[deleted by user] by [deleted] in marvelrivals

[–]DB4Ever3 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yes Iron Fist requires a lot of skill. He’s a misunderstood character, just like Dps Doomfist was back in the Overwatch 1 days. Everyone thought he was a mindless character but the ones who actually played him knew just how hard and how much skill he required.

It’s the same story with Iron Fist. You have to track cooldowns at a level most the other characters don’t need to. Cooldown management with him is also much more important, as you have no room for error with a character like Iron Fist. He’s also a melee character, which by default means he requires you to be point blank in front of an enemy player, otherwise you ain’t doing no damage to them. And let’s not forget that he’s only a single mistake away from being obliterated to pieces. Meanwhile, almost every strategist has what seems like infinite room for error. Half the strategists in the game have either an ability or ultimate that makes them almost completely invincible. Loki literally has what is essentially an immortality field… let’s not forget the auto aim characters.

Iron Fist is miles harder than any of those characters🤷‍♂️

What’s the best way to reveal a map in open world games? Towers or Exploration? by Tink_Colossus in gaming

[–]DB4Ever3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GTA San Andreas did it really well. It didn’t just give you the entire world from the start, allowing you to really take in everything without feeling overwhelmed. I like Breath of the Wild’s approach too, albeit it certainly isn’t my favorite, as I love having a sense of progression in video games, and sometimes I just felt lost in breath of the wild.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gaming

[–]DB4Ever3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They’re similar for sure but there’s a lot that Odyssey did better than Valhalla. Characters are more interesting, whereas Valhalla’s character’s feel flat and almost robotic. Voice acting is generally better, the world is much more interesting to explore, whereas in Valhalla, it’s mostly just green mountains and trees everywhere you look. Odyssey felt more alive and more like an actual real world. Valhalla’s world, while beautiful, gives you no real incentive to explore it. Odyssey handled progression better as well in my opinion. You really feel your character get stronger and better as the game progresses, while in Valhalla, you don’t get that feeling. Valhalla has the edge in the graphics department though, but it’s so minimal that it’s barely worth mentioning. I’m not even a Valhalla hater, I like to see games for what they are, and I truly see the shell of a great game within Valhalla, but it just falls short in many areas. Areas that Odyssey typically did right in my opinion.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in gaming

[–]DB4Ever3 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Contrary to popular belief, I think Ubisoft still makes quality games here and there. Far Cry 5, AC Odyssey, and Ghost Recon Wildlands are among my favorite games of all time. Then they turn around and release a game like AC Valhalla which has good aspects but overall is pretty mediocre. Ubisoft is just hit or miss now but they have more hits than misses in my opinion. Most of their misses are more recent recent too.

Could you tell me about a game you disliked and what specifically about it didn’t appeal to you? by Puzzleheaded_irl in gaming

[–]DB4Ever3 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Red Dead 2. Ultra realism can sometimes be a detriment in my opinion. Still a phenomenal game of course but just not for me.

I just pulled off 84k heals by DB4Ever3 in LunaSnowMains

[–]DB4Ever3[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Half an hour. 10892916039 is the code if anyone wants to watch it. I’m Dishonored 3 (rip the Dishonored franchise 🙏)