I posted this in the RB6 thread, but I think it applies to other games as well. I'm beginning to get weary of games that require you to kill so many enemies before you can progress any further.
I understand a big part of developing a game is the if then clause, so "If you get to this point, then load this point", but I'd like to see more depth in how a story unfolds. With both GRAW and RB6, I felt more aware of how many enemies there were to kill and how that would get me to the next storyline. And, in bothe endings, the ending doesn't actually unfold until all are dead.
It just seems to predictable to me, and I'd like to see some differences, like maybe a guy jumping off the damn in the realization that it's hopeless.
I understand a big part of developing a game is the if then clause, so "If you get to this point, then load this point", but I'd like to see more depth in how a story unfolds. With both GRAW and RB6, I felt more aware of how many enemies there were to kill and how that would get me to the next storyline. And, in bothe endings, the ending doesn't actually unfold until all are dead.
It just seems to predictable to me, and I'd like to see some differences, like maybe a guy jumping off the damn in the realization that it's hopeless.