City looks like it was produced by Hasbro. Story is breath-takingly <i>retarded.</i> Gameplay is incredibly shallow. Replayability is nill.
The entire game rides on a gimmick. It's gonna suck, and it's gonna suck the kind of suck that Assassin's Creed sucks, as in, you'll LOOOOOVE it for a week, and then it'll just hit you, that this game sucks very hard.
Generally I'm just sick of the insane amount of hype surrounding this game which in reality is immensely underwhelming.
Immense hype? All I've seen is people ######ing about how the main character looks or how ugly the enemies are. Also "ACROBATICS IN FIRST PERSON? THAT WILL NEVER WORK"
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited July 2008
2 things:
#1, that isn't the E3 2008 trailer, that was released months ago. The 'trailer' at E3 was a gameplay demo.
#2: Comon guys, judging graphics by a Youtube clip? Since when was that even a half-ass good idea?
The graphics when you see the trailer at a decent resolution, are pretty amazing. All the tricks are there, with high textures and good modeling to boot, and all at a great framerate.
As towards Haze's comments: Wow, chug that haterade. I like how you say the story is 'breath-takingly retarded', when all that has been revealed of the story is that the main character, Faith, is a runner. The world she lives in is like a happy kind of Orwellian, where things really do work well a vast majority of the time and you can do generally what you like, just that you can't do anything with any privacy, mostly. Hence her job as a runner- the one way to make sure data is kept out of prying eyes is by courier by hand, as everything through any other way is monitored.
As towards the look of the city- I like it. Its a refreshingly bright take on things, and frankly, its the most different looking game out of any others I've seen in the past year, including many of the Pixeljunk games.
Gameplay is incredibly shallow? I like how you know this without actually playing the game. Incredible. Oh, and don't mind the few hundred previewers who all seem to disagree with you, saying the system, where the controls are simplified but their use is complex, not only works brilliantly, but has dozens of things you'll figure out after awhile- such as wall jumps, differences in the way one climbs a really tall fence, and all kinds of different dives/rolls/hops and mix thereof that people found at E3.
And as towards Replayability- I doubt that. I look at it like Shadow of the Colossus- I'm going to go through the first time, enjoy the game and story together as they were meant to be done. Then, redo it all dozens of times in time trial modes, constantly moving to go faster and faster, doing my best to perfect my run throughout.
And as towards it riding on a gimmick- I find it funny that you call it a gimmick, considering how many games are taking pages out of parkour and applying it, as well as movies- really, it may be seen soon enough as a standard in the action genre, similar to knowing kung fu or going akimbo.
Honestly here, I'm not some fanboy on this(DICE hasn't exactly been one of my favorite companies the past few years), but where that trailer made me wonder if it was really being played, after seeing the gameplay videos from actual players on the show floor, I couldn't help but just be amazed. And considering just how many publications all seem to talk about how fresh and new it feels, even as it is being released later this year(many many many publications were noting Assassin's Creed's problems about this time because of its release date), with how polished it looks across the board(well, except for the badly modeled weapons- which they actively discourage you from using).
I'd say its earned its hype. Good gameplay + Interesting art style + Someone admitting to taking story pages from Serenity + Tons of polish = AAA title in the making.
Holy cow this is the first place I've seen anything except people going nuts over how awesome it is.
That said I don't understand the hostility at all (maybe because it's a months-old trailer on YouTube instead of the new stuff). This looks like an absolutely spectacular game and I'm really excited about it.
It looks refreshing to have a game where a big bunch of enemies is something you should run from instead of pulling out a chain gun and mowing them down =P
I'm really quite jaded by FPS games these days but this reminds me of the rush I got from the start of HL2 when you're getting chased up through the building with no weapons by the combine. More of that please =D
<!--quoteo(post=1684077:date=Jul 20 2008, 09:20 AM:name=Geminosity)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Geminosity @ Jul 20 2008, 09:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684077"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It looks refreshing to have a game where a big bunch of enemies is something you should run from instead of pulling out a chain gun and mowing them down =P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
^ This.
I'm beginning to get a little tired of the word "gimmicky" in the context of video games, especially when used to describe a game which is actually being innovative instead of rehashing the same old tripe. The bottom line though; the difference between a gimmick and an innovation is in the eye of the beholder. If you like it, its an innovation. If you don't like it, its a gimmick.
I'm reserving judgement until i've actually seen the game in action beyond a few trailers, however cool and sexy it might make me to just hate on it for no reason. If I must say something negative, it'd be that the main character's tattoo/makeup thing under her eye looks silly.
[edit]
<a href="http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36249.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> is the actual E3 2008 trailer, in better-than-youtube quality.
Eh. I liked Assassin's Creed. Sure, it didn't have tons of replayability, but it was big fun while it lasted. If this game turns out the same way, I won't be angry.
I have to say that I really didn't like Assassin's Creed sadly =/
Most people I know say they at least enjoyed it for 5 minutes or something but I didn't even get that. No idea why though.
I love exploring and agility and yet for some reason Assassin's Creed just didn't grab me. While I was able to scale around the cities easily I didn't really feel like there was a purpose or anything I'd discover that interested me. That might be down to the setting though? It's defnitely not my cup of tea either way =3
Even after the E3 video, which looked a bit better, I remain unimpressed. The idea is nifty I guess, but there is something missing and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's that a game based around free-running will rely almost ENTIRELY on it's level design, and level design is a weak-point for most for most video-game companies. Not to mention their setting (utopian society iirc) doesn't leave all that much space for creativity. I mean, really; it's going to be hard to make an environment that is engaging when the art-style requires that everything looks clean and non-unique(and the trailers only reinforced this). I won't condemn the game until I've actually played it, but I have very little faith in EA/Dice to make this game correctly. Not to say it CAN'T be made correctly but it would take skilled developers to make it work, and I just don't think Dice has it in them.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1684093:date=Jul 20 2008, 10:30 AM:name=Xyth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Xyth @ Jul 20 2008, 10:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Even after the E3 video, which looked a bit better, I remain unimpressed. The idea is nifty I guess, but there is something missing and I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's that a game based around free-running will rely almost ENTIRELY on it's level design, and level design is a weak-point for most for most video-game companies. Not to mention their setting (utopian society iirc) doesn't leave all that much space for creativity. I mean, really; it's going to be hard to make an environment that is engaging when the art-style requires that everything looks clean and non-unique(and the trailers only reinforced this). I won't condemn the game until I've actually played it, but I have very little faith in EA/Dice to make this game correctly. Not to say it CAN'T be made correctly but it would take skilled developers to make it work, and I just don't think Dice has it in them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish someone would show a more extensive video of the sewer gameplay a ton of the previews have spoken of. Its supposed to be like the tsunami protection sewers they have in Tokyo.
I don't quite see the connection between utopian society and a lack of interesting architecture. Are budget skyscrapers shaped like lego blocks or back alleys filled with garbage better than artistic sculptures and light areas with lots of glass windows?
I've played somewhere in the range of a thousand hours of kz jumping in CS. A game like this ABSOLUTELY can work, and can be the most addictive thing ever... however, I'll throw my cards in with Xyth, I think it's most likely that dice will screw it up, fail to make the engine feel as responsive as a free running game needs to be, fail to create interesting levels, fail to make the experience not feel repetitive (as opposed to challenging, I've jumped many many kz maps several times over, it's still alot of fun because of the competitive aspect, and the mastery of the ordeal you work with)
The biggest thing that concerns me is combat... game companies like to confuse combat with entertainment in inappropriate ways. Make a free running game, or make a fighting game, doing both is going to feel really really tacked together. First person straight out ISN'T a good view for CQC fighting, and gunning just makes running games suck. Similarly, going pretty much anywhere you want in a fighting game tends to mean you're not constrained to the most interesting combat grounds, and you usually either find some spot that bugs the AI out, making the shootout too easy, or you get stuck in areas where you have no good tactical response to your enemy and the fighting is frustratingly hard. Nothing is worse in a racing game then "I was making incredible time and an enemy popped out of a spot he had never been before and took me out"
<!--quoteo(post=1684128:date=Jul 21 2008, 04:14 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 21 2008, 04:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... however, I'll throw my cards in with Xyth, I think it's most likely that dice will screw it up, fail to make the engine feel as responsive as a free running game needs to be, fail to create interesting levels, fail to make the experience not feel repetitive<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Man, what's the last game DICE messed up, either by making uninteresting levels or unresponsive engines or nonrepetetive gameplay? Why automatically assume it's going to suck when everything that we've seen so far looks awesome and the developer's track record is spotless?
<!--quoteo(post=1684106:date=Jul 20 2008, 03:20 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Align @ Jul 20 2008, 03:20 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684106"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't quite see the connection between utopian society and a lack of interesting architecture. Are budget skyscrapers shaped like lego blocks or back alleys filled with garbage better than artistic sculptures and light areas with lots of glass windows?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not a Utopian setting, utopian settings generally don't feature oppressive governments that monitor all forms of communication amongst their citizens. Its dystopian and the buildings reflect this. They aren't there to look good, there is no pleasure to be derived from them, they are just buildings.
<!--quoteo(post=1684146:date=Jul 21 2008, 11:14 AM:name=ANeM)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ANeM @ Jul 21 2008, 11:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Its not a Utopian setting, utopian settings generally don't feature oppressive governments that monitor all forms of communication amongst their citizens. Its dystopian and the buildings reflect this. They aren't there to look good, there is no pleasure to be derived from them, they are just buildings.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a failed utopia, not a dystopia.
<!--quoteo(post=1684156:date=Jul 21 2008, 12:54 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jul 21 2008, 12:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684156"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There's a difference?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wikipedia can tell you, but in a nutshell, a failed utopia is like Miranda in Serenity and a dystopia is like Blade Runner. The easiest way to tell them apart is to check whether it is night or day. If it's night, dystopia. If it's day, failed utopia. If that doesn't work, look for white buildings. White buildings = failed utopia, gray/dark/black buildings = dystopia.
<!--quoteo(post=1684138:date=Jul 21 2008, 09:38 AM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jul 21 2008, 09:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684138"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Man, what's the last game DICE messed up, either by making uninteresting levels or unresponsive engines or nonrepetetive gameplay? Why automatically assume it's going to suck when everything that we've seen so far looks awesome and the developer's track record is spotless?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Probably most recently would be BF2142. I'm not going to say Dice makes BAD games, but I've never played a battlefield game where the controls felt smooth.
Still I think my biggest gripe is the setting. A setting characterized by it's cut-and-paste geometry being used for a game where the environment is such a huge factor in gameplay. It just seems like a terrible design choice. I mean, even in the trailer which covered maybe 1 minute of the game I saw the same roof-mounted air-conditioner model like 5 times. Personally I would have gone for an urban-decay or post-war setting, ruined and overgrown buildings imo would make for a more interesting free-running experience.
Gah, I think the world can do without another game where you move through a gray, brown, or gray-brown destroyed city, doing who knwos what from Point A to Point B. The graphics in this game are a welcome breath of fresh air. I'll take neon oranges, greens, and reds over Stalingrad again.
Oh come on, brownish grey and greyish brown are totally hip and trendy colours. Nobody could ever get tired of THOSE. And if they do, there's always yellowish grey and slightly-green-tinted-but-still-mostly-brownish-grey to spice things up!
I personally like the stylistic choices they've made. It helps highlight stuff you care about and gives a very open air feeling to the environment. You know, shiny white on the outside due to the huge amounts of bleach used to cleanse the world. And red on white just looks nice.
As far as being a good game, I like the concept. Being able to run around a giant city, even if they don't give quite as much freedom as say Assassin's Creed or Oblivion in terms of the world around you, I'd probably still enjoy it. Sometimes it's a well done thing to have a very linear progression with multiple avenues along the way. I would perhaps even say that Assassin's Creed had too much "freedom" and not enough content in their massive giant cities.
So, if they pull it off, more power to them. I make it a point to try not to judge a game before I play it.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1684128:date=Jul 21 2008, 02:14 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Jul 21 2008, 02:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684128"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've played somewhere in the range of a thousand hours of kz jumping in CS. A game like this ABSOLUTELY can work, and can be the most addictive thing ever... however, I'll throw my cards in with Xyth, I think it's most likely that dice will screw it up, fail to make the engine feel as responsive as a free running game needs to be, fail to create interesting levels, fail to make the experience not feel repetitive (as opposed to challenging, I've jumped many many kz maps several times over, it's still alot of fun because of the competitive aspect, and the mastery of the ordeal you work with)
The biggest thing that concerns me is combat... game companies like to confuse combat with entertainment in inappropriate ways. Make a free running game, or make a fighting game, doing both is going to feel really really tacked together. First person straight out ISN'T a good view for CQC fighting, and gunning just makes running games suck. Similarly, going pretty much anywhere you want in a fighting game tends to mean you're not constrained to the most interesting combat grounds, and you usually either find some spot that bugs the AI out, making the shootout too easy, or you get stuck in areas where you have no good tactical response to your enemy and the fighting is frustratingly hard. Nothing is worse in a racing game then "I was making incredible time and an enemy popped out of a spot he had never been before and took me out"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt combat will matter much, considering their choices towards it- you'll be severely limited in movement(anything involving your hands basically becomes disabled), and other movements may not be as fast/extreme. They're focusing nearly entirely on making sure the movement feels just right.
As towards DICE's track record, all the previewers I've heard from agree: They got it all right in the demo. If that can be said there, that only leads me to believe most of the game will be too.
Comments
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N1TJP1cxmo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2N1TJP1cxmo</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Graphics looks pretty sub-par imo.
City looks like it was produced by Hasbro.
Story is breath-takingly <i>retarded.</i>
Gameplay is incredibly shallow.
Replayability is nill.
The entire game rides on a gimmick. It's gonna suck, and it's gonna suck the kind of suck that Assassin's Creed sucks, as in, you'll LOOOOOVE it for a week, and then it'll just hit you, that this game sucks very hard.
Generally I'm just sick of the insane amount of hype surrounding this game which in reality is immensely underwhelming.
#1, that isn't the E3 2008 trailer, that was released months ago. The 'trailer' at E3 was a gameplay demo.
#2: Comon guys, judging graphics by a Youtube clip? Since when was that even a half-ass good idea?
The graphics when you see the trailer at a decent resolution, are pretty amazing. All the tricks are there, with high textures and good modeling to boot, and all at a great framerate.
As towards Haze's comments: Wow, chug that haterade. I like how you say the story is 'breath-takingly retarded', when all that has been revealed of the story is that the main character, Faith, is a runner. The world she lives in is like a happy kind of Orwellian, where things really do work well a vast majority of the time and you can do generally what you like, just that you can't do anything with any privacy, mostly. Hence her job as a runner- the one way to make sure data is kept out of prying eyes is by courier by hand, as everything through any other way is monitored.
As towards the look of the city- I like it. Its a refreshingly bright take on things, and frankly, its the most different looking game out of any others I've seen in the past year, including many of the Pixeljunk games.
Gameplay is incredibly shallow? I like how you know this without actually playing the game. Incredible. Oh, and don't mind the few hundred previewers who all seem to disagree with you, saying the system, where the controls are simplified but their use is complex, not only works brilliantly, but has dozens of things you'll figure out after awhile- such as wall jumps, differences in the way one climbs a really tall fence, and all kinds of different dives/rolls/hops and mix thereof that people found at E3.
And as towards Replayability- I doubt that. I look at it like Shadow of the Colossus- I'm going to go through the first time, enjoy the game and story together as they were meant to be done. Then, redo it all dozens of times in time trial modes, constantly moving to go faster and faster, doing my best to perfect my run throughout.
And as towards it riding on a gimmick- I find it funny that you call it a gimmick, considering how many games are taking pages out of parkour and applying it, as well as movies- really, it may be seen soon enough as a standard in the action genre, similar to knowing kung fu or going akimbo.
Honestly here, I'm not some fanboy on this(DICE hasn't exactly been one of my favorite companies the past few years), but where that trailer made me wonder if it was really being played, after seeing the gameplay videos from actual players on the show floor, I couldn't help but just be amazed. And considering just how many publications all seem to talk about how fresh and new it feels, even as it is being released later this year(many many many publications were noting Assassin's Creed's problems about this time because of its release date), with how polished it looks across the board(well, except for the badly modeled weapons- which they actively discourage you from using).
I'd say its earned its hype. Good gameplay + Interesting art style + Someone admitting to taking story pages from Serenity + Tons of polish = AAA title in the making.
That said I don't understand the hostility at all (maybe because it's a months-old trailer on YouTube instead of the new stuff). This looks like an absolutely spectacular game and I'm really excited about it.
I'm really quite jaded by FPS games these days but this reminds me of the rush I got from the start of HL2 when you're getting chased up through the building with no weapons by the combine. More of that please =D
^ This.
I'm beginning to get a little tired of the word "gimmicky" in the context of video games, especially when used to describe a game which is actually being innovative instead of rehashing the same old tripe. The bottom line though; the difference between a gimmick and an innovation is in the eye of the beholder. If you like it, its an innovation. If you don't like it, its a gimmick.
I'm reserving judgement until i've actually seen the game in action beyond a few trailers, however cool and sexy it might make me to just hate on it for no reason. If I must say something negative, it'd be that the main character's tattoo/makeup thing under her eye looks silly.
[edit]
<a href="http://www.gametrailers.com/player/36249.html" target="_blank">HERE</a> is the actual E3 2008 trailer, in better-than-youtube quality.
Most people I know say they at least enjoyed it for 5 minutes or something but I didn't even get that. No idea why though.
I love exploring and agility and yet for some reason Assassin's Creed just didn't grab me. While I was able to scale around the cities easily I didn't really feel like there was a purpose or anything I'd discover that interested me. That might be down to the setting though? It's defnitely not my cup of tea either way =3
and ea doesnt help at all.
I won't condemn the game until I've actually played it, but I have very little faith in EA/Dice to make this game correctly. Not to say it CAN'T be made correctly but it would take skilled developers to make it work, and I just don't think Dice has it in them.
I won't condemn the game until I've actually played it, but I have very little faith in EA/Dice to make this game correctly. Not to say it CAN'T be made correctly but it would take skilled developers to make it work, and I just don't think Dice has it in them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wish someone would show a more extensive video of the sewer gameplay a ton of the previews have spoken of. Its supposed to be like the tsunami protection sewers they have in Tokyo.
The biggest thing that concerns me is combat... game companies like to confuse combat with entertainment in inappropriate ways. Make a free running game, or make a fighting game, doing both is going to feel really really tacked together. First person straight out ISN'T a good view for CQC fighting, and gunning just makes running games suck. Similarly, going pretty much anywhere you want in a fighting game tends to mean you're not constrained to the most interesting combat grounds, and you usually either find some spot that bugs the AI out, making the shootout too easy, or you get stuck in areas where you have no good tactical response to your enemy and the fighting is frustratingly hard. Nothing is worse in a racing game then "I was making incredible time and an enemy popped out of a spot he had never been before and took me out"
Man, what's the last game DICE messed up, either by making uninteresting levels or unresponsive engines or nonrepetetive gameplay? Why automatically assume it's going to suck when everything that we've seen so far looks awesome and the developer's track record is spotless?
Its not a Utopian setting, utopian settings generally don't feature oppressive governments that monitor all forms of communication amongst their citizens. Its dystopian and the buildings reflect this. They aren't there to look good, there is no pleasure to be derived from them, they are just buildings.
It's a failed utopia, not a dystopia.
There's a difference?
Wikipedia can tell you, but in a nutshell, a failed utopia is like Miranda in Serenity and a dystopia is like Blade Runner. The easiest way to tell them apart is to check whether it is night or day. If it's night, dystopia. If it's day, failed utopia. If that doesn't work, look for white buildings. White buildings = failed utopia, gray/dark/black buildings = dystopia.
Probably most recently would be BF2142. I'm not going to say Dice makes BAD games, but I've never played a battlefield game where the controls felt smooth.
Still I think my biggest gripe is the setting. A setting characterized by it's cut-and-paste geometry being used for a game where the environment is such a huge factor in gameplay. It just seems like a terrible design choice. I mean, even in the trailer which covered maybe 1 minute of the game I saw the same roof-mounted air-conditioner model like 5 times. Personally I would have gone for an urban-decay or post-war setting, ruined and overgrown buildings imo would make for a more interesting free-running experience.
As far as being a good game, I like the concept. Being able to run around a giant city, even if they don't give quite as much freedom as say Assassin's Creed or Oblivion in terms of the world around you, I'd probably still enjoy it. Sometimes it's a well done thing to have a very linear progression with multiple avenues along the way. I would perhaps even say that Assassin's Creed had too much "freedom" and not enough content in their massive giant cities.
So, if they pull it off, more power to them. I make it a point to try not to judge a game before I play it.
The biggest thing that concerns me is combat... game companies like to confuse combat with entertainment in inappropriate ways. Make a free running game, or make a fighting game, doing both is going to feel really really tacked together. First person straight out ISN'T a good view for CQC fighting, and gunning just makes running games suck. Similarly, going pretty much anywhere you want in a fighting game tends to mean you're not constrained to the most interesting combat grounds, and you usually either find some spot that bugs the AI out, making the shootout too easy, or you get stuck in areas where you have no good tactical response to your enemy and the fighting is frustratingly hard. Nothing is worse in a racing game then "I was making incredible time and an enemy popped out of a spot he had never been before and took me out"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I doubt combat will matter much, considering their choices towards it- you'll be severely limited in movement(anything involving your hands basically becomes disabled), and other movements may not be as fast/extreme. They're focusing nearly entirely on making sure the movement feels just right.
As towards DICE's track record, all the previewers I've heard from agree: They got it all right in the demo. If that can be said there, that only leads me to believe most of the game will be too.