Anyone remember a game called *Wet* ???

it was about this bounty hunter type chic who used a sword in combination with guns like Dante, i had high hopes for it and bought it few years back without even renting it, the only reason it sucked was because it had some weird glitch that made it unplayable on this practice scene where it was impossible to go any further. but if that had been fixed *or taken out of the game* it would have actually been pretty cool. any chance they'll ever make another?

I remember that it was hard as hell.

i finished the whole damn game 3 times didnt find any glitch that made the game unplayable. its a solid gameblaze_adeel

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

[QUOTE="blaze_adeel"]i finished the whole damn game 3 times didnt find any glitch that made the game unplayable. its a solid gameShangTsung17

YEah, I remember Wet. I got it so I could get the trophy called " Turettes Syndrome"

I platinum'd it so either your game glitching is an isolated incident, or they fixed it through a patch.

I rented it. Got tired of it pretty quickly. It didn't help that by the end of the first level or two you've seen pretty much everything the game has to offer, and that the gimmicks (like "rage mode" or whatever they called it) were used way too frequently.

Yeah I remember following it for a while but I haven't bought it yet, I'll try to pick it up though. I heard they were making a sequel as well.

the games pretty good, great art style excellent combat. althoughi havent got round to finishing it yet, quite near the end. but i never found it that hard. i cant remember the particular bit you're on about but i never came across any glitches or freezes.

that guy was right, not every game needs multiplayer.. but thats another topic.

I bought Wet on a whim as it was cheap and I was looking to get a few games to add to my collection and I'm glad I did. I didn't have any problems with glitches, and while I found it difficult I did eventually complete it and really enjoyed it, really liked the soundtrack too, very different from the usual soundtracks you get in game (not sure of the exact genre of music).

I'm not very good usually with games and while I struggled on it I did find it to be one of the games that I wanted to continue playing no matter how many times I messed up.

I wanted to get that game, Imight now that it is so cheap. Hopefully any glitchs are patched by now.

it was about this bounty hunter type chic who used a sword in combination with guns like Dante, i had high hopes for it and bought it few years back without even renting it, the only reason it sucked was because it had some weird glitch that made it unplayable on this practice scene where it was impossible to go any further. but if that had been fixed *or taken out of the game* it would have actually been pretty cool. any chance they'll ever make another?

ShangTsung17

i thought it would suck.

Wasn't Wet 2 announced a while back ago? Everyone was surprised because at the same time, Naughty Bear 2 was also announced, and both Wet and Naughty Bear were pretty bad games.It's cool if you liked Wet and think it would've been great were it not for a glitch, but for me, the gameplay itself is just boring. I was excited for Wet too before it came out because it looked like Gunz, but after downloading and playing the demo, I was extremely disappointed.Repetitive arena-style combat that never ends until you block the entrances, dumb AI, and crappy graphics. I really don't understand why they're making a second one.

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

StealthMonkey4

He did overreact but I can only agree with him. Seeing all the youngsters whining about not being able to play online for a month during PSN outage was shocking.

He did overreact but I can only agree with him. Seeing all the youngsters whining about not being able to play online for a month during PSN outage was shocking.

bostadskontrakt

He did overreact but I can only agree with him. Seeing all the youngsters whining about not being able to play online for a month during PSN outage was shocking.

bostadskontrakt

You were also unable to download anything from the store, sync any trophies, message any friends, go on Home, or play online games.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

Chris_Williams

There still are long singleplayer games out there (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Just Cause 2) that dont need multiplayer, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

lmfao think they removed that post but they still left it to quote on.. thats rich.... look dude i feel ur pain, trust me. nobody gets more aggrevated than me over the whole multiplayer thing, but getting pissed at the gamers who worship it isn't the answer, in the end its the game designers (like you said yourself) who often listen to them and screw old school gamers like us, wet was a rare exception, i even made an entire thread on this site talking about this subject u might wanna check out (will there ever be another FPS based on single player?) i completely see you're point but i'm afraid the multiplayer thing won't stop ruining games intill we really make an effort to let game designers know that some of us don't like it. now breath... breath... lol

ShangTsung17

Why do you act like the addition on multiplayer to increase play time is a bad thing and ruins the singleplayer? If you don't like the multiplayer, you can just not play it...

Good game. Not great but solid fun if you can get it cheap. Basically fits into the same category as Wanted: Weapons of Fate.nethernova

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

StealthMonkey4

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

[QUOTE="nethernova"]Good game. Not great but solid fun if you can get it cheap. Basically fits into the same category as Wanted: Weapons of Fate.ShangTsung17

It looked sort of interesting, I was thinking of picking it up now that it's in the bargain bin. But I've got too darned many other games to play already.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

anime_gamer007

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

StealthMonkey4

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

[QUOTE="ShangTsung17"]

[QUOTE="nethernova"]Good game. Not great but solid fun if you can get it cheap. Basically fits into the same category as Wanted: Weapons of Fate.darkman006

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

I enjoyed it, my only complaint was the lack of multiplayer, I mean a $60 game just isn't worth it these days without a multiplayer portion.

StealthMonkey4

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]Seriously?:?

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

anime_gamer007

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]Seriously?:?

No wonder so many developers just shoehorn multiplayer into their games if the consumers' attitude is like this.

anime_gamer007

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

Many of the online MPs that people always refer to at just "tacked on" are some of the most fun MP games out there. And you can only do so much to improve a single-player game's length, the game would wear on if it were long, very few games can be over 15 hours and still be decent (excluding RPGs). You're acting as if any effort they put in MP is time that they've taken away from the single-player. I don't see why shoe-horning more gameplay time into the SP is worse than adding a MP component to the game.

[QUOTE="anime_gamer007"]

[QUOTE="StealthMonkey4"]

You think it's a bad thing to put an optional multiplayer into a game? In a time where games are $60, it helps to get more for your dollar. If you don't like MP, then you can just not play it if you don't want to.

StealthMonkey4

Many of the online MPs that people always refer to at just "tacked on" are some of the most fun MP games out there. And you can only do so much to improve a single-player game's length, the game would wear on if it were long, very few games can be over 15 hours and still be decent (excluding RPGs). You're acting as if any effort they put in MP is time that they've taken away from the single-player. I don't see why shoe-horning more gameplay time into the SP is worse than adding a MP component to the game.

It's not just about SP length, it's replay value too. It forces developers to strive harder if they put a solid single player mode with some interesting unlocks and something to keep the player interested. I'm not saying developer should shoehorn time into SP all in the name of length, personally I feel nothing should be shoehorned into the game. Everything should fit and have it's place. Multiplayer more often than not doesn't have it's place and is done poorly. So in essence you end up with two "mediocre to alright" components of a game as oppose to one really well done component of a game. I enjoy multiplayer games, don't get me wrong, but it's always when they're the selling point of the game (Battlefield, Killzone 2, CoD4). Games like Dead Space 2, BioShock 2, AC:Brotherhood have multiplayer into them when it really didn't have a place. None of the multiplayer components in those games are inherently awful but they're nothing special, it's not something siginigficant that's gonna become a "thing" so why even bother? I guess I just see it as, if it's in the game it should be in there 110%, nothing half assed, it's wasted resources.

anime_gamer007

I've played many of the multiplayers that people say are just shoehorned into the game, and a lot of them are really fun, the games you listed (BioShock 2, ACB, DS2) all have fairly large online communities and people who really enjoy their MP. I personally found BioShock 2 to be one of the most fun MP games this gen, ACB is really good too (I'm not the biggest fan of it but I can definitely see its appeal). You're still acting as if multiplayer somehow ruins a game's singleplayer when that's just not the case. Dead Space 2, Uncharted 2, and ACB are all much better than their predecessors and in addition feature a great online MP component (I didn't mention BS2 as a completely different studio all together worked on MP). The campaigns as they are in most games are already finished and the online MP is just for extra appeal. Some of the shortest games this gen with little replay value are the ones that don't have MP. There's really no correlation between the length or quality of a game with MP and one without (excluding RPGs and long games that would never have MP in the first place). If Wet or Portal 2 or some other short game just happened to have MP but the exact same SP, then people would complain that MP is the reason it's so short, but it'd be the same either way. People just like having a scapegoat.

I didn't like Wet I thought it was pretty boring the only decent about it was the character Rubi was the best thing about the game. I thought Stranglehold did it better gameplay wise but the story in Stranglehold was pretty bad to be honest.

As for this discussion about multiplayer I hate it when developers put too much focus into the multiplayer and then start to cut the length down of the single player mode. However sometimes I do think it's good to have multiplayer in games like Uncharted I love the single player story but I also like the multiplayer the CO-OP modes add more replay value. I think one of the best uses out of multiplayer are Saints Row and Resident Evil mostly because of it's co-op aspect but I always look at multiplayer as a bonus feature to the game.

multiplayer just ruins games. period. i wish it had never been invented. or atleast stuck with pc and not invaded consoles. now back on subject, has anyone been able to get past the target shooting training part in the begining of wet? if so how? cuz i never could find a way to complete this part so thus i could never play the actual game.

multiplayer just ruins games. period. i wish it had never been invented. or atleast stuck with pc and not invaded consoles. now back on subject, has anyone been able to get past the target shooting training part in the begining of wet? if so how? cuz i never could find a way to complete this part so thus i could never play the actual game.

ShangTsung17

Multiplayer does not ruin games... You have offered no examples where MP has single-handedly ruined a game... Millions and millions of people love MP, and if you don't, just don't play it. I'm not the biggest fan of MP, but I can see the appeal, many MP sections are really fun once I give them a try. I don't understand why you hate MP with such a passion...

I do not know how people can say Wet was boring as I have said earlier in this thread I enjoyed the game and found it challenging but fun enough to want to continue playing. And that was for the most part due to the expansion of skills and attacks the character unlocked as she progressed through the game. The character and story may not have been great but were certainly a lot better than some other games I have played in the past, and the same is also true of the gamplay. I think the main gripe people seem to have with this game is simply that they wanted a game with multiplayer, and because there wasn't then they were dissatified with the single player as it was something that they would not of normally played had it been another game, or they were simply not interested in going through the game and advancing the character and failed to see the full potential of the game.

[QUOTE="ShangTsung17"]

multiplayer just ruins games. period. i wish it had never been invented. or atleast stuck with pc and not invaded consoles. now back on subject, has anyone been able to get past the target shooting training part in the begining of wet? if so how? cuz i never could find a way to complete this part so thus i could never play the actual game.

StealthMonkey4

Multiplayer does not ruin games... You have offered no examples where MP has single-handedly ruined a game... Millions and millions of people love MP, and if you don't, just don't play it. I'm not the biggest fan of MP, but I can see the appeal, many MP sections are really fun once I give them a try. I don't understand why you hate MP with such a passion...