Post by: bustin98 on October 25, 2006, 07:15:22 PM
Its a little unerving to watch the video and all that you hear is a song. At least the words are appropriate. And I think it sets to differentiate from Halo where it had its own personalized theme. If GoW utilizes some pre-recorded soundtrack I think it will help establish itself in a 'real world', gives an anchor. Of course, I totally don't expect to be playing the game and this song comes on at some point. I'm sure its just for the commercial to make an impact. But still, you know what I'm saying.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 25, 2006, 07:52:04 PM
Post by: bustin98 on October 25, 2006, 08:16:55 PM
I must say though that I prefer seeing the commercial on my tv than my pc. No stuttering framerates and no commercial before the download.
Post by: Artimus on October 25, 2006, 08:35:09 PM
Not to mention Cliffy Q or whatever his name is is a totally self-absorbed prick.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 25, 2006, 11:37:28 PM
Post by: wandering on October 26, 2006, 12:14:33 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 26, 2006, 05:05:06 AM
You just can't turn a generic game that looks like football smashed into Aliens into something emotionally deep by throwing in a meaningful song. Or at least, the song needs to be something else - something like war or chaos. Or the trailer needs to show our bald space marine in a tender moment...they tried to do that, but since the character is designed to be a war machine, it just doesn't work. Then the guy starts shooting stuff up...I suppose you could say it's a Mad World, but not in a sad introspective way like the song suggests, rather a chaotic way.
Umm, I'm getting too involved in the misuse of the song, plus discussing emotions is making me all sentimental and it's depressing. Gears of War has a big "been there, done that" feeling, especially as a Microsoft title, but I imagine it could be fun for what it is - a macho killfest, not a film on the horrors of war.
Post by: Ceric on October 26, 2006, 01:01:07 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 26, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
it's about the horror of alien war game genre SATURATION
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 03:52:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
I don't know I thought it fit the feel pretty well. It might end up being about the horror of war more then you may think.
No way does that song fit what was going on there there was way too much action going on. If you want perfect placement of the song see Donnie Darko, one of the most moving and heartbreaking moments ever.
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 03:59:06 PM
The opening images of this video match the music better than the ending images. The grammar of the ending camera angles and cutting indicate that we are supposed to be getting "pumped up" whereas the music is in direct opposition to that.
What would work better is to see this main character chased or running around the town with a more languid, less frenetic camera. There can still be, indeed must be violence, but ending with him shooting up aliens doesn't show us that it's a "mad world." Showing this guy lost in the violence, trapped by it, or lost in the destroyed city would work far better.
The first erroneous shot is the one where our main guy seems to hear a noise. The camera rotates around his head, turns to face the noise, then zooms in. Sorry, no, that is a "holy crap enemy to kill" shot not a "this is so sad/bewildering/mad" shot. I bet this cinematic is in-game, and I bet at that point the music ramps up or we just hear the noise of the oncoming enemy.
The next portion is great. Showing our guy moving through streets lost and alone works on a simple and beautiful level. But when he suddenly encounters the enemy, he jumps into a building and the camera jumps with him! The presence of the Mad World music implies that we are observers of this man, we are supposed to judge the difficulty and ambiguity of his actions. We simply cannot do that if the camera instructs us to experience what he experiences! By hurtling the camera through the building, the video wants us to be dynamically involved, while the music itself wants us to be analytically detached.
The final portion that features an alien creature of gigantic size is also inappropriate. If they had let the main guy merely observe the giant creature, the music may have fit. Instead they chose to have him open fire, implying action and violence. This only makes sense with the music if what he is destroying is sympathetic, or if he dies. By fading out, we are supposed to be in awe of the giant creature while feeling what? The music is directly opposed to this final sequence.
I do really wish I had an XBOX 360 though. This game has always looked sweet.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 04:03:40 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 05:08:07 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 05:08:38 PM
Quote
Evan greatly dislikes Donnie Darko? BLASPHEMY, I no longer will take your opinion seriously :-P.
Yours likewise!
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 26, 2006, 05:17:57 PM
"This case looks insane. The greatest system case for the greatest system, covered with a photo of the greatest game. I will most definitely pick one of these up if they aren't sold out when I get to my local EB Games."
"no my friends, this will be put to use as the most hardcore lunchbox of all time. 6th period lunch, get ready to get owned by this box!!"
These guys are true champions.
Post by: IceCold on October 26, 2006, 05:35:38 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on October 26, 2006, 07:31:34 PM
I am also not a big fan of the ridiculous language, Hardorcore marines don't say Awesome! Cool, and Sweet! You also seem to be able to reach your arms above cover and shoot with perfect aim despite the fact that you character can't even see over the top. Does noone else not like that?
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 07:42:30 PM
Post by: wandering on October 26, 2006, 08:08:46 PM
Quote
I greatly dislike Donnie Darko as a film
I greatly dislike you.
But your analysis of the trailer is spot on. Though, even though I understand what's wrong with it, I'm still suprised it didn't work for me. I'm a huge sucker for good music. I suspect I would've hated that first Celda trailer just as much as everybody else, if it wasn't for the classic Zelda theme.
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 08:20:38 PM
Does a mature tough guy alien shoot-em-up really have to be disparaged by Nintendo fans to justify their lack of a similar game? Each person here will defend Zelda when it comes out; a good Zelda game is a good Zelda game no matter how many times it is repeated, just the same as a good shooter is a good shooter despite the excessive entries in the genre.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 08:28:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I'm surprised at the negative sentiment about this game. Gears of War looks aesthetically (shaky cam included) landmark, and gameplay wise unique and compelling. The environment/player interaction is a step up from what we've seen in the past, and the story seems pretty interesting as well.
Does a mature tough guy alien shoot-em-up really have to be disparaged by Nintendo fans to justify their lack of a similar game? Each person here will defend Zelda when it comes out; a good Zelda game is a good Zelda game no matter how many times it is repeated, just the same as a good shooter is a good shooter despite the excessive entries in the genre.
Each Zelda manages to be unique in its own way and they are few and far between. With Gears of War we are getting a billion similar games each year. But as you can probaly tell I want to play the game but I do fear it could get repetitive from the videos I've seen, it seems to basically boil down to a shoot them up with little in the way of depth (which Zelda also has).
Post by: Smoke39 on October 26, 2006, 08:33:37 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 26, 2006, 08:50:25 PM
This game has shaky cam, is more coverbased than twitch-based (and is sometimes described as having platform elements in this regard), has some very appealing mechanics like using the D-pad in an empty room to automatically orient the camera to points of interest, and really looks to catch a visceral experience.
Cliffy B., the game's maker and frontman, also looks like an Abercrombie & Fitch model, which of course never hurts.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Pryopizm on October 26, 2006, 08:51:12 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 09:11:08 PM
It's clearly the 360's biggest game this holiday season, but personally I'm not all that interested. I hate the $60 price tag on 360 games, plus I'm more interested in Viva Pinata anyway. Down the road when this game is around $30 I'll think about picking it up. Until then, I can wait.
Post by: wandering on October 26, 2006, 09:22:31 PM
Quote
good shooter
Oxymoron.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 10:09:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Yeah, there are a ton of third person shooters that play like Resident Evil 4. Crazy market saturation. You guys can skip it, I'll be enjoying the hell out of this game.
So it is a RE4 clone then?
Anyway from what I've seen of the game is nothing like RE4 from what I've seen, RE4 was more action oriented but not to the point of Gears of War which from I've seen is a shoot em up through and through. When we talk about market saturation we are talking about post apocalyptic games with little to differentiate them because of their setting, but I guess it could be considered a blessing that it is in a 3rd person view instead of first. Even though I will try the game out, it still doesn't look like anything more then a mainstream game that is "cool" because you can shoot lots of stuff, which may or may not get repetitive as you progress. Update:
I watched some of the newer IGN videos and color me even more unimpressed. If these gameplay videos are any indication this game could suffer from some repetitive level design. The formula for the levels so far are "Move in a linear path until you hit a fairly wide open area with conveniently placed cement barriers, shoot bad guys, rinse and repeat throughout the level". I think it is an insult to compare this to RE4 based upon those gameplay videos. Perhaps it gets better as the game chugs on (It will be at least fun for a bit) but those gameplay videos have not shown me anything that would make this game one of the greatest of year much less of all time like RE4.
Post by: vudu on October 27, 2006, 09:44:27 AM
I feel bad for everyone who got a Killzone logo tattoo before the game was released.
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 27, 2006, 09:57:30 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 11:01:26 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 27, 2006, 11:07:38 AM
Red Steel will feature tons of ducking and shooting as well.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 27, 2006, 12:51:09 PM
As for the trailer, the video actually looks just pretty good. I just don't feel the song fits with the image I've gotten of Gears of War so far. Perhaps the story will be about the horrors of war...but the gameplay has to reflect that, otherwise 80% of your audience is skipping over the lip-service cutscenes to get to the good stuff - like curb-stomping people's heads or chopping them up with chainsaws.
Post by: Strell on October 27, 2006, 12:52:35 PM
Namco upgraded the graphics in kill.switch!
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 27, 2006, 01:23:23 PM
From the looks of it, you have a nasty alien invasion which needs dispatching.
Post by: Kairon on October 27, 2006, 01:53:04 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 27, 2006, 02:26:09 PM
Not sure.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 03:07:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I can deal with ducking and shooting, so long as there's a sense of accomplishment from defeating foes.
Red Steel will feature tons of ducking and shooting as well.
At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War. Not to mention that Red Steel has variety from what I've seen.
Post by: Pryopizm on October 27, 2006, 05:46:20 PM
And H.A.M.M.E.R by Nintendo? Ugh, even more post-apocalyptic crap.
Post by: Kairon on October 27, 2006, 06:02:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War.
-"embedded reporter" Shaky Cam
-contextually adhering to and peeling off of cover
-curb stomping
-D-pad used for camera shortcuts in empty rooms to emphasize points of interest
-multiple paths through levels so the user can dynamically set their difficulty
-destructible cover
-a shooter based less on shooting or headshots, and more on intelligently moving around levels to take advantage of cover and to use your chainsaw
and that's all just from the E3 2006 demo I saw demonstrated at a workshop. There's also potentially:
-squad based gameplay introduced later in the game when appropriate, with either co-op or a.i. players
-after around 2 years of dev time, who knows what else?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 27, 2006, 07:17:44 PM
I'l give GoW a try and take it for what it is (which I'll know once I try it). It looked like it might be a decent game, but we'll just have to wait and see when it launches.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 07:24:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War.
-"embedded reporter" Shaky Cam
-contextually adhering to and peeling off of cover
-curb stomping
-D-pad used for camera shortcuts in empty rooms to emphasize points of interest
-multiple paths through levels so the user can dynamically set their difficulty
-destructible cover
-a shooter based less on shooting or headshots, and more on intelligently moving around levels to take advantage of cover and to use your chainsaw
and that's all just from the E3 2006 demo I saw demonstrated at a workshop. There's also potentially:
-squad based gameplay introduced later in the game when appropriate, with either co-op or a.i. players
-after around 2 years of dev time, who knows what else?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Wow, multiple paths to more open spaces with conveniently placed cement walls? I'm impressed. Taking cover? Never seen that before. Squad based gameplay? How INNOVATIVE. Curb stomping? Um ok. Shakey camera? Another sparkling feature, I'm impressed. Destructable cover? Haha. Two years in development? Yeah we know time in development equals greatness, like Superman 64. If those are seriously your examples of innovation in Gears of War, that is beyond sad and further cements my point that it could easily be generic and mindless (taking cover does not make this game deep from what I've seen), perhaps with some fun thrown in towards the beginning.
With all that said I'm still keeping it open as a purchase, but I do not see a special game, solid action game, yes, but I fear it could get super repetitive once you get past some of the control and level design features. I've seen much better on the PC in the way of action games.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 07:26:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Hmm. Sick of post-apocalyptic games, eh? How about those fantasy games? Those have been done to death! Damn Zelda, why can't they set it in Manhattan and make it a spy thriller or a western? Same thing with those damn strategy games. Old old old.
And H.A.M.M.E.R by Nintendo? Ugh, even more post-apocalyptic crap.
Please, if you don't see how over abused these realistic post-apocalyptic games are, there is no point in even discussing it with you (strategy games are overly abused too). Post-Apocalyptic games are the new mainstream game that a bunch of hormone driven teens and young adult boys can feel cool because they can shoot things while shutting off their brains.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 27, 2006, 07:44:48 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 07:50:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I think Pryo has a point, VG. How are the manifold games with fantasy settings any less of an "over abuse" than having a bunch of games with a post-apocalyptic setting? And setting does not imply gameplay. If guys get off on shooting things while shutting off their brains, they can do it while shooting in any setting. A post-apocalyptic setting could easily be utilized in a classic point-and-click adventure game.
The point is that most post-apocalyptic games are used for FPS or action games (one of the same sometimes?). It is getting harder and harder to differentiate them, heck give Resistance: Fall of Man a 3rd person view it may be hard to distinguish from Gears of War. With fantasy games (a genre that I feel is being under utilized lately, we've had Okami and um what?) you can do so much with the enviroments, but most of these post-apocalyptic games have little to no soul in their design so far (I dunno maybe it has more potential but right now I'm seeing more Halo wannabes).
Post by: Smoke39 on October 27, 2006, 08:00:53 PM
To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 08:06:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
To me, a lot of fantasy games aren't very differentiable. Most of them seem to be RPGs, with a medieval flair with generic elves and dwarves and dragons and the like, with the same basic spells that try to impress you with fancy particle effects.
To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.
Well I have to agree and correct myself, I guess when I think of fantasy or post apocalyptic I'm thinking of a particular genre. For fantasy I was thinking more in the way of Zelda esque action/RPG, for post apocalyptic I am thinking of FPS/action (which is basically the vast majority of what you see) trying to suck off Halo's popularity (one game I will never understand its popularity).
Post by: Pryopizm on October 27, 2006, 08:19:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
To me, a lot of fantasy games aren't very differentiable. Most of them seem to be RPGs, with a medieval flair with generic elves and dwarves and dragons and the like, with the same basic spells that try to impress you with fancy particle effects.
To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.
Well I have to agree and correct myself, I guess when I think of fantasy or post apocalyptic I'm thinking of a particular genre. For fantasy I was thinking more in the way of Zelda esque action/RPG, for post apocalyptic I am thinking of FPS/action (which is basically the vast majority of what you see) trying to suck off Halo's popularity (one game I will never understand its popularity).
Understanding Halo's popularity would require a modicum of understanding console FPS's first. If you think it's all mindless shooting, then your exposure has either been at a minimum or you've shut your eyes to the reality of the genre. Tactics, teamwork, and skill are a great part of the best FPS's. I'd love them if I didn't suck so badly at them. I'm looking forward to the Wii as a better way of playing them (I hope).
As for Gears of War sucking off of Halo's teat, you must've forgotten about Unreal. If Epic is ripping off of anyone, it's themselves. If you want to argue the art style, feel free, GoW has bland character artwork, however the visuals are amazing, and a fast paced shooter based off of RE4 style controls sounds brilliant to me and I look forward to the multiplayer that will be available on Live.
If you don't enjoy shooters, avoid them, but don't call them mindless. Mindless shooters (like Black) are quickly forgotten. I hate fighting games to death (and as such, I will never win Ty's heart) but I know that there's a vast amount of skill that goes into becoming a master of those games and that the best have immense depth.
Post by: bustin98 on October 27, 2006, 10:03:00 PM
That said, I love playing Halo2 online and agree with comments that its all about strategy, tactical thinking, and teamwork. And at times that serves as an escape from my reality.
I'm torn with Gears, I want to think it'll be awesome. But how many times have we been burned by the hype machine? (Black, anyone?) I want to hop down to the store and pluck down $60 as soon as its out, but I also want to wait and see what all the reviews report.
Back when the NES was king, I never knew when a game was supposed to be released, it was just out. Those were the days.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 10:05:40 PM
I'm still failing to see how Gears of War is like RE4 (mainly in reference to gameplay, I fail to see how potentially similar controls between games is promising. If that was the case every platformer since Mario 64 would have been great), they are two completely different games. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the similar aspects besides you shoot things in both games (Yes RE4 is more action oriented but it still has puzzle solving and other elements from the survival horror genre). Everything looks like mindless shooting such as the Halo games (which had some of the most pathetic single player story modes ever) with little in the way of planning (I am talking about single player) which is what I consider mindless. Does not mean it can't be fun but it doesn't appear to take many brains to get through it, just twitch firing at hordes of enemies with ducking built in. If the demo is any indication (I could be wrong about the final game) level design is poor, and AI does not appear to be much better (it seemed way to easy to "sneak" up on some enemies).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 10:11:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
VG, I would absolutely love to sit down and play some games with you. And I don't say that with any tone of sarcasm. I really think you have a particular point of view that would be killer to play with.
That said, I love playing Halo2 online and agree with comments that its all about strategy, tactical thinking, and teamwork. And at times that serves as an escape from my reality.
I'm torn with Gears, I want to think it'll be awesome. But how many times have we been burned by the hype machine? (Black, anyone?) I want to hop down to the store and pluck down $60 as soon as its out, but I also want to wait and see what all the reviews report.
Back when the NES was king, I never knew when a game was supposed to be released, it was just out. Those were the days.
I do want to be clear I am referring to the single player mode in Halo 1 and 2, not the multiplayer, I've never played either game online though I've seen others (I have done split screen, but strategy is out the window there!). All I can say is give me Battlefield 2 for tactics and teamwork (one of my favorite online games of all time). In regards to Gears, throughout all my complaints I still am open to the game but I do think there is huge potential for dissapointment.
My judgements are based off seeing the demo being played on IGN, and I worry big time that this could be an overrated game that may be solid, but nothing special (and also like Black, could get repetitive if the demo level design is ANY indication). If I didn't have sattelite internet (my only choice) I would be intrigued heavily by Gears of War's online mode, but as it stands I don't, so I'm having to judge based upon what I've gathered is the "meat' of the game which is the single player mode.
On a side note I am also concerned that Red Steel will also become repetitive and will be mindless shooting along with sword fighting. I'm just hoping the stated innovative uses of the Wiimote actually turn out decent.
Post by: IceCold on October 27, 2006, 10:29:31 PM
QuoteHmm.. were you at E3? I don't think I've read any of your impressions..
I've played everything from PD, PD0, Timesplitter series, Goldeneye, Halo 1 and 2, Red Steel along with others
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 10:35:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteHmm.. were you at E3? I don't think I've read any of your impressions..
I've played everything from PD, PD0, Timesplitter series, Goldeneye, Halo 1 and 2, Red Steel along with others
Oops a typo there! I meant another FPS, Red Faction which was the one where the developers bragged about how enviroments were fully destructable (I think it came out for PS2 first).
Post by: Kairon on October 27, 2006, 10:49:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Wow, multiple paths to more open spaces with conveniently placed cement walls? I'm impressed. Taking cover? Never seen that before. Squad based gameplay? How INNOVATIVE. Curb stomping? Um ok. Shakey camera? Another sparkling feature, I'm impressed. Destructable cover? Haha. Two years in development? Yeah we know time in development equals greatness, like Superman 64. If those are seriously your examples of innovation in Gears of War, that is beyond sad and further cements my point that it could easily be generic and mindless (taking cover does not make this game deep from what I've seen), perhaps with some fun thrown in towards the beginning.
With all that said I'm still keeping it open as a purchase, but I do not see a special game, solid action game, yes, but I fear it could get super repetitive once you get past some of the control and level design features. I've seen much better on the PC in the way of action games.
Those were my examples just from the demo level of E3 2006. And despite your belittling them, if they are executed correctly these features will be killer. After all, how many great features did Halo need? You can drive horribly controlling vehicles, play co-op and only carry two weapons! HOW WONDERFULLY INNOVATIVE! Boy, with a dud like that, I wonder how anyone could respect Gears of War.
And I don't understand how people worry about level design here. From the E3 2006 demo, Epic conveyed to me a good sense of narrative design to their levels. They also went on to say that vehicles and squad based mechanics would be features in the game, but ONLY later. Cliffy B. spoke of his belief that too many games through all their features at you at once, then never really used them. He intimated that as you play the game, eventually more features will be added. Somewhere down the line they'll give you vehicles, and that'll probably change the dynamic of how you're going to approach playing the game, and it'll change the way levels are designed and played. Then, when you rescue all four of your squadmates, you'll have a form of squad combat going on, and that too will probably change the way levels are designed and played through.
With the measured introduction of new gameplay features, and the tightly constructed E3 2006 demo level, I only see reason to be optomistic about GoW's level design.
Seriously, our own fanboyishly and subjectively unimpressed hang-ups aside, this game, viewed objectively, deserves to be anticipated, not derided.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 11:01:02 PM
That kind of stuff worries me because it could be a signal that GoW lacks depth and could be an overhyped game that will dissapoint many. I've been around far to long in gaming to start blindly anticipating a game like Gears of War that is obviously built around being "cool" trying to reach the GTA and Halo crowd. I could turn that fanboy argument around in that the average Xbox 360 owner are so anticipating a game to fill the Halo gap, that they will blindly leech onto Gears of War to get their "killing" kicks. Besides I am also leary of Epic's Current track record, besides the Unreal Tournament games they really haven't done much in recent years in regards to single player experiences (which makes me wonder even more if Gears of War will be best in multiplayer).
On a related note I found it interesting that this guy who I talk to from time to time in school, who is a huge Xbox 360 nut, openly stated that the reason he is excited for Gears of War is because there has been such a drought and it is better than nothing, though still remains optimistic. I tried to talk him into getting a Wii but he doesn't have the money, time, nor really any incentive (which is why I am super thankful I play games on all systems). Honestly though my anticipated Xbox 360 game has already came out, and that was Dead Rising (see I am not totally against mindless).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:13:40 AM
Positive Aspects:
-Controls look intuitive and solid so they could make for a more absorbing experience
-It is flat out gorgeous, and even better it runs at silky smooth framerate which will make my upcoming PS3 funded HD-TV a great deal
.-It looks like it can be alot of fun, how long that fun lasts, I don't know (for reasons I've stated). I'm hoping the demo is just there to give people a feel of the controls
-I do enjoy team based games with AI allies as long as they aren't stupid (I'm looking at you GRAW)
-The visual artistic style may not be unique but it seems to have a good atmosphere
-Vehicular combat could be a blast if done right
-The bosses look stunning
Some other minor concerns (I've mentioned the major ones):
-I'm afraid the shaky camera could get nauseating
-Story, dialogue, acting and cutscenes seem really blah, I am not only hoping things improve here. I really would like to see CoD2 esque storytelling where it is happening as you play
-Lack of enemy variety (I guess this a bigger concern, but this one I can easily give to the gameplay footage being from a demo)
-I dunno the chainsaw looks really out of place
Post by: Pryopizm on October 28, 2006, 04:47:23 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 28, 2006, 06:37:57 AM
And now the duds Black(the person who greenlighted the idea to it single player is a moron), Halo(I hate hate hate the shelf regeneration sheilds idea and the max 2 weapons trend it started) and the countless WW2 shooters yes including call of duty 2 and the upcomming 3. To me these are the generic run of the mill shooters that barely innovated anything or just had horrible ideas such as the vehicle controls in halo which is pure garbage or the IR SMART SHOOTER mentality of Black or how they keep doing the same damn theme, level design and weapon designs of WW2 shooters since have been coming out since the 90's.
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 28, 2006, 06:47:04 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on October 28, 2006, 07:38:46 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:23:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Chainsaws are never out of place. And don't play the age card, I'm 29. I've been gaming since the 2600 was hot stuff and recall eagerly anticipating (figuring out and beating) the wonderful E.T.
I didn't play the age card it was a question, hence the question mark and "Tough to tell" since you questioned how much experience I had in console FPSs. Please read what I say before you think I'm attacking you. So you anticipated ET ehhe? Well there is proof there that you have been wrong in your anticipation.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:33:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
It seems as if VG has been taking a beating on this thread so I have decided to step up and allow you guys to beat me around some too. I HATE Halo, and I will never see the great "innovation" that Halo brought to the table. The only part of Halo I truly have respect for is the vehicles which handled like a dream. I truly get the same vibe from Gears of War that I get from Halo. I have a feeling the single player might wind up boring me to tears and then we are just left with the multiplayer, which I couldn't give a rats ass about anyway. Gears of War might wind up being great, but I'll see if it stands up to the test of time before I drop almost 70 bucks on it. Everyone I know who owns a 360 is buying it so I'll just have to play it and see how it really turns out. Like I said earlier, Viva Pinata is coming out around the same day, as is Guitar Hero 2. My spending dollars have better things to buy.
I'm not sure about Viva, Rare worries me now days so I'll wait and see, as of now Gears of War is more on my interest list than Viva unless Rare proves they can come out with some great games again (which I hope they do because I want BK3 to be great). With that said Gears of War is in a similar situation with me as Viva is in some ways, in that I am not sure I trust the developer creating it. If you look at Epic's current trackrecord it is all in multiplayer games, specifically Unreal Tournament. Besides Unreal 1 (I'm not sure if they made Unreal 2 which was considered a mass dissapointment) have they even made any single player experiences after it? If that isn't a cause for concern I don't know what is! Heck it is the same fear I hold about Fall of Man for PS3, but at least that developer has experience in action/platformers.
P.S. I really want to try out guitar hero, but I'm not sure which system I want it on, PS2 which is coming out soon or Xbox 360 which is next year
Post by: Ceric on October 28, 2006, 12:43:44 PM
Post by: Pryopizm on October 28, 2006, 02:22:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Chainsaws are never out of place. And don't play the age card, I'm 29. I've been gaming since the 2600 was hot stuff and recall eagerly anticipating (figuring out and beating) the wonderful E.T.
I didn't play the age card it was a question, hence the question mark and "Tough to tell" since you questioned how much experience I had in console FPSs. Please read what I say before you think I'm attacking you. So you anticipated ET ehhe? Well there is proof there that you have been wrong in your anticipation.
Shoosh, I was also 5. Plus, I was too young to realize how awful the game was. However, I was awesome enough to beat it. So, there you go. I rule and am always right.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 03:11:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PryopizmQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Chainsaws are never out of place. And don't play the age card, I'm 29. I've been gaming since the 2600 was hot stuff and recall eagerly anticipating (figuring out and beating) the wonderful E.T.
I didn't play the age card it was a question, hence the question mark and "Tough to tell" since you questioned how much experience I had in console FPSs. Please read what I say before you think I'm attacking you. So you anticipated ET ehhe? Well there is proof there that you have been wrong in your anticipation.
Shoosh, I was also 5. Plus, I was too young to realize how awful the game was. However, I was awesome enough to beat it. So, there you go. I rule and am always right.
Well I have to give you props for finishing it, you must of been like the only person to ever complete it without your brain hemorrhaging or maybe it did, that is why you are so hyped for Gears of War. Hehe j/k
(OR AM I!)
Post by: Pryopizm on October 28, 2006, 04:34:39 PM
Post by: MaryJane on October 28, 2006, 04:46:51 PM
Although I do have to say the game itself does seem somewhat generic, I'm not too interested, I may rent it.
Edit: watched it again, i may have to buy it, i didn't notice the little spiders crawling under the big one, seems strange i know, but to me for some reason it says the difficulty is at a very nice level that I would love to test out.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 05:52:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Someone else may have said this I didn't look, but that song Mad World is awesome Donnie Darko is the shiznit. That song rules! I watched the trailer 4 times, the first two for the song the second two for the graphics. They are really really good, I'm not a graphics whore, but that blows the Wii 1st gen games back to the 64 days.
Although I do have to say the game itself does seem somewhat generic, I'm not too interested, I may rent it.
Edit: watched it again, i may have to buy it, i didn't notice the little spiders crawling under the big one, seems strange i know, but to me for some reason it says the difficulty is at a very nice level that I would love to test out.
This is a second generation game too, and has had more than enough time to polish the visuals which could easily contribute to the apparant graphical leap over Wii. I still would like to know how much downsizing it would take for the visuals to work on the Wii, because there are some gorgeous games out there for GC/Xbox generation as well that look better than most of the upcoming Wii games (splinter cell and RE4 being two). Not sure about judging a game's difficulty off the looks of enemies is a good strategy either, I've seen alot of games where the boss fights appear to be tough when looking at them but are in actuality quite easy (Kameo comes to mind). Personally if I get GoW I hope it isn't overly difficult because I don't have the time anymore.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 28, 2006, 06:29:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Not sure about judging a game's difficulty off the looks of enemies is a good strategy either, I've seen alot of games where the boss fights appear to be tough when looking at them but are in actuality quite easy (Kameo comes to mind).
Doom 3 final boss lol
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 07:25:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Not sure about judging a game's difficulty off the looks of enemies is a good strategy either, I've seen alot of games where the boss fights appear to be tough when looking at them but are in actuality quite easy (Kameo comes to mind).
Doom 3 final boss lol
Forgot about him, if you were to base a game off the boss's design that would definately be a good example of how wrong you can be!
Post by: IceCold on October 28, 2006, 07:31:45 PM
QuoteI wonder, do you guys like the cover song more than the original?
Someone else may have said this I didn't look, but that song Mad World is awesome Donnie Darko is the shiznit.
Post by: Pryopizm on October 28, 2006, 07:37:34 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 28, 2006, 11:09:40 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 29, 2006, 08:02:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution I'm not sure about Viva, Rare worries me now days so I'll wait and see, as of now Gears of War is more on my interest list than Viva unless Rare proves they can come out with some great games again (which I hope they do because I want BK3 to be great).
Just to give people a heads up, a friend of mine and I watched an episode of VP and the show was so absolutely awful that we couldn't watch any of the other episodes we had downloaded.
Basically, the makers of the show don't seem to understand that "child" doesn't equate "low standards". The show was pretty insulting to intelligence, even to young kids. If I had kids, I wouldn't let them watch it for fear it would turn them into vacuous idiots.
I don't know what that says about the potential of the game, but my guess would be this right now: it's going to bomb. I firmly believe that all of the competent Rare employees must have left after the buyout because I've played through PD0 and it was immensely unimpressive.
I don't have much hope for BK3. BK1 was still a much better game than BK2 and wasn't nearly the massive collectathon. With even more devs gone, I can't imagine BK3 being anything but a disappointment.
Also, the 360 isn't the right audience for most Rare games. Games like VP and BK3 would do well on a platform where mascots get sales, like the PS2 or GC, but they're going to do awful on the 360 because it's just NOT the right audience. The Xbox wasn't and quite a few mascots went there to die. Why would the 360 be any different?
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 30, 2006, 01:33:07 AM
As for Viva Pinata, I thought the gameplay sounded pretty interesting. I don't know too much about the show, but the game seems really weird and something new in general which I am always interested in trying. Not to mention, my fiancee REALLY wants the game, so it has kind of added to my excitement to get it.
Post by: Ceric on October 30, 2006, 03:55:08 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 30, 2006, 04:36:56 AM
I don't see what's so bad about it. It's no Spongebob Squarepants but kids aren't able to make that distinction anyway. When I was a kid I watched Transformers, Care Bears and the Bugs Bunny and Tweety Show - I enjoyed all of them - but in hindsight only one of them was any good. (Hint: It wasn't Transformers.) I will say that I wish they'd aim higher - it's not right to conclude "kids can't tell the difference anyway", but I have to admit, I sure couldn't when I was a kid. See: Super Mario Bros. Super Show.
On Viva Pinata the game:
Who knows? Rare has screwed up quite a few home console games lately but this is the first really unique idea it has pulled out of the bag since leaving Nintendo, and those are usually my favourites. I'm not holding my breath or anything. It also looks nothing like the show.
Post by: Artimus on October 30, 2006, 06:48:15 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on October 30, 2006, 09:45:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I think you make a good point smash. I hope Microsoft realizes Rare isn't producing and they let them out into the wild again. Perhaps if they are cut loose they will develop for whatever system they want without being a second party and maybe attract some new talent that can bring back life to their characters.
Rare is too much of a leech, though.
They need a large host to cling to and suck money out of because their games suffer from bloated development budgets and many, many delays. Rare, on its own, likely would not be able to survive. Would they have lived on the profits from PD0? Kameo? Grabbed by the Ghoulies?
Considering that these games consume an immense amount of money before they make it to market, I don't think Rare could survive off of them, especially considering that most if not all of the talent who made Rare great initially has left.
Post by: Pryopizm on October 30, 2006, 10:11:48 AM
Also, I redid the Gears of War trailer with more appropriate music and posted it on YouTube.
Post by: couchmonkey on October 30, 2006, 10:23:18 AM
I remember Beck saying that he prefers his videos to have nothing to do with the song. In your Gears of War Trailer, the song is totally inapproriate, yet it matches up pretty nicely with the action (gets to the chorus just as he smashes through the wall). I kind of liked it! For Mad World, it seemed too much like they actually expected me to take the lyrics as a serious complement to the unfolding action.
Blah blah blah, just call me Professor Stupid. Good parody.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 30, 2006, 10:26:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Also, I redid the Gears of War trailer with more appropriate music and posted it on YouTube.
Genius!
Post by: Ceric on October 30, 2006, 10:54:25 AM
Post by: bustin98 on October 30, 2006, 10:54:33 AM
It may go against the grain but I kinda prefer the original, too. This accoustic version has its own vibe, but so does the original and I guess I'm more in tune with that one.
Either way, neither version really goes with the events on the screen. I hope Roland and everyone else involved got a big fat check from M $.
And on the tiny offshoot going on about cartoons, anyone remember 'Gilligan's Planet'? Or the Duke's of Hazard 'toon? I'm lucky enough to have 'Mighty Orbots' taped. Its a trip to see all those old commercials. I'd love for Boomerang to do an 80's day or something and bring back all those wasted hours just to waste more hours.
Post by: Strell on October 30, 2006, 11:21:03 AM
It's prolly 'cuz the show can carry a pretty big emotional hit when it wants.
Post by: ThePerm on October 30, 2006, 01:27:19 PM
Post by: Pryopizm on October 30, 2006, 01:46:06 PM
Post by: Ceric on October 30, 2006, 03:05:41 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 04, 2006, 09:24:07 PM
Post by: Kairon on November 04, 2006, 09:43:08 PM
*ahem*
Innovative feature.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 04, 2006, 09:47:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Oh, i forgot all about active reload. In Gears of War, reloading is like a tiny minigame. There's an ideal timing to reloading and a second button press that has to be "clicked" at the right time after, a sort of visceral way to introduce a beat to the gameplay. When done right, you seem to be able to shoot sooner or faster or stronger or something.
*ahem*
Innovative feature.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Ok I'll give you that one. ;-)
Post by: Smoke39 on November 04, 2006, 10:25:37 PM
Post by: Sir_Stabbalot on November 05, 2006, 02:19:18 AM
Don't get me started on the Locusts. They're blatant copies of Orks.
Post by: Artimus on November 05, 2006, 06:52:08 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 05, 2006, 10:58:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
Just as long as this doesn't steal GOTY from Zelda, I'm fine with it. Though if it gets praised for its art direction I'll scream.
I really doubt that, from that 1up Show they pretty much said it was very good, but not necessarily great (especially the single player mode).
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 06, 2006, 05:14:58 PM
That trailer is here (I did not see the PSP at the beginning).
Post by: ShyGuy on November 06, 2006, 08:55:07 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 06, 2006, 10:26:51 PM
Post by: Renny on November 07, 2006, 05:54:06 AM
Post by: Artimus on November 07, 2006, 07:22:45 AM
Post by: bustin98 on November 07, 2006, 08:12:00 AM
While there is an abundance of similar games across various systems, this really fills a need on the 360 that Quake 4 was unable to fill. I'm looking forward to it. I wish I had the time to participate in the online matches this weekend.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 10:15:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
Gamespot certainly has nice things to say about it. Though it does seem to suffer from similar issues that other games in the genre have.
While there is an abundance of similar games across various systems, this really fills a need on the 360 that Quake 4 was unable to fill. I'm looking forward to it. I wish I had the time to participate in the online matches this weekend.
I've been reading the reviews, and honestly I haven't seen anything specific that tells me why the game is so good. I'll probaly get the game but so far I have seen nothing to make it stand out in single player (most of the reviews seem to talk more about co-op and multiplayer) except it is "cool". There is little mention of level design (at least from the IGN or Gamespot reviews) or how much variety it has (the only thing I seen apply to that is that enemy variety is "decent").
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 07, 2006, 11:20:55 AM
I've seen them call out the cover mechanic, the coop, the weapon design, the innovative reload mechanic. 1Up does specifically call out the level design as being top notch (they also gave it a 10/10(!))
I'm going to pick it up tonight if I can find it. I hate Gamestop, I'm convinced they order too few copies on purpose just so they can get all haughty about how I didn't preorder. Here's a hint GS: you not ordering enough copies of a game is your problem, not mine. I will just go elsewhere for a game. I'm so sick of being harassed about preorders - which I refuse to do - that I'm thinking about taking my business elsewhere for good.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 07, 2006, 11:38:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
You must be reading different review than me.
I've seen them call out the cover mechanic, the coop, the weapon design, the innovative reload mechanic. 1Up does specifically call out the level design as being top notch (they also gave it a 10/10(!))
I'm going to pick it up tonight if I can find it. I hate Gamestop, I'm convinced they order too few copies on purpose just so they can get all haughty about how I didn't preorder. Here's a hint GS: you not ordering enough copies of a game is your problem, not mine. I will just go elsewhere for a game. I'm so sick of being harassed about preorders - which I refuse to do - that I'm thinking about taking my business elsewhere for good.
Yeah that unfortunately happened to me today at Gamestop. I only preorder games if they come with a worthwhile bonus (the last two games I preordered was CV:PoR and LOZ:Wind Waker) and plus my favorite indy gamestore saved a copy for me which was nice of them since I go there a lot if I have time after school and they knew I wanted the game lol.
Post by: SixthAngel on November 07, 2006, 11:45:05 AM
I would like to know how effective fighting at a distance is. From everything I read the main focus on both multiplayer and singleplayer seems to be to get close in order to chainsaw the enemy. I suppose this is something I would learn from playing the game though.
I think the real test of how good it is will be whether it overtakes Halo 2 on xbox live (and how long it stays on top), which is still the most played game I think.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 02:14:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawk
You must be reading different review than me.
I've seen them call out the cover mechanic, the coop, the weapon design, the innovative reload mechanic. 1Up does specifically call out the level design as being top notch (they also gave it a 10/10(!))
I'm going to pick it up tonight if I can find it. I hate Gamestop, I'm convinced they order too few copies on purpose just so they can get all haughty about how I didn't preorder. Here's a hint GS: you not ordering enough copies of a game is your problem, not mine. I will just go elsewhere for a game. I'm so sick of being harassed about preorders - which I refuse to do - that I'm thinking about taking my business elsewhere for good.
I'm sorry but cover mechanics, weapon design (which seems quite basic) and reload do not make a game, so please don't use that argument if that is all that went into good games that is one thing. The impression I'm getting is that it is pretty mindless (albit fun) shooting of repetitive enemies. Level design nor really anything other than those few examples you used were brought out in gamespot and IGN reviews (the sources I trust the most, 1up.com seems overly into "cool" than what makes a great game). I'm still getting the feeling this game is getting the great reviews for its visuals more than anything, and I do NOT see it being a classic down the line especially its single player mode.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 07, 2006, 02:17:40 PM
Also people might be turned off since the multiplayer 4 on 4 and its strictly team based (well the matches I played) but the game is really really fun. I didn't get a chance to explore a lot of the multiplayer stuff due to school work being in the way so The shaky cam thing isn't realistic at all and I think it could of been nixed out since when its in shaky cam the camera zooms in as well and that could be a bad thing in a big fire fight but it doesn't bother me at all. I like this game because its a big breath of air in the FPS cramped X360 camp and the fact that it tries new ideas and most of them work is a good thing. I won't be surprised if this is 360's GOY and a contender of GOY for 2006.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 02:24:19 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 07, 2006, 04:16:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Ah good someone here who has it. So what is the single player level design and enemy variety like in the game? Do you see it getting repetitive? Oh how I wish I had an internet connection to try co-op or the online multiplayer, because then I can see the game being worth my money. But is a purchase justified for single player alone?
The single player has many different types of things to take cover under but expect the typical post appocolptic(sp?) landscape, the enemy variety is fair, you will see repetitions in design but atleast their AI is good and it ramps up fast in higher difficulties. The gameplay isnt just stand there out like a idiot or else your a gonner after 1 - 2 hails of bullets (depending on difficulty). I heard that the single player is 8 - 10 hours long but it ramps up in length when you put it up on higher difficulties since you will need to focus on shot percision while not getting shot yourself take for an example if your undersome cover and then hold the Left Trigger to aim in first person you become very prone to enemy fire so somewhere down the line you have to have a good reaction to aim while under cover or just to chance it with blindfire. It is a squad based game but your guys will only be unconscious so you have a chance to revive them so they can be back in action. There is one exception where some of your squad gets killed during some cutscenes and those squadmates are done for good
Even though you can die easily its very satisfying to try to rush in and try to melee kill or slice them up with the assault riffle equipped with a chainsaw. CO-OP is available via split screen, system link and Xbox live. The primary mode of online multiplayer is 4 COGS(humans) vs 4 Locusts kill the leader types of matches. I haven't got to try out the online co-op or explore any other online multiplayer options due to time constaints but the 4 vs 4 is very satisfying.
To answer your question about the single player think about it this way: A Resident Evil 4 thats more faster paced, cerebral and that you have to take advantage of taking cover to survive. I used Resident Evil 4 as a comparison due to similar aiming systems and context sensative actions and the typical weird creatures you get in both games. The only con is that the single player is short if you don't want to persue the harder difficulty modes (most of the achievement unlocks are on the harder difficulties anyways). But the single player you can replay no problem since the game to me feels like a fresh breath of air from *insert Xbox360 FPS* and the fact that the gameplay is satisfying draws me in of playing it if I didn't have any school assignments to finish up at home.
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 07, 2006, 05:09:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
I'm sorry but cover mechanics, weapon design (which seems quite basic) and reload do not make a game, so please don't use that argument if that is all that went into good games that is one thing. The impression I'm getting is that it is pretty mindless (albit fun) shooting of repetitive enemies. Level design nor really anything other than those few examples you used were brought out in gamespot and IGN reviews (the sources I trust the most, 1up.com seems overly into "cool" than what makes a great game). I'm still getting the feeling this game is getting the great reviews for its visuals more than anything, and I do NOT see it being a classic down the line especially its single player mode.
Um... ok... I'm not making an argument at all. You said the reviews you were reading weren't mentioning specifics - just how cool it was... so I pointed out a bunch of specifics that the reviews had mentioned.
I have zero vested interest in whether you buy the game or not, I just thought it was an unfair criticism of the reviews.
Post by: TrueNerd on November 07, 2006, 06:25:23 PM
However, it had a negative reprocussion too. The Berserker encounter was extremely reminiscent of RE4 and the tension that RE4 provided at all times. And that was definitely the biggest thing Gears is lacking: tension. I'm fighting these supposedly scary alien-types, and they just seem like regular dudes. Perhaps if I played on Hardcore, my mind would change, but that's my initial take on it. I'll be playing more tomorrow and hopefully I'll jump online.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 06:40:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: hudsonhawkQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
I'm sorry but cover mechanics, weapon design (which seems quite basic) and reload do not make a game, so please don't use that argument if that is all that went into good games that is one thing. The impression I'm getting is that it is pretty mindless (albit fun) shooting of repetitive enemies. Level design nor really anything other than those few examples you used were brought out in gamespot and IGN reviews (the sources I trust the most, 1up.com seems overly into "cool" than what makes a great game). I'm still getting the feeling this game is getting the great reviews for its visuals more than anything, and I do NOT see it being a classic down the line especially its single player mode.
Um... ok... I'm not making an argument at all. You said the reviews you were reading weren't mentioning specifics - just how cool it was... so I pointed out a bunch of specifics that the reviews had mentioned.
I have zero vested interest in whether you buy the game or not, I just thought it was an unfair criticism of the reviews.
My criticism of the reviews still stand because there is little in them in how the level design is, the variety the game has. Controls and "cool" or innovative things like a different take on reloading are all fine and dandy but that does not make a great game alone, yet that is what I'm mostly seeing in regards to the single player mode. If people think those things alone justify the scores the game is getting, then gaming really has went down the gutter. Anytime I see stuff like how neat something is, it leads me to believe that the "great" will wear off after the visuals or the novelty wear off, and it isn't cool anymore to cut people up with a chainsaw. Gaming depth has been something that has been lost, and I am not seeing much depth here.
P.S.
Thanks Lord for the imrpessions, those were much better than the shallow reviews on other sites.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 06:43:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: TrueNerd
I played this game for two hours tonight at my friend's house, and I liked it. We played campaign on the casual setting, and once you start getting the cover system down and what it can do, it's rather satisfying. The story is OMG awful, as is the dialogue, but the game is fun regardless. The last thing I did in the game before I went home was take on a Berserker, a creature that can only be killed by a certain kind of weapon. And that weapon could only work outside. We were inside. So we had to lure the Berserker outdoors and blast it. That was the coolest part of the game, easily.
However, it had a negative reprocussion too. The Berserker encounter was extremely reminiscent of RE4 and the tension that RE4 provided at all times. And that was definitely the biggest thing Gears is lacking: tension. I'm fighting these supposedly scary alien-types, and they just seem like regular dudes. Perhaps if I played on Hardcore, my mind would change, but that's my initial take on it. I'll be playing more tomorrow and hopefully I'll jump online.
I'm sure hearing alot of comparisons to RE4, from what I've seen of Gears of War it seems like a vastly different game, not to mention a different genre!
Post by: Kairon on November 07, 2006, 08:14:47 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 07, 2006, 09:47:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
VG, I think we should trust Lord_die_seis' judgement when he compares it to RE4 since he's actually played GoW. And... thinking about it... if RE4 had been more shooter-centric, then it might actually be similar to a rudimentary GoW...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
RE4 wasn't more shooter centric so thus it is a different genre, it was still a survival horror game even if it had more action than the previous incarnations. I dunno maybe I'll change my mind when I play it but the comparison between the two seems like comparing apples and oranges when it comes to their basic gameplay design (controls and the 3rd person view I'll give yah though). One comparison I did find interesting but I cannot say one way or another since I've never played it is that the game is very similar to Killswich, the one I confused for Gears of War!
BTW Kairon are you planning on getting the game, or do you just feel the need to argue with me
? I've said I'll probaly get the game so I think it is perfectly fair to put questions out there and try to dig deeper than what I"m seeing at the moment in the way of reviews, that includes the constant comparison to RE4 (which seems almost like a buzz statement or something). I don't care about the visuals, I don't care about how "cool" it is to cut enemies up with a chainsaw, I want to know if the game has any depth beyond learning to take cover. When I will be plunking down 60$ for a game where I'll only experience single player, I should be able to ask tough questions if I want! Some of these questions are, is there alot of strategy involved or is it pretty basic (for example can you strategize with your soldiers and plot out how to approach a battle)? Is there new and unique things to do as you progress, such as puzzles? What is the level variety like (I know it is all post apocalyptic but do levels have a distinct look or feel about them)? Do you feel attached to any of the characters? How is the music? Do you feel like you are apart of the squad, or are they pretty much bullet fodder that you use to distract the enemies? How are the boss fights, are they all similar or do they take thinking? Do you mainly fight enemies in wide open spaces with stuff to hide behind, or are there more enclosed areas in places like cooridors?
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 08, 2006, 08:12:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionQuote
Originally posted by: Kairon
VG, I think we should trust Lord_die_seis' judgement when he compares it to RE4 since he's actually played GoW. And... thinking about it... if RE4 had been more shooter-centric, then it might actually be similar to a rudimentary GoW...
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Some of these questions are, is there alot of strategy involved or is it pretty basic (for example can you strategize with your soldiers and plot out how to approach a battle)? Is there new and unique things to do as you progress, such as puzzles? What is the level variety like (I know it is all post apocalyptic but do levels have a distinct look or feel about them)? Do you feel attached to any of the characters? How is the music? Do you feel like you are apart of the squad, or are they pretty much bullet fodder that you use to distract the enemies? How are the boss fights, are they all similar or do they take thinking? Do you mainly fight enemies in wide open spaces with stuff to hide behind, or are there more enclosed areas in places like cooridors?
There is no stratergizing with your allies they pretty much do their own thing but they are smart enough to decide whether to throw gernades, go get melee kills, give you some cover fire which is helpful since some of that cover fire distracts a Locust on a gun turrent which gives you a big window of oppertunity to flank them on the left or right or find a small passage behind them and essentially kill the guy on the turrent, or let you know when an emergence hole opens since locusts keep comming out of emergence holes until to close with with a frag gernade. You will occasionally see them in trouble where you have to rush in and revive them. To answer your question whether you feel in the squad I can say yes because while you dont directly have control of them, they do support you a lot which is great since you don't have to baby sit them at all (except when you have to revive one guy from your squad).
The level variety is fair for the setting there are some corridors inside the occasional buildings but most of the action happens outside so your not really bound to a lot of confined places. Similar to RE4 the music in Gears sets the mood well since sometimes there is no music to make you feel that your squad is all alone and when the Locust invade or about to smash open a door to invade your squad then the music picks up to make you pumped up for a fight so I can confidently say that it sets the mood well.
The strategy in the game is mainly get cover, shift cover to cover and eventually learn when its better to blindfire rather than aim since aiming leaves you in a prone position. Also sometimes one of your squad lets you know to flank left or to flank right so that lets you know when to actually flank in to take the advantage of the situation. And as for puzzles they are dumb and simple such as press the big green button to open the door, or press the green button and run to the room before the door closes on you and last but not least shoot X circuit breakers to power down an electric lock.
Post by: TrueNerd on November 08, 2006, 10:02:52 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 08, 2006, 10:15:59 AM
In regards to length, 8-10hrs is fine for me as long as it is a FUN 8-10 hrs since I do not have much time anymore to beat games (and with the Wii around the corner I have even less time to play other games hehe). At the moment I've been playing Godfather (which I really like, not sure why it hasn't gotten better reviews), so Gears of War should be a good companion to it.
Post by: ThePerm on November 08, 2006, 10:52:52 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 08, 2006, 03:55:44 PM
.
Post by: Kairon on November 08, 2006, 05:05:59 PM
Can't wait!
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: bustin98 on November 09, 2006, 04:17:55 AM
And comparisons between this and RE4 are fair, though not spot on. Its different with GoW due to the fact you know you have teammates, while RE4 you're on your own. The whole takin' cover mechanic is another factor for being different. But controls are similar, story telling is similar and I think the art style is similar.
Post by: hudsonhawk on November 09, 2006, 04:33:59 AM
To me it's more of a cross between the later squad-based parts of Half-Life 2 and GRAW. I'm about as far as you and it seems pretty amazing so far. It's just so frantic and visceral.
Post by: TrueNerd on November 09, 2006, 11:01:27 AM
I still haven't played multiplayer. Hope to get to that soon.
Post by: Ceric on November 09, 2006, 11:04:20 AM
Post by: bustin98 on November 09, 2006, 05:06:45 PM
They are very different.
No relation, at all.
PN03's enemies follow a set pattern and really don't have much of an AI. And Vanessa's movements are rather limited.
GoW enemies run for the nearest cover while others try to gain your attention. And you pretty much have full freedom of movement.
Then there's the music.
And the environments.
Yeah. Pretty much nothing alike at all.
Post by: bustin98 on November 09, 2006, 05:09:06 PM
Gamertag is bustin98.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 09, 2006, 05:37:55 PM
Now the negatives, the level and enemy design is fairly repetitive and I wish there would have been more thought put into designing the battle areas so cover doesn't look so obvious with conveniently placed baracades. Your ally AI has something to be desired in certain situations (they are great for cover fire though) such as running into the dark (those that have played the game know what is bad about being out in the dark) or sometimes getting way to close the enemies and get in a position where I can't revive them. In addition to that on more than one occassion I will call for them to regroup and no one comes! One other area is that it is hard to find weapons to pick up, I know they want to keep things "real" by not highlighting weapons or ammo dropped, but one time I accidently traded a shotgun for my machine gun and I couldn't find my old gun!
Another thing is that regardless of how reloading was advertised it is not what I would call innovative, it is basically hit the button when the white bar is in the darkened area of the reload bar, is it fun to use? Yeah but I'm not sure I would call it as something extremely innovative. Also the game itself is pretty standard, it really does nothing new but like I said to start with its relatively polished and above all else FUN. Which brings me to yet another problem, the game is pretty much formulaic, move from area to area, shoot hordes of enemies, repeat (at least the emphasis on cover makes it relatively fresh) One final problem (at least of what I can think of) are the visuals, I think they are overrated, yeah the models look great but the levels are pretty constricting and textures repeat ALOT, not to mention that it does a poor job of boundaries in that you will run into invisible barriers at rubble piles or in areas that it look like you could jump over a wall (Or jump to a place!). The levels definately should have been more interactive and avoided having places that you know you could get to if the game was real life, but you can't in the game (I know in real life I could climb up a rubble hill!). I dunno maybe I'm just spoiled by PC visuals!
Overall like I said the game is definately a good game, that is one of the, if not the best action/shooter game out there. But I don't see myself wanting to play through the single player again along with the fact that I wouldn't consider it GotY material though based off the single player which doesn't have a heck of alot of depth and some of the flaws I mentioned.
So far I would give single player an 8/10.
Post by: ThePerm on November 09, 2006, 09:15:15 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 09, 2006, 09:24:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
anyone who played Winback played Gears of War as well? It looks similar. Actually its kinda weird, because iv alwayts wanted to create a cross of Doom and Winback, but taking place in a mall(b4 i saw dotd)
I wish I could help yah but only just remember the name Winback, and I'm not even sure what system it was on (N64?).
Post by: bustin98 on November 10, 2006, 06:20:12 AM
So I can't help either I guess.
Post by: ThePerm on November 10, 2006, 12:11:56 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on November 10, 2006, 08:45:13 PM
You mean they get eaten by a grue?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 10, 2006, 09:38:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
such as running into the dark (those that have played the game know what is bad about being out in the dark)
You mean they get eaten by a grue?
Well whatever those bat looking things are called. I swear my guy was dumb as rocks when it came to that, he did not hurry at all in the dark places and thus got killed (or stunned).
Post by: bustin98 on November 10, 2006, 10:05:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePerm
well it got 8.0 reviews...i liked(have) it lol!!
Well, what the hell did I read way back when? I bet it was one of those advance preview reviews. Gamespot's mentions camera issues while IGN says the game was delayed to fix the camera issues...
Ok, so maybe now I wish I had played it. Dang it.
I played GoW online for the first time tonight. The co-op is nice, being able to play with someone and have a full screen to look at. The multi-player is already full of people who just own in the matches. But its fun anway. So far no real jerks.
Post by: ThePerm on November 11, 2006, 08:46:05 AM
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 02, 2006, 09:54:39 PM
Maybe the Wii has just changed how I look at games, and now wasn't the proper time to play it, but I'm guessing the impression will stick with me regardless. Plus it seems the game was truly meant to be played on Xbox Live, which to me isn't worth what it costs, so the value of the game goes downhill even more for me there. Oh well, I didn't expect much anyway, so no big deal.
Post by: bustin98 on December 03, 2006, 05:27:26 AM
WRONG
Its the same thing. Same number of baddies, coming up at the same spots. They're just more difficult to kill and they have better aim. Just like any other game with these types of settings. This is one portion of the game I thought would be 'next-gen', but its just disappointing. It reminds me of Eternal Darkness. If you've been through it once, you've been through it 3 times.
Mr. Jack, I'd say the big draw for the game is the same for Halo 2, online multiplayer. Not that the online component is for everyone, its just why its sold so many.
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 03, 2006, 05:53:32 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
Mr. Jack, I'd say the big draw for the game is the same for Halo 2, online multiplayer. Not that the online component is for everyone, its just why its sold so many.
I was kind of afraid that was going to happen with this game. It's not that I don't like online multiplayer, quite the contrary, I just don't like having to pay to play my games online. I really don't like Halo, and between GoW and that, those are really the only 2 games worth playing on Xbox Live which kind of sucks. I think if Microsoft was to open the Gold doors to everyone we would see a much healthier online scene for Xbox Live, but as it is, I have no compelling reason to spend $50 a year on it. I'll probably pick this game up years down the line when it is in the bargain bin, presumably when GoW2 comes out.
Post by: Smoke39 on December 03, 2006, 08:46:44 AM
Post by: bustin98 on December 03, 2006, 09:16:42 AM
I just really feel there was a missed opportunity with the difficulty levels. Instead of doing the same old same old, it could have gotten more intense. Maybe the sequel could address it.
Post by: Smoke39 on December 03, 2006, 12:40:17 PM
I d'know when or why that method of difficulty levels started going out of style, but I agree it has the potential to make trying higher difficulty levels more interesting.
Post by: ShyGuy on April 17, 2007, 08:09:36 PM
When it comes down to it though, it's basically a WWII style shooter. Semi-stupid AI teammates running around yelling, Nazi/Monsters popping out from behind cover to take shots at you, and very linear gameplay with lots of ambient battle noise in the background to make it feel bigger. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that kind of game, but it's not exactly fresh.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 17, 2007, 08:24:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
So I finally got to try this game over at my cousin's place. It's very impressive visually (if you like brown w/bloom) and what it does, it does well. Add +1 to the score for having good coop play.
When it comes down to it though, it's basically a WWII style shooter. Semi-stupid AI teammates running around yelling, Nazi/Monsters popping out from behind cover to take shots at you, and very linear gameplay with lots of ambient battle noise in the background to make it feel bigger. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that kind of game, but it's not exactly fresh.
I think the funniest part is how your teammate will kill himself in that darkness stage (Those who have played the game know what I mean). It is like your teammates are ready and willing to kill themselves.
Post by: SixthAngel on April 17, 2007, 09:29:39 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on April 18, 2007, 12:17:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
I recently played it and thought it was pretty good, although waaaay overhyped. One of my biggest gripes was when I first started the game and even a little after I got into it I had trouble tellling the enemies from my teammates. Couldn't they have made these hulking monsters you fight look a little more different from the human characters, or at least made the human character not look like hulking monsters.
It wouldn't be next gen than!
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2007, 08:57:57 PM
