Originally Posted by Gackt
Your complaints are just gamer entitlement bullshit. "THE OTHER GAMES HAD MORE THIS ONE SHOULD HAVE MORE TOO"
Those "entitlements" are definitely going to come into play with the next Xbox if the rumors are true that every game on the system is only playable on one system. Devs are going to have to step up in terms of quality for their games if they expect people to buy them, and people are going to expect more from the developers because of this. I know for certain that I won't be playing as many games on that system than the 360 based on this "rumor". The game better be pretty damn special for me to spend the $70 they are rumored to cost.
I've only played the demo of this game, and while I've played the other two, this one just seemed meh to me. Maybe it's because it's been so long since I've played an AoT game that I just wasn't used to it, or maybe it's because the demo didn't have some of the features of the full game. Reading what everyone else has said makes the game look more like a Doom or Quake (where the object is, surprise, kill everything then finish the level) than a faux-tactical co-op shooter like the previous two. I played the demo with a friend and it was like we were playing a Lego game split-screen; he was doing his thing and I was doing mine. No teamwork whatsoever. I expect a co-op game to have the players work together towards a mutual goal (like the two previous games and Gears as someone pointed out above). Sure you can get Aggro and have your teammate sneak around for stealth kills, but what else can they do together? If they're going to tout this as a co-op game, then make it a co-op game, not just two players on the screen at once. There's a difference, and it's a shame that developers are leaning more towards this type of "co-op".