert)
Do you mean they should run the game at slower framerate, but more stable and equally good graphics?
I guess the smoke bomb is intended. It's the one excusable.
The smoke bomb is most definitely not intended, because it's the same smoke effect used throughout the entire game.
(Not a video game expert)
Do you mean they should run the game at slower framerate, but more stable and equally good graphics?
Basically, optimising the game properly was apparently not worth it since the general audience doesn't really notice that kinda stuff.
By cutting the framerate in half, IG would be able to make the graphics better… which I don't really get because DMC4 looks as good as the recent Ratchet & Clank games and yet it runs at a stable 60FPS, so I'm just going to assume they didn't want to have as much work.
(Not a video game expert)
Do you mean they should run the game at slower framerate, but more stable and equally good graphics?
I mean, that IG claim to have scrapped pretty stable 60 FPS for the sake of better graphics, but in the R&C series graphics didn't really improve (certainly not in FFA and ItN), while the framerate's got trouble staying stable even at 30 FPS.
Ah, thanks for the explanations, Kubak and Darkstar 
. And maybe for the R&C series, their graphics should stay in the middle - not too realistic but not too cartoon-ish. That kind of game doesn't need too epic graphics - just fun gameplay, characters, dialogues, and obviously great storyline.
Ah, thanks for the explanations, Kubak and Darkstar
Yes! And I think that the Ps4 game has succeeded in all accounts! Dialogue's a bit annoying though…
I think the smoke effect is cel-shaded, that's why it looks cartoonish and "cheap". Even though I don't really like it, doesn't it actually help the performance without slowing down the game?
(no offense Catacysm, that's just what I observe from some players)
No problem and I even agree with you. But actually it ain't a huge problem because you just need to ignore them. We still have to consider the "good guys" instead of the "bad guys" (ignore them). Then the community should look better 
Btw upgrading weapons fastly is not a problem from the game itself… but just from the player because he is slow, therefore I believe you cannot say it makes the game unfair. However I do agree that some ways to play make it non-enjoyable (I mean stalking, glitching,… but also connection problems and, sometimes, the WM overpowering aspect (most of players cannot play with the PBL properly and so they do not have fun playing with it). Besides some people play too hardly, mixing all of these aspects, which does not encourage new players to continue. Yeah I understand FFA has bad points, but most of them ain't due to the game, but to several players. Nonetheless the gameplay is really interesting (if you know how to play with fun (and who are exactly your opponents and your teammate… friends ^^))