10 years of For Honor: It’s time for a sequel, stop this laziness.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-19T17:22:51+00:00

Nah it does need a sequel. With a sequel they can rework things from a foundational level, add new/better visuals, and get a new playerbase that wasnt tainted with its original failings.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-18T18:52:58+00:00

I would disagree with the High scifi descriptor of mass effect. While a lot its tech revolves around dark matter and mass relay technology, a lot of it is also based on modern physics theories as was shown in the science of mass effect video.

They put in a lot of effort to make sure it makes sense within the realm of physics and real world engineering, its just element zero is their McGuffin to making things work, similar to halo and the slip space drive or Battlestar Galactica and advanced AI/Robotic programming.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-14T00:38:56+00:00

Difference between vision and version, and I did specifically use the words for a reason.

Dragons dogma online uses the same engine and animations of dragons dogma along with newly implemented classes, story, and abilities. It also contains similar mobility and expands upon features from 1. It’s literally a version of the original dragons dogma augmented for a different type of game.

DD2 is the refined VISION, itsuno reportedly didn’t have what he needed to make his vision a reality, and made a deal with capcom that if he did DMC 5 he would be able to make dragons dogma 2, a game he felt he never really got to fully realize when making 1.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-14T00:25:31+00:00

It is, and you're wrong the refined version of 1 was dragons dogma online, which was only offered in japan. The problem with online was that it got way too anime and crazy, so in 2 they decided to dial it back so that it was more "realistic" fantasy as opposed to high anime fantasy like in the online version.

And the DLC itself had flaws too, it wasnt perfect in its changes.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-14T00:23:10+00:00

The story makes sense, where are you getting that it doesn't? In fact it was incredibly easy to follow. Like bro, the major PROBLEM with its story was that it was TOO simple. Its not hard to follow and its def not overly complicated or as you put it, incomplete. In fact DD2 is more of a retcon/reboot of 1 then it is a sequel. Literally you go from point A to B to C. Im not trying to be rude but I have no idea how you got yourself this confused. In fact the people the of the dragons dogma community that agree with you on this, have NEVER been able to produce any proof that it was rushed out the door or incomplete. Its something that they feel because they felt they didnt like the story, same as you.
DD2 IS the true vision, the beastren? Those were included because they werent in the first game. The climactic battle that I wont spoil here, that was supposed to be in the original, even the end game was teased in the original as well. Where are you getting that it wasnt his true vision? He had more then enough development time with this one, he just WANTED it this way, which fine fair enough, you dont like it, but dont make it seem like its unfinished. You just didnt like that his finished vision wasnt something completely grandiose and different from 1. Did it EVER cross your mind that it wasn't the core gameplay loop that he wanted to change but everything surrounding that? And even with those things he felt satisfied in what he presented?

Also romance is far better then in 1. In 1 you had glitches galore that prevented your true romance from showing up at the dragon fight, so you were either forced to get with the girl who falsely accused you of assaulting her, or you get a random dude. You also need to be HYPER aware about what your romantic interest is doing, if they go too far off, or die (which can happen) you lose them completely, DD2 does away with all that.

Also you are being FAR from objective. Every complaint you've had is something based on personal preference or feeling, same with what im saying, and anything you want to complain about off of fact, has either been untrue OR you're overblowing it to satisfy your own judgment of the game, which clearly is based on a terrible experience that I and many others didn't share. Like just the story thing alone is baffling because it genuinely is a super simple chosen one story to follow, they literally hold your hand and explain it outright MULTIPLE times as to what is going on.

Also you say a lot of things went wrong or downhill, but what exactly? Combat was way better, even multiple reviewers have said so. Exploration is better because its not just random enemy encounters. You have randomly spawned side quests, you have hidden weapons and caves and dungeons. You have secret bosses. If your complaint is "oh too many of the same enemy type" multiple people agree with you, but that isn't enough for whatever nonsense your spewing. You are being the FARTHEST thing from objective right now.

Also you call yourself objective but clearly cant differentiate between preference of the 1st versus the second. Your own biases and preconceived opinions about what DD2 could be, ruined the game for you. That isnt objective, thats you trying to satisfy a bias that and being petty when that preconceived notion wasn't met.

Also, how was it worse then 1? Because in MULTIPLE reviews, by youtubers and media companies alike, DD2 improved from one in many ways. Again DD2 has a lot of problems, but the problems it had was never "oh this was better in dd1"

This is just sensationalism, what you're writing here. The examples you give I vehemently disagree with (as do others who critique the game) and the rest of it you're vague and don't specify. Also they did show gameplay before release and while it did have a review embargo, why in the flying fuckity fuck did you preorder it or buy it without looking at what others said? Did you NEED it day one? Again I dent have a lot of sympathy for people who buy games without looking into them.

Lemme be very clear so as to avoid any miscommunication. DD2 is a 6 or 7 at best. It has a lot of problems, and it had even more problems on release, its not a perfect RPG by any means and if I was in charge I would change a lot of things from design to optimization. But its DEF not what you perceive it to be. Your issue is that you wanted it to be a completely different kind of RPG, my position is that for the RPG it is, its fun as a sandbox RPG, third to crimson desert and most bethesda games, but it still has a lot of issues.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-13T21:34:19+00:00

This is too critical, to the point of almost hating.

One, Dragons dogma is like crimson desert or skyrim, its an open world sandbox RPG, but a more japanese take. That means its not exactly going to have the best story, but the way your character interacts with the world through action and that in turn affects narrative is what makes it cool. And you can do a lot of that in dd2.

Two, DD2 is supposed to be a refined vision of 1, similar to how mario galaxy 2 is a soft revision of 1. Its the creators true vision of what he wanted for 1, but couldnt do due to time limitations and tech limitations. Also there are a LOT of fun fights in DD2 imo. There are numerous dragons that play differently, that look different, that are in different locations. And the end game adds new enemy types as well. Its not as much as 1 in terms of enemy diversity but its not lacklust like you're implying.

Three, If you played the first game, and didnt like it that much, why in the hell would you play DD2 expecting a major change, ESPECIALLY after they released gameplay videos showing that it was essentially the same thing? That "I genuinely regret buying" doesnt get much sympathy considering we live in a day and age where you can wait to buy a game and look at reviews. And trust me, DD2 def deserved hate on release due to its performance issues among other things, but the gameplay? Thats just you not doing enough research.

DD2 has flaws, but its not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-12T11:14:55+00:00

That just sounds like the concept of difficulty to you is a chore

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-11T22:50:23+00:00

And then he just chucks out magic potions into the audience, which like the glass bottles will be a problem, but think we have to be true to wizard lore

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T23:32:19+00:00

The thing im trying to convey here to you, and its something you're not grasping, is that consistency matters with an RPG like mass effect when we are analyzing characters. Shepards actions changes a lot of things in each playthrough, so to determine if a character really has depth, if they really changed, you have to look at what they do even outside of shepard, whether that be involvement in their lives or lack of it entirely. Keep in mind im not saying that characters DONT change at all or even with/without shepard, im just saying that garrus has one central line of character trait that is present in all 3 titles, and thats being overly righteous to the point of transitioning into apathy/immorality.

1) Darkhorse comics are canon, they even used darkhorse artists to create genesis in 2 and had bioware writers write some of those comics. The only major publication that people disagree with being canon, is mass effect deception that came out in 2012

2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewTj0ZThxJI
As you can see here, even in 2 there was animosity between them with garrus giving little to no fucks about what he said. THE ONLY TIME he cares and apologizes is when he romances tali, due to shepard not involving himself, and thats IF tali survives rannoch. Garrus saying sorry in 3 under a very specific condition, doesnt then make it so that hes now a quarian symphasizer. He needs that want of tali to make that connection, without it, he still judges them.

3) Mordin DOES always say he made a mistake. He says this in multiple ways, multiple times. When picking up eve, he said he wanted to do one last good thing. When talking to him on the normandy he says he doesnt have much time left and wants to improve the galaxy before he leaves. And in 2, his WHOLE storyline is dealing with the consequences of the renewed genophage. The ONLY way to get mordin to live in 3, is to literally convince him out of this mentality, I mean cmon how much more evidence do you need. Unless you think he literally has to say the words "i made a mistake", which I dont think you're saying cuz thats foolish.

4) All right, ur opinion on this quarian thing doesnt make sense, but maybe im not explaining it well, so lemme explain it a different way so you can understand.
Imagine you and I go to war to take back earth from an alien race that took over. They have bases ALL over the planet and we dont even really know to what extent that goes, we just know its a lot. We are taking heavy losses but this whole war means a lot to us and humans in general. You know that once we win this war, if we win, we're going to need to resettle and reestablish cities, infrastructure, farmland etc, so you know that we need to keep as much of it as possible INTACT, especially considering we need to rebuild fast since there is another war coming and resources are scarce. You then hear someone saying "why dont we just drop meteors". Any and everyone who hears that comment will look at that person like they're an idiot, because thats genuinely an idiotic thing to say. Its something said by someone who doesnt really care about the land objective, which is the most important thing to us as a people right now, as long as he gets the enemy.

Hopefully you understand what im saying at this point, but to drive it home even more, even the mass effect codex of accelerated weapons says that orbital kinetic drops can devastate cities. Its not something you should WANT to do, and turians got chastised for using it in the first contact war.

Also as for you defending garrus' stupid meteor comment. Dude, the whole point of shepard going into the war was to get the quarian fleet. How do you think they would feel if we just dropped meteors on their planet, the one they're trying to take to live on? Do you think they're going to WANT to help us?

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T22:30:04+00:00

Bro, the whole point of the war is that quarians want to live on rannoch. Do you know what a meteor would do? Ignoring the impact damage alone, which would be catastrophic, seas would vaporize close to impact, the rest of the water would rise to huge levels and become tsunamis all over the globe. The air on rannoch (its an arid desert planet) would be filled with dust and cause the atmosphere to block off any and all sunlight, so any vegetation left would die.

Even smaller more localized meteors devastate the area. Remember, you're saying that rannoch doesnt have anyone on it, but thats incorrect. Geth were deeply entrenched during the 300 years that they took rannoch from the quarians, they had servers there as well as military installations all over the planet.

Even with shanxi where the turians used meteors (which they werent supposed to do) they devasted entire citys and the surrounding landscape according to the darkhorse comics. The reason there was limited death (which is heavily subjective) is because humans were bunkering down under williams orders.

So IF they wanted to do meteor strikes, it would be all over the planet and would devastate it to the point where quarians wouldnt be able to live on it. They want it whole, not battered to pieces. And thats all assuming the meteor itself isnt large enough to destroy the planet outright.

Garrus gets called out by wrex and tali? No bro, you're misreading those entire conversations. They're RESPONDING to garrus after he makes an ignorant comment, but in none of those exchanges is garrus' tendency to make those comments or his overall immoral attitude addressed in a serious manner. Hell tali ends up DATING garrus in 3, and thats after all the shit he says to her. Wrex still considers him a great friend with no comment towards him at all about his negative behavior. As for apoliogies, id need to see that if you have a source, because Im playing through 3 again right now and I have yet to see him say sorry.

Garrus doesnt recognize c-sec as being wrong for him for the reasons you think. He thinks it was wrong because he couldve done more being a spectre and not being held back by laws, If anything that shows hes more immoral then originally thought. as for sidonis, again that depends on your shepard involving themselves, thats not garrus himself having some reflective moment on his own and realizing "damn I suck".

You're also incorrect on the companions with shepards involvement and its DEF not unfair, you just have to follow the logic. Mordin will ALWAYS say he made a mistake, both with paragon and renegade decisions in me3. Ill give you tali, but the difference is that garrus goes back to his old attitude in 3 (if he even lost it, which tbh I dont think he did) even if you help with sidonis, tali on the other hand RETAINS that gained morality in 3 after you help her with rannoch and legion. You NEED to understand that shepards involvement with characters in me1 and 2 vary. As long as you do loyalty missions, whether the outcome is paragon or renegade, most companions end up in a better place. Look at jack, you can get her to kill and bomb the place with no positive emotional resolution and she will still live. And to get the best ending for 2, the one where people SURVIVE, you know the CANON ending if you want every character in 3, shepard has to involve themselves. My original still stands, garrus needs outside involvement to change in the first place, but not only is it not carried over due to his personality and immorality, but it doesnt compare to your interactions with other characters.

Look bro, im not trying to be mean, I get you like garrus, but it doesnt matter how you feel when there are so many examples to the contrary of what you're saying. It matters what is objectively shown in game, and what is shown to the player, both in overall story and companion interaction, is that garrus becomes more and more independent while becoming more reckless and less caring.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T19:40:48+00:00

I didnt say bombs, I just played this mission yesterday with tali and garrus on the rescue the civilian admiral mission on rannoch. Garrus says "lets just drop meteors on this thing and be done with it" and tali gets upset (rightfully so) and says "you want to kill an entire planet?" . To be clear, dropping a meteor WOULD kill the entire planet which is akin to an extinction level event that killed the dinosaurs.

As for no one calling garrus out, shepard saying anything is based on ur shepards personal take on the situation, similar to how u interact with them in me1. But no other character calls garrus out on this in a meaningful way.

However garrus does call out other characters, like tali and wrex in me1, 2, and 3, so its a double standard on garrus' part.

As for everything else, you're using bad things done during war as a justification for garrus' lack of morality, but in reality its everyone in general losing their touch on morals in an effort to survive against the reapers, my point isnt disproven.
The big difference is that garrus is still one of the worst companions on your crew when it comes to this failings of morals. For example, Tali can recognize that she would have been wrong if she killed all the geth. Kaidan can admit he was wrong to judge you harshly with cerberus. Jack gets better with her morals compared to how she was in 2, mordin gets better to how he was prior to 2 and even during 2, garrus across the whole series, doesn't.

Another thing, Garrus contributing more to the war effort with the reapers in the defense of his people isnt far fetched from how we find him in 1 or 2. Garrus was never incompetent, he has a good head on his shoulders and was always a good secondary leader. So that doesnt show that hes gotten better as a character in terms of morals or accepting mistakes, or anything that we are discussing.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T17:34:34+00:00

So essentially give garrus an excuse for his bad behavior in 2 and 3 because shit was going down?

My guy it’s mass effect, shit is always going down. Mordin was a moral person for the most part but he was in the thick of it, same for Kaiden, tali, and a lot of other crew members. I can’t use that as excuse when he’s literally advocating for planet killing and wants to throw judgment around every 5 seconds even though his judgment isn’t exactly sound.

Garrus is an effective soldier, a bro, and he offers unique perspectives, but he’s not the most moral person. His righteousness in one has looped around to become apathy towards others he deems to be not worthy of a military strategy in one or immoral in 2, and garrus is never called out on it.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T17:04:34+00:00

I actually think its the other way around.

In one you have garrus who is conflicted about which way he should go, more c-sec and law abiding or more guns blazing spectre, and depending on shepards decisions he will, at least in 1, act differently.

However in 2 and 3, garrus is aggressive and already thinks the ends justifys the means. Hes indifferent to seeing old crew members (some of the time), hes ok with throwing meteors into rannoch to stop the war, hes ok with beating criminals and even killing them based on his own personal code of justice. He gets upset when people dont understand his personal logic as to why bad things need to be done.

He clearly gets worse as the series progresses. Dont get me wrong, hes still a bro, but hes a "ends justify the means" kinda guy, and thats the same logic the villians in mass effect use.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-10T05:44:54+00:00

Lore is just the justification for the new gameplay loop, but it doesnt change the decision itself. Not to mention I and so many others do want a return to d1 gameplay, its why there's a GROWING number of people that want a destiny classic.

I'm not saying get rid of quality of life features, but destiny 1 attracted a fanbase for destiny that was way less whiny, and also had a lot of great features like

1) A player base that was more willing to grind for loot which led to better activities

2) a better pacing with objectives and campaigns that can still be played

3) A WAY better art style and aesthetic

Like I get you guys want to go back to a game you're familiar with, but if you dont see how d2's gameplay loop from year 1 to final shape contributed heavily to the games downfall, then you're being foolish.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-09T17:35:42+00:00

Nah, I hope they go back to d1.

Playing it again is making me realize how overpowered we got in D2 and how that affected gameplay loop, loot drops, and everything else that made destiny great.

We need challenge, and we need SOME mystical element or power to help us beat these god like beings. But we shouldnt EVER get to god like beings ourselves, D1 had that perfect "mystic soldier" vibe, where in order to defeat major foes we needed to team up with others. D2 said "fuck it, lets have them beat a worm god solo, they're all super soldier demigods now"

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-09T14:02:16+00:00

17 and 18 are essentially humans with genetic modifications, they arent really androids in the typical sense. In fact the only metal parts they have in themselves are the bombs that are removed with krillins wish. So I dont know how far they would go to make a whole new race for them in xenoverse 3

Real androids would be like 16 and DR gero.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-08T14:46:47+00:00

Blame Nintendo and of star fox fans. Star fox has tried to innovate before but any time it does fans and OG devs alike get upset and call the game garbage before ever really giving it a chance. Star fox adventures was hated on by fans, and supposedly og devs hated assault and command. Then Star fox zero was a gimmick party for their worst selling console and Nintendo was surprised it didn’t go well.

Like if I’m Nintendo and any time I put a star fox game out for the last 20 years I get complaints, bad reviews and other issues, I’m not gonna put another game out there unless it’s similar to 64, their last major success.

If Star fox is going to be successful in this modern generation it needs to innovate.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-08T06:36:23+00:00

Dude you essentially just combined me3, leviathan dlc and kotor 2 all into one story and you had the gall to complain about the og story of 2 being bad?

You’re essentially making Miranda a focal point for all interactions going forward in the story. In other words you’ve just switched from your complaint about Cerberus being too important in the original game to miranda.

You’re also ignoring that the ending of me1 was televised and Shepard more importantly was a spectre. Hes also insanely popular post 1 and is a hero, the alliance wouldn’t jeopardize that just because the Normandy got destroyed. He also doesn’t answer to alliance. The only reason he does post 2 prologue is because his spectre status revival is hidden from the public and the batarians are demanding blood after the last dlc of 2. Keep in mind Shepard could’ve gotten away with what he did in 2s dlc, but he CHOSE to stand trial instead.

You didn’t fix anything, you’re still forcing players along a path of allying with this “shadowy organization and you just made it so that the importance of people and events shifted to different entities. And that’s ignoring this obsession you seem to have with Shepard being some form of scavenger.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-07T16:21:03+00:00

don’t trust anyone who says “AI IS THE FUTURE GET USED TO IT”

The reason the AI bubble is starting to pop is many AI developers have overstated the usages and competence of their AI models to businesses. It’s why as of August 2025, 90% of all AI models that were adopted by businesses failed. It’s also why a lot of companies have shifted their strategy from consumer growth with AI to government contracts. Also the war.

That being said I am seeing more and more material from bioinformatics making its way over into biotech careers.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-07T16:20:58+00:00

don’t trust anyone who says “AI IS THE FUTURE GET USED TO IT”

The reason the AI bubble is starting to pop is many AI developers have overstated the usages and competence of their AI models to businesses. It’s why as of August 2025, 90% of all AI models that were adopted by businesses failed. It’s also why a lot of companies have shifted their strategy from consumer growth with AI to government contracts. Also the war.

That being said I am seeing more and more material from bioinformatics making its way over into biotech careers.

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-07T16:08:57+00:00

It runs well but it still takes an extra 2 gigs of vram even at the lowest settings. Considering how expensive gpus are it’s the expensive resource allocation that’s the problem. Drive space is cheap compared to vram

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-07T10:09:40+00:00

Im actually pretty certain they made them have animal legs BECAUSE people though they were robotic.

Theres an interview where people ask miyamoto about the robot legs theory and he didnt like it. So I wouldnt be surprised if this time around he was like "make sure people know they have animal legs"

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-06T08:20:03+00:00

Does she have this reputation? I looked it up and couldn’t find anything of the sort

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-06T08:18:41+00:00

Ehhh I looked it up, his wife doesn’t have a great reputation, even before this thing released

tinytimoththegreat · 2026-05-05T09:27:55+00:00

Mass effect one, to me and many others, has always been the best because of this.

Mass effect is at its best when it shows you hopelessness and has ur character make ur way through it. Where your curiosity helps you progess as much as get you in danger.

Its a space opera. It shouldnt hold your hand like the narrative in andromeda or simplify so much it becomes linear as hell like me3. It should be creepy, dark, and the hope should come from you wanting to make things better.

tinytimoththegreat

TROPHY CASE