Alright, so a lot of you are sleeping on Dishonored 2. Some new threads are popping up, but awareness of its quality (*cough* 91-92 Metacritic *cough*) is still pretty low overall.
Now, some of you may be upset with the game due to the day one performance issues on PC (and other platforms to a lesser extent). Some of you may have played it and just didn't like it because the gameplay isn't your thing. All of that is fine and completely understandable. Tastes differ and all that, and performance issues are generally a bad thing. That's not what this thread is about.
One of the things I keep reading on GAF is that Dishonored 2 isn't worth your time because it's 'more of the same'. Now, I'm not really sure what that means. There's very few games that you couldn't reduce to 'more of the same' if you really wanted to. I'm struggling to come up with examples, and the ones I can think of are all weird indie games.
I rarely see people still saying this about, say, Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, COD: IW or Watch Dogs 2.. All (excellent) games with an 'overly familiar gameplay template' at best, or a 'done-to-death formula' if you want to be pessimistic. So instead of those games, you want to single out the non-open-world game with imaginative traversal-based stealth mechanics, multi-route level design and art direction that looks like an oil painting in motion?
The last good game similar to this one was Alien: Isolation in 2014 and the first Dishonored back in 2012. The only similar less-than-good games recently were Eidos Montreal's two Deus Ex sequels.
The only explanation I can come up with is that people expected this particular sequel to go somewhere wildly different (open-world?) instead of 'only' adding a second playable character, a expanded moveset and a distinctive new destination.
But looking at the term 'more of the same' more generally: it's virtually worthless to use as a stand-alone argument for good/bad nowadays. You could describe any modern AAA game with that and still say nothing of value about the game itself. Look at The Last Guardian, for instance. If they manage to make that game 'more of the same', wouldn't that be amazing? If the second Deus Ex was 'more of the same' instead of a flaming pile of shit, wouldn't that have been great? Any game in the 2016 Metacritic Top 20 could be described as 'more of the same' but apparently they're pretty good regardless.
When is it okay to dismiss something as 'more of the same', and when should 'more of the same' be applauded? Given how similar many games are to others nowadays, is 'more of the same' ever really appropriate anymore?
Well, it is true that the gameplay formula is essentially the same. But that's because it had an excellent foundation to build upon and Dishonored 2 improves it in every way.
I'm was kinda interested in the first one but the between the "We really liked Half Life 2 yall" art style and the dumb mechanic the ending of the first one was based on, I never gave it a shot.
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
I agree that there aren't many games like Dishonored to begin with. Games that give you tons of freedom in gameplay to reach your goals are pretty rare and while the immersive sim is making a bit of a comeback it would be a shame to see it die due to this game underperforming.
"More of the same" with regards to very specific games has always felt stupid to me. If the basic gameplay is good, why the hell would you revamp it for the sequel?
Last edited by CloudWolf; Today at 01:21 PM.
More of the same is truly a worthless criticism if there ever was one. It doesnt even mean anything. Not every game needs to be ground breaking to be great.
I very much looking forward to buying this when all/most PC performance issues are ironed out. Dishonored 1 was alongside DXHR my favourite game of last gen.
Even the short opening level in Dunwall is packed with nooks and crannies to explore, two different enemy factions and lots of secrets.
It's more of the same, but that very same is also ridiculously good.
It's more of the same, but that very same is also ridiculously good.
Got to change it up. Even Uncharted 4 got a swing mechanic. lol People are hypocrites.
MD's main flaw was the insult that was the main story, it was quite literally cut in half. Other than that, I didn't have any problems with MD. In fact, it was amazing otherwise. Visuals, gameplay, level design, side quests, all were amazing. (Except for the main story, that is)I felt like Deus Ex Mankind Divided also got this criticism. Maybe people expect more after a long gap (five years for MD, four for Dishonored).
"More of the same" is often a good point to me! When i liked what the first one was doing why wouldn't more be a good thing?
Not everything has to change totally between iterations, hell if Dishonoured 2 was too different to Dishonoured i'd probably not be as interested. I'm just waiting for PC performance to improve and i'll be all over it!
Not everything has to change totally between iterations, hell if Dishonoured 2 was too different to Dishonoured i'd probably not be as interested. I'm just waiting for PC performance to improve and i'll be all over it!
The first Dishonored was underwhelming to me; never really taking off the way I hoped it would. I laughed at your art style remark; very true.Originally Posted by OnimaruXLR
I'm was kinda interested in the first one but the between the "We really liked Half Life 2 yall" art style and the dumb mechanic the ending of the first one was based on, I never gave it a shot.
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
The art style for the second Dishonored is very different; even between missions. They've also removed basically all penalties for 'playing rough' and the main difference between stealth/combat playthroughs is the ending, apparently.
So apart from being miles better than the first one, having a new art style and nailing basically every new thing they've tried in the sequel (while still having top-tier level design in every instance), it's just more of the same :)
I'm waiting until the PC version is in a decent state before I buy it.
There's no rush to buy single player games.
There's no rush to buy single player games.
More of the same is a poor criticism if you have a formula (tha a lot of people think is good to begin with) and you manage to improve it. I can think of entries in the halo series and gears of war series that don't really improve on anything and in those cases I think more of the same can be used as criticism.
I guess how similar it is affects that. People generally don't want to feel that they're playing the same game twice. I know plenty of people that will dismiss experiences if they don't feel that they innovate enough.Originally Posted by CloudWolf
"More of the same" with regards to very specific games has always felt stupid to me. If the basic gameplay is good, why the hell would you revamp it for the sequel?
You could kill every main target and still get a low chaos rating.Originally Posted by OnimaruXLR
I'm was kinda interested in the first one but the between the "We really liked Half Life 2 yall" art style and the dumb mechanic the ending of the first one was based on, I never gave it a shot.
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
If you kill scores of people? Yeah, the game will wag its finger at you. Why shouldnt it? The guards aren't to blame for Corvo's failure to protect Jessamine.
For those who chose to play as Corvo while thinking the other character is just a skin, they'll feel it's just more Dishonored which is not a bad thing actually. I played as him in my first playthrough and I only used the blink power and sleep darts. it was satisfying but just more dishonored. My second playthrough, I went all in and it was way more rewarding.
Hah, true. That's what's really stopping me from trying out Dishonored 2 (well, and the borked PC version, but that'll be patched). Even the non-lethal ending was stupid.Originally Posted by OnimaruXLR
I'm was kinda interested in the first one but the between the "We really liked Half Life 2 yall" art style and the dumb mechanic the ending of the first one was based on, I never gave it a shot.
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
Old man in boat: "I'm proud of you, Corvo, you showed restraint and mercy."
Me: "Well, I did leave a noblewoman to be kidnapped and enslaved her creepy stalker, made sure two guys live out the rest of their lives in some mine with their eyes and tongue ripped out and I condemned a man to live as an outcast of society in the rat-infested slums. I'm not so sure about restraint and mercy..."
Mission 7 with the time manipulation is really something special. More of the same my arse. I'm with you OP, it's reductive nonsense.
What people say they want before sequel is announced: "I'm fine with more of the same."
What people actually want when sequel is announced: "Assassin's Creed 2/Uncharted 2/The Witcher 2/Mass Effect 2 level of sequel leap or gtfo."
/s
What people actually want when sequel is announced: "Assassin's Creed 2/Uncharted 2/The Witcher 2/Mass Effect 2 level of sequel leap or gtfo."
/s
I mean I don't think more of the same is always a bad thing, as long as you don't get over-faced with that same thing every year.
More of the same becomes a bad thing when people aren't that enthralled by that "same" thing. Maybe people liked Dishonored but not enough to want more of the exact same game?
Fundamentally the issue with both Deus Ex and Dishonored, which faced that criticism this year, they're not big mainstream games. The audience for them was already on the 'smaller' side, and when you make a sequel which is "more of the same" you're just limiting your audience to the people who played the first one and really liked it. Everyone else looks at the game, sees it looking very similar and then proceeds to not buy it for the exact same reason they didn't buy the first.
Compare that to CoD or Battlefield which everyone loves, they can get away with it being more of the same, because enough people really love that formula for whatever reason.
More of the same becomes a bad thing when people aren't that enthralled by that "same" thing. Maybe people liked Dishonored but not enough to want more of the exact same game?
Fundamentally the issue with both Deus Ex and Dishonored, which faced that criticism this year, they're not big mainstream games. The audience for them was already on the 'smaller' side, and when you make a sequel which is "more of the same" you're just limiting your audience to the people who played the first one and really liked it. Everyone else looks at the game, sees it looking very similar and then proceeds to not buy it for the exact same reason they didn't buy the first.
Compare that to CoD or Battlefield which everyone loves, they can get away with it being more of the same, because enough people really love that formula for whatever reason.
the first was my GOTY, the second will be my GOTY. it's exactly what i want in a stealth game. an overwhelming sense of choice and a game designed so impeccably that you can play the entire thing powerless and still not kill a single soul. art style is one of my all time favorites both the first and second game. and when the only real comparable title is deus ex i think it's ok for it to be more of the same. would people raise the same criticism towards hitman when it's largely the only one doing it?
The complaints are probably coming from people that played the first one, thought it was mediocre or whatever and have no desire to play this as its more of the same.
It's a valid complaint, if you don't like something you're not gonna play more of it.
It's a valid complaint, if you don't like something you're not gonna play more of it.
"More of the same" isn't inherently a negative thing. All it means that whatever improvements they made aren't major. Some people might be turned off by that, some people won't. Still, I'd definitely prefer it if sequels weren't so "safe".
One of my favourite franchises of all time, Devil May Cry, has seen big changes between titles from DMC1>DMC2>DMC3>DMC4 and DmC. DMC2 was definitely a misstep but the games after that refined/changed the mechanics in such a noticeable way that each new title feels unique. That's just my opinion but eh.
One of my favourite franchises of all time, Devil May Cry, has seen big changes between titles from DMC1>DMC2>DMC3>DMC4 and DmC. DMC2 was definitely a misstep but the games after that refined/changed the mechanics in such a noticeable way that each new title feels unique. That's just my opinion but eh.
Last edited by cheesekao; Today at 01:28 PM.
This is not true. A loading screen tip says creating more bodies attracts more blood flies, just like how in the first creating more bodies attracted more rats.Originally Posted by GinoFelino
They've also removed basically all penalties for 'playing rough' and the main difference between stealth/combat playthroughs is the ending
In general, I get really frustrated when people get super hung up on the low/high chaos thing. Why does it bother you that killing more people gets you an ending where your character is more of a killer? It's just a natural reaction. Seems like people assume some weird moralism and get really stuck on it. It's. Lately a system for adjusting difficulty (more aggressive play style makes the game give you more enemies to fight) and realism/immersion.
It can be a problem when a series has like five samey sequels (see Assassins Creed), but I don't think it's a problem with Dishonored 2 at all. The gameplay is pretty unique after all.
I don't think anyone is saying that it's good or bad, just that they played the first and don't feel the need to play the second. Comparing this logic to the annual or biannual franchises doesn't really work if they are different audiences. So, I'm not following your argument.
Edit: I haven't played the first and have no desire to play the second. So maybe, like others have said, the criticism is actually coming from people who just don't like the franchise.
Edit: I haven't played the first and have no desire to play the second. So maybe, like others have said, the criticism is actually coming from people who just don't like the franchise.
Last edited by oneils; Today at 01:32 PM.
You may be sarcastic, but the sad thing is that D2 really is a AC2/U2 type of leap from the first.Originally Posted by Nightengale
What people say they want before sequel is announced: "I'm fine with more of the same."
What people actually want when sequel is announced: "Assassin's Creed 2/Uncharted 2/The Witcher 2/Mass Effect 2 level of sequel leap or gtfo."
/s
That's probably spot-on. The weird thing is that all Bioshock games were pretty huge, and Dishonored 2 is probably as close to the first Bioshock as it is to Deus Ex. I guess marketing took the wrong approach and highlighted similarities to D1 more than differences.Fundamentally the issue with both Deus Ex and Dishonored, which faced that criticism this year, they're not big mainstream games. The audience for them was already on the 'smaller' side, and when you make a sequel which is "more of the same" you're just limiting your audience to the people who played the first one and really liked it. Everyone else looks at the game, sees it looking very similar and then proceeds to not buy it for the exact same reason they didn't buy the first.
Compare that to CoD or Battlefield which everyone loves, they can get away with it being more of the same, because enough people really love that formula for whatever reason.
I've played about four hours of Dishonored 2 and I have... mixed feelings so far. I have definitely felt a bit fatigued by it, and I think in this case "more of the same" feels like a negative not because the game feels evolutionary (like the best in the games you listed are) but because so far, it definitely feels.. the same.
Minor spoilers I suppose, but in my first few hours I have received the same folding sword, the same pistol, the same blink power, the same crossbow, the same heart mechanic, and the same rules for the Chaos system in... I want to say more or less the same order as the original game. Is that inherently bad? I guess not; I mean, Battlefield 1 has mostly the same modes and the same classes and the same styles of guns as other Battlefield games, but I agree that "more of the same" would be reductive for that. Dishonored 2's improvements are obviously there - the levels are bigger, more dense, etc etc - but I already feel fatigued in some ways due to the stuff I listed in the spoilers there.
So far, Dishonored 2 almost feels like an expansion/level pack for the original. That assessment could (and probably will) prove to be unfair as I continue, and to some people that description is probably more than enough to get excited about. Different strokes n' all that.
Minor spoilers I suppose, but in my first few hours I have received the same folding sword, the same pistol, the same blink power, the same crossbow, the same heart mechanic, and the same rules for the Chaos system in... I want to say more or less the same order as the original game. Is that inherently bad? I guess not; I mean, Battlefield 1 has mostly the same modes and the same classes and the same styles of guns as other Battlefield games, but I agree that "more of the same" would be reductive for that. Dishonored 2's improvements are obviously there - the levels are bigger, more dense, etc etc - but I already feel fatigued in some ways due to the stuff I listed in the spoilers there.
So far, Dishonored 2 almost feels like an expansion/level pack for the original. That assessment could (and probably will) prove to be unfair as I continue, and to some people that description is probably more than enough to get excited about. Different strokes n' all that.
More of the same is fine with me. I wish 'more of the same' AAA games were produced in the vein of Dishonored, Thief and Deus Ex.
I agree wholeheartedly. More of the same is how I would describe almost this entire generation of games so far (and the last, to be honest), yet it only seems to be bandied about when describing high quality games like Dishonored that are few and far between at best.Originally Posted by GinoFelino
Alright, so a lot of you are sleeping on Dishonored 2. Some new threads are popping up, but awareness of its quality (*cough* 91-92 Metacritic *cough*) is still pretty low overall.
Now, some of you may be upset with the game due to the day one performance issues on PC (and other platforms to a lesser extent). Some of you may have played it and just didn't like it because the gameplay isn't your thing. All of that is fine and completely understandable. Tastes differ and all that, and performance issues are generally a bad thing. That's not what this thread is about.
One of the things I keep reading on GAF is that Dishonored 2 isn't worth your time because it's 'more of the same'. Now, I'm not really sure what that means. There's very few games that you couldn't reduce to 'more of the same' if you really wanted to. I'm struggling to come up with examples, and the ones I can think of are all weird indie games.
I rarely see people still saying this about, say, Battlefield 1, Titanfall 2, COD: IW or Watch Dogs 2.. All (excellent) games with an 'overly familiar gameplay template' at best, or a 'done-to-death formula' if you want to be pessimistic. So instead of those games, you want to single out the non-open-world game with imaginative traversal-based stealth mechanics, multi-route level design and art direction that looks like an oil painting in motion?
The last good game similar to this one was Alien: Isolation in 2014 and the first Dishonored back in 2012. The only similar less-than-good games recently were Eidos Montreal's two Deus Ex sequels.
The only explanation I can come up with is that people expected this particular sequel to go somewhere wildly different (open-world?) instead of 'only' adding a second playable character, a expanded moveset and a distinctive new destination.
But looking at the term 'more of the same' more generally: it's virtually worthless to use as a stand-alone argument for good/bad nowadays. You could describe any modern AAA game with that and still say nothing of value about the game itself. Look at The Last Guardian, for instance. If they manage to make that game 'more of the same', wouldn't that be amazing? If the second Deus Ex was 'more of the same' instead of a flaming pile of shit, wouldn't that have been great? Any game in the 2016 Metacritic Top 20 could be described as 'more of the same' but apparently they're pretty good regardless.
When is it okay to dismiss something as 'more of the same', and when should 'more of the same' be applauded? Given how similar many games are to others nowadays, is 'more of the same' ever really appropriate anymore?
Slightly off topic but what are the PC issues? I've got it in my Steam library but haven't opened it up yet.
I really liked Human Revolution but MD is the same game without bossfights. They didn't improve anything, didn't introduce new mechanics. It's the same game I played before and it's unfortunate. Maybe problem is the same with Dishonored.I felt like Deus Ex Mankind Divided also got this criticism. Maybe people expect more after a long gap (five years for MD, four for Dishonored).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Dishonored 2 is better then the first in every possible way.
There are some legitimate complaints about technical issues, mostly in the PC version, but I agree that "more of the same" is a worthless issue to have with the game. Even if it was true, it is more of the same in a genre where we are lucky to have a new game every other year or so (although this year we got two). It is false though imo. The aspect of the game where you are exploring open spaces with mixed neutral and hostile areas has been expanded a great deal compared with the previous game. This is a great improvement, comparable to what open world Prague brought to Mankind Divided imo.
This is a big misunderstanding of the system Dishonored 1 was using, and one I see come up a lot. The game isn't judging you for murdering; you could kill all of the targets and still get the "good" ending. What it's measuring is Chaos, Dunwall's reaction to the power vacuum you are leaving in your wake. Corvo's revenge involves taking out most of the important movers and shakers in the city and a lot of the security and economic infrastructure that supported them. Outright murdering them and their subordinates creates a massive, violent power vacuum; a bad situation when the city is already stricken with a zombie plague and is on the verge of social upheaval. The non-death solutions are often ironic and worse than a simple death but, more importantly, most of them involve these people just.....disappearing. Either legitimately or not, they are removed from power with their systems intact, allowing them to still perform their functions without supporting the regime. That's why the question was framed as "High Chaos vs. Low" rather than morality, and why the "High Chaos" game isn't necessarily a bad ending. It just has you burning down a rotted and corrupted city rather than trying to preserve it.Originally Posted by OnimaruXLR
I'm was kinda interested in the first one but the between the "We really liked Half Life 2 yall" art style and the dumb mechanic the ending of the first one was based on, I never gave it a shot.
The first element seems to have been taken care of for Dish on Red 2, but I'll give it more serious consideration after someone guarantees me that I won't get a shitty finger-wagging "MURDER IS NEVER THE ANSWER (ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN YOU COULD MAKE SOMEONE SUFFER A FATE WORSE THAN DEATH)" ending by engaging with the game's seemingly delightful combat systems
If it was more of the same I'd probably have liked it more. As it is I stopped enjoying my self really early.
The first game is one my favourite games from the last decade, so "more of the same" is like the opposite of criticism.
I've noticed that whenever a game has multiple endings people tend to think one of them is "bad" for some reason.Originally Posted by Ordinaryundone
This is a big misunderstanding of the system Dishonored 1 was using, and one I see come up a lot. The game isn't judging you for murdering; you could kill all of the targets and still get the "good" ending. What it's measuring is Chaos, Dunwall's reaction to the power vacuum you are leaving in your wake. Corvo's revenge involves taking out most of the important movers and shakers in the city and a lot of the security and economic infrastructure that supported them. Outright murdering them and their subordinates creates a massive, violent power vacuum; a bad situation when the city is already stricken with a zombie plague and is on the verge of social upheaval. The non-death solutions are often ironic and worse than a simple death but, more importantly, most of them involve these people just.....disappearing. Either legitimately or not, they are removed from power with their systems intact, allowing them to still perform their functions without supporting the regime. That's why the question was framed as "High Chaos vs. Low" rather than morality, and why the "High Chaos" game isn't necessarily a bad ending. It just has you burning down a rotted and corrupted city rather than trying to preserve it.
I dunno if I full agree. I mean, yes if you are using 'more of the same' as a direct criticism against Dishonored 2 then it becomes problematic for reasons that people have highlighted in this topic. But if an individual uses 'more of the same' as an excuse for why they personally are dismissing D2 and are uninterested in it then that is perfectly valid and understandable, even if they buy COD or Battlefield year on year. Some people may have just finished Dishonored 1 and felt 'I enjoyed that, but I am done with this gameplay and setting.'
I only played the tutorial missions in Dishonored 2 so far (I'm diving back into the first to complete my total chaos run) but you have a choice of two characters:I really liked Human Revolution but MD is the same game without bossfights. They didn't improve anything, didn't introduce new mechanics. It's the same game I played before and it's unfortunate. Maybe problem is the same with Dishonored.
The character from the first game with the same powers and new upgrade paths.
Another playable character that has one similar ability and a slew of new abilities.
The game effectively gives you a choice in the character select screen of the same powers from the first game or new ones unique to the second.
Specifically referring to the top row of powers from Dishonored 1, the bottom row of Dishonored powers (stuff like increased health, faster running, etc) are the same for both characters.
I think it's gonna end up being my goty. I liked the first but I adore the second I probably wouldn't of bought this as I had zero hype but Amazon sent me a code and I haven't been able to put it down. Not really sure where the hate is coming from.
This is all true, but the game (and 2, so far for me anyway) also gives you a bunch of cool tools and a surprisingly fun combat system for a stealth game. It always felt strange that the series tried to get you to not use it. Dishonored 2 even literally warns you on the objective screen that high chaos will net you "a more cynical ending" which is one of the silliest tool tips I've ever seen in a video game.Originally Posted by Ordinaryundone
This is a big misunderstanding of the system Dishonored 1 was using, and one I see come up a lot. The game isn't judging you for murdering; you could kill all of the targets and still get the "good" ending. What it's measuring is Chaos, Dunwall's reaction to the power vacuum you are leaving in your wake. Corvo's revenge involves taking out most of the important movers and shakers in the city and a lot of the security and economic infrastructure that supported them. Outright murdering them and their subordinates creates a massive, violent power vacuum; a bad situation when the city is already stricken with a zombie plague and is on the verge of social upheaval. The non-death solutions are often ironic and worse than a simple death but, more importantly, most of them involve these people just.....disappearing. Either legitimately or not, they are removed from power with their systems intact, allowing them to still perform their functions without supporting the regime. That's why the question was framed as "High Chaos vs. Low" rather than morality, and why the "High Chaos" game isn't necessarily a bad ending. It just has you burning down a rotted and corrupted city rather than trying to preserve it.
Looking at the user scores and their performance complaints and Reading throught the NXGamer Thread analysis on PS4 . The game don't deserve that Score.Originally Posted by GinoFelino
Alright, so a lot of you are sleeping on Dishonored 2. Some new threads are popping up, but awareness of its quality (*cough* 91-92 Metacritic *cough*) is still pretty low overall.
[/I]
Performance of D1 is pretty good , even on my Laptop. Can't say about story aspects although.
My example of more of the same is the Neptunia series... that is the more of the same I dislike -> mostly same dungeon, same monster, identical BS,...
Battlefield 1 or CoD are less more of the same because have similar formula, but new story/levels/etc... well CoD with the new "futuristic" way is definitely something new, the old CoD were much more more of the same.
PES/FIFA are more of the same, the only reason they sell it's the update of the teams... (Never buy them day one, also this year will not buy them at all probably)
I actually can't wait to buy Dishonored 2, 'cause I platinumed the first for how much I loved that game. Only reason I'm not buying it right now it's i'm giving priority to other games I have, I don't care about what people may say about its more of the same formula... I actually would like more of Dishonored in that case... :)
Battlefield 1 or CoD are less more of the same because have similar formula, but new story/levels/etc... well CoD with the new "futuristic" way is definitely something new, the old CoD were much more more of the same.
PES/FIFA are more of the same, the only reason they sell it's the update of the teams... (Never buy them day one, also this year will not buy them at all probably)
I actually can't wait to buy Dishonored 2, 'cause I platinumed the first for how much I loved that game. Only reason I'm not buying it right now it's i'm giving priority to other games I have, I don't care about what people may say about its more of the same formula... I actually would like more of Dishonored in that case... :)
I have said the "more of the same" comment about the game, but that's not a problem for me. I was in it for day one but then the shitty PC performance came to light and I'm waiting for them to properly fix that. When I talk about the game looking like more of the same, I mean it as an observation why it necessarily garner a lot of hype. It is propably a great game but what comes across in the trailers looks like "more of the same" which isn't that great at garnering hype (except for the big yearly franchises).