Ah fuck it, I know it’s against the meta here but I got it yesterday for 38€ and I actually really like it. Didn’t play the beta, didn’t see any videos beyond the initial trailer years ago and just got it because I like those kind of games.
Oddly it reminds me a lot of Freelancer, you sail, you fight, you trade, you humm to the shanties, you upgrade your gear and ship and sometimes you do all of that together with other players. I don’t care for the hand to hand combat or the land gameplay of Blackflag cause these were actually the things I liked the less, and to be honest I also would not need the land gameplay in Skull and Bones since the real character of the game is your ship.
If you’re fine with that and get it a decent price tag, it’s a really entertaining and fun game. For me after 6 hours of gameplay it would land somewhere between a 7 and an 8 out of 10 I think and I can really see myself playing for a longer time :)
I don’t expect it’d even be worth $20 to me, but I can sort of understand the online appeal. Sometimes having a relatively basic game happen in a shared open world, where people can choose to cooperate, adds some fun moments. The Division and Sea of Thieves would be examples of that. Watch Dogs 2 also had some very good times where you might be driving around, and without any “prompts” or loading, have a chance to join a midcity chase with/against another player.
Not that there’s anything wrong with other people romanticizing that era but I’ve always found it kind of a lame one. So if this wholly relies on that to get around it’s flaws then it’s more reason for it to be a pass for people like myself.
No, it doesn’t. But you stopped watching the video.
That said, it is a legitimate argument. Just like “it’s cool to be Spider-man” is a reason to pick up Insomniac’s recent games.
SkillUp argues that in a vacuum, and for a reduced price, Skull and Bones is a decently functional game. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum and Black Flag is better in (almost) every way.
No offense but maybe you didn’t pay close enough attention, since I got all of that but it relies on what I said for it to be true wholly.
This is my rough summary of what I watched yesterday, as I’m not going to go back and watch it again:
The video starts with him stating that objectively the game, in context of its development is a complete mess.
Then he stated that he found he was enjoying the 20 hours he spent with the game and asked himself why?
Then he stated factually that the game was fun because it is just flat out cool to be a pirate.
He described the things he thought were cool about being a pirate all of which I found to be lame.
Then he used those lame pirate things to justify the argument that in a vacuum the game isn’t bad.
He lost me at “it’s cool to be a pirate” which was the foundation of his argument that the game is OK.
Plus even if I had turned it off, that’s like most of the way into the video. So it’s kind of far to expect a person to watch something to get the “the game is fine, don’t pay much for it” result.
It’s a reasonable argument. Perhaps my initial comment was a bit mean.
What I find difficult is that it is a pirate game, very clearly. If you don’t enjoy the pirate theme, what were you expecting to get from a review like such?
Perhaps you’re a fan of naval combat. Which, fair.
Add comment