I disagree. What makes the gameplay loop better in BOTW? My biggest problem with Breath of the Wild was the lack of things to do and the lack of rewards. Immortal’s fixes this problem with tons of things to do and it has traditional rpg elements (skills and powers to buy/upgrade) so everything you do rewards you in some way. BOTW has very little of this, most side quests for example just get you rupees as the reward and the game has 900 korok seeds to find which are just a pointless collectible. The physics are better in BOTW but I didn’t like the shrine/vault and stamina system in either game so that didn’t bother me. I still think the Assassin’s Creed games have the best climbing system in any open world game. My main complaint with Immortals is the difficulty. I played on hard and it was still too easy.
Cheapy, do you play mostly solo’s in Warzone? I do mostly trio or quads and have always finished my battle pass. Also, what’s warzone like in the 120fps mode on the series X? I have an LG CX tv as well and was thinking of getting a series X mainly for that.
I have to agree that calling Immortals a poor man's BoTW is...wrong? Does it lack in polish compared to BoTW? Probably. But, as stated above, it fills in the blank where Zelda didn't I remember playing BoTW for hours at a time and then once done (2-3 hours) I would think, "wow, I really didn't get anything done". The combat IS better, because it's more fun and less stress with managing weapons. We can't praise BoTW for their weapon system as it was added as a means to artificially increase difficulty, it's not some genius game design, it's annoying. It's also the reason why Fenyx Rising leans on the easier side. After a certain point, you aren't afraid of any battle - personally, I'm fine with that, but breaking my weapons and making me search for more would not have made the game more "fun" or "difficult"...it would just be wasting time. The story took some time and I don't want to spoil anything but you do see a bit of character development between the two narrators as it progresses and that was fine. I'm not saying the story deserved any sort of award though.
Mostly, it felt nice to plot in for 30min or 5 hours and either way, I felt like I was making progress. I even maxed out all the stuff before finishing the game in a genre where I normally get halfway through and just rush to the end because you get tired of the same 3rd person combat after a while. I finished at 45hours btw, which is less than half of an Assassin's Creed game
There's a demo coming soon and if it's the same one that's on Stadia, it won't be a good representation. I truly thought I would dislike the game after the Stadia demo.
As far as feedback: You guys keep doing what you do and keep being yourselves. If I just wanted gaming news, I'd go to a gaming site and read that up. I love hearing about the kids, the purchases (cheapy got me to purchase a bidet on a random offshoot convo that wasn't even an ad - Tushy brand, hit them up for a sponsorship), the smarthome shit, the wives...all of it! This must be what it feels like for people who just scroll on social media feeds to see what their favorite celebrities are up to every day. The criticism about having one person man the chat is fine...but if you are going live, you kinda have to interact with those in the chat. I think it adds to the show when you have folks interact live. Also, they can be used as your unpaid producers for fact checking and filling in for names and such when you are drawing a blank. You'll get it figured out over time.