Why do people always talk act like Sigma is bad compared to black? I have both titles, and saying that seems stupid.
Sure, Sigma added stuff that wasn't all that good, but it added a huge amount of improvements as well.
>better graphics
>more weapons
>new enemies
>new abilities (jumping and shooting with the bow, better water combat with spear gun, ect)
>more boss battles
>ability to heal in game without needing to pause and select items
>camera options
>more save points and shop statues which meant far less tedious backtracking
>some of the annoying puzzles and shitty underwater sections that mostly just involved backtracking were removed, smoother combat flow
>new areas within missions
Even subjective stuff, like Rachel missions, aren't actually bad, just not as good as the main game. Either way, it doesn't detract from the main experience, and can be done quickly if you're slightly competent at the game. As for all the comments that it's easier? Well, yeah, I guess, by like, 5%? It's still pretty fucking hard, and it's mostly just easier because they removed half the fucking annoying backtracking which wasn't any fun. 95% of the game is identical, and though some changes could be considered subjectively bad, there were a fuck-load of great changes. Sure, Black is harder because you couldn't choose how to control the camera, and had to backtrack every time you wanted to buy something. Great difficulty!
I don't understand many Yas Forums user's obsession with shitting on Sigma and acting like it's objectively worse than Black in every way. Are they just purists who hate anything different? I've read people here saying that Sigma is 10 times easier than black. Did they play both titles? I'm not denying that some changes did reduce difficulty, but these are mostly extremely minor, and were quality of life improvements.
I'm not trying to argue that Sigma is better, but as a way to play NG1, it's fine, and keeps the core gameplay experience intact.
Sigma 2, though...