This is where our opinions diverge greatly and I apologise if my tone seems harsh but I believe in this strongly.īeing "completely different from before" or having a "new take" doesn't mean something is good. I know that Survive is not entirely like any of those games, but it seems to borrow ideas from them but executes them in a manner that doesn't seem as appealing or engrossing to me.Įven if the multiplayer mode is where the game's bread-and-butter and best aspects of the game lie, most games with mixed reception such as Survive tend to lose most of their online community very quickly and I feel that trying to convince people to buy it for the multiplayer when the single player component hasn't appealed to most critics will be an uphill battle that might already be lost.
It doesn't seem to have that visceral rush that a game like Left 4 Dead would give, the dread of running out of bullets that you get while playing an early Resident Evil or the fun variety of something like Fornite, despite sharing some similar elements (building). That does sound more interesting than everything I've seen thus far but I have to argue or ask if the things Survive does haven't been done before much better by other games.
0 kommentar(er)
