Just an observation; a lot of people on the forums seems to be disappointed at hgl's poor animations and repetitive graphic, though i thought it's pretty obvious why it is as such.
The demo doesn't put a lot of enemies on screen at once at the earlier level. If you have detailed animations and high poly meshes for every character models in the game, the developers will received complaints from another batch of audience that it causes lag and/or is too demanding for current generations pc. For a frantic game of this nature, complaints on game performences will have a large impact on buyer's decision.
The levels are randomize, so repetitive meshes of building structures are unvoidable by design. Levels are limited to largely similar texture and color palate, so a randomly generated spot wouldn't look goofy.
Imo, what the developers should have improved on if the demo is any indication, is to use building meshes of similar dimension, but different interior setup rather than the usual 3 floors, 1 basement building mesh that is common throughout the demo.
The demo also gave extremely poor representation of the level generator. If open maps are all one way, then it's pointless to have a random level generator for streets in the first place as it ended up to be a gimmick due to lack on impact on actual gameplay.
I found the demo to true to what all previews said about the game,so I'm kind of expecting the game not to break newgrounds and a repetitive clickfest.
Gameplay-wise it's every thing the previews said it's going to be, but the demo does not give a good example on how the higher level gameplay is going to be as thats where the stuffings are. Reading through the skills descriptions, it looks like the game has an exellent gameplay potential.
The gui on another hand, is not so hot. It looks amatuer imo, but effective enough.
I'm definetly getting it but only after the witcher.
Does it necessary has to be in 3D? You seem to be missing out on planescape torment if story is what you are looking for, but it's not being sold in retail anymore iirc, and the lowest online prices are at $60.
It's not difficult to start a deathmatch game, as long as you keep the number of players low and in touch with a few buddies of the same interest.If you can overlook the number of people in the game,try duelling a friend or clans.
Deathmatch will not make a comeback as the most popular gametype, with UT3 default server list grouped under warfare, it's population would be made worst if anything. But the hardcore community will remains.
I think the only disadvantage of PC gaming is upgrading, not really about the price, but the hassles involved.
I feel the price of upgrading is pretty much offset by the price of games. Console games are usually priced 10 dollars higher than PCs and if if you buy games frequently, say once a month, you pretty much spent $120 less than console gamers with the same frequency of purchase on yearly basis.
For the mid-range users like myself, I'm looking at a 2 years max timeframe for my gpu upgrade. Mid-range cards are cheap, for the 2 years interval, I would have more than enough savings from softwares for a better card and probably other essentials. So if you look at it this way, if you decides to game in the first place, your expenditure will solely be on the PC itself, which you would need as a workstation anyway.
The disadvantage is you won't be able to maxed out graphic of the latest games, and probably couldn't even run some. But gaming later isn't necessary bad, for the good multiplayer games for the PC would usually have a darn long lifespan, so you aren't missing out on a whole lot even if you chose to wait.
The hassle of maintaining the system is the only real hassle imo.
Seriously,it has one of the most unorganize item, weapon placement structure I had seem in a online shooter. There're tons of instant kill explosives/other weapons. Though you get yours too, but in a 12 players dm, it doesn't work. It's actually kinda hard to keep my death below 10 due to bad spawns as well, and with the grav gun, anything goes. Killing is extremely easy, but staying alive is an artform there... though most player's method to acheive a nice k/d ratio is kinda questionable =D I'm personally guilty of certain exploits at times of frustration too.
But the action is definetely intense and be a very fun game when population is kept under control.
I suspect that the people who dislike this game are most likely run-and-gun FPS players that wants action delivered constantly and fast. I played the game on Veteran difficulty and it was a blast sneaking around killing mercs (and running/hiding from them)!
I enjoyed the game as much as I did with HL2 and it deserves a 9.0
Erlkoenig
No. I like OFP and Ghost Recon(the first) too. FC do not have a good sneak mechanism to make it a lesser run and gun. Outdoor is cool, but indoor combat is mediocre, because like other shooter at it's time everything can be easily door camped which didn't reflect the good AI it boasted to have at that time. And with a binoculars and radar for outdoor, it makes the game easy as long as you take some time scanning around. I like the game for it's environment, some sweet spots to be discovered on maps. I thought it's really nice at that time, but the combat and AI wasn't what kept me playing the game.
Log in to comment