Ryan Posted February 19, 2006 Posted February 19, 2006 This game will probably get old fast.. ...Guess I was right
mario114 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 I'm going to play it alot more. It is truly amazing. To bad it's so short. But still a amazing game. I hope it launches as cheaper price than normal games (not gonna happen). Sounds like the sort of game which it may be worth waiting for the price to drop beofre buying...
rokhed00 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Sounds like the sort of game which it may be worth waiting for the price to drop beofre buying... Sounds like the kind of game that should of been released at a budget price to me. Critereon really have gone seriously downhill since they sold their souls to the devil, all they've done is give us minor updates on the burnout francise, ports and rehashes (BO legends (DS, PSP) and the 360 version) and now a quality FPS ruined by a short lifespan and no multiplayer. |They really are part of the EA family now.
ZeldaFreak Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 The whole thing with Black is that they wanted it to be it about the guns and the feel you get when you shoot them, and multiplayer would probably ruin that feel. P.S. Not every game needs multiplayer you know
rokhed00 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 The whole thing with Black is that they wanted it to be it about the guns and the feel you get when you shoot them, and multiplayer would probably ruin that feel. P.S. Not every game needs multiplayer you know No, not every game needs multiplayer, but a full price game needs a decent lifespan, and 4 hours without any multiplayer just doesn't deliver. I'd also like to know how you think adding multioplayer would ruin the feel of the guns?
ZeldaFreak Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 No, not every game needs multiplayer, but a full price game needs a decent lifespan, and 4 hours without any multiplayer just doesn't deliver. I'd also like to know how you think adding multioplayer would ruin the feel of the guns? I would rather have have 4 hours of fluid gameplay rather than 16 hours of quite basic rather repetitive gameplay. And to answer your question rokhead adding multiplayer would in most regards damage the fact that you play as the good guys aka hollywood style shoot outs therefore in multiplayer one person or team would have to play as the bad guys.
Domstercool Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Should have this on Thursday, I'm really looking forward to it. I love the whole idea of a hollywood gun battle shootout, it's why I loved F.E.A.R so much as well. 4 hours does seem short, but I've read on forums that most people it is lasting them between 6-8 hours. Plus you can go back and get 100% "You have 4 difficulty settings. On Easy you just have to do Primary Objectives and health packs are everywhere. On Normal you have all the Primary Objectives Secondary objectives and there are a normal amount of health packs. However in each level on Normal the requirement is like "All Primary's met and 3 of 12 Secondary's". So you only have to complete 3 of the 12 to pass. On Hard you have to complete all the Primary's, like 6 out of 12 of the secondaries, and there are hardly any health packs anywhere. And then you unlock Black Ops which I haven't done yet which probably means you have to do all the Secondary Objectives."
rokhed00 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 I would rather have have 4 hours of fluid gameplay rather than 16 hours of quite basic rather repetitive gameplay. And to answer your question rokhead adding multiplayer would in most regards damage the fact that you play as the good guys aka hollywood style shoot outs therefore in multiplayer one person or team would have to play as the bad guys. Maybe so, but at £30 plus I wouldn't be happy with a four hour game, no matter how good it was. No reason why gameplay has to suffer to lengthen the game either, I'm sure if they spent longer on it they could've kept the quality of gameplay and doubled or even tripled the length of the story/campaign. Also don't really see the problem playing bad guys in a multiplayer game because it's hollywood style, in most hollywood action flicks the bad guys are usually just as good (if not better) characters than the good guys, plus it'd be nice to see the bad guys persevere for a change.
DiemetriX Posted February 21, 2006 Author Posted February 21, 2006 4 hours does seem short, but I've read on forums that most people it is lasting them between 6-8 hours. Plus you can go back and get 100% I used 4hours on Normal doing most of the objectives done (Nearly all of them) and playing some levels more than once. If i just sat down and only did what i had to do i would finnish the game in 3hours. And i could proably do a speed run in about 2,5 Hours (maybe i will) The only difference betwen Hard and normal are the number of objectives and life packs. And the objectives aren't any "good" Just to find everything hidden in the level. But you probably want to play through the game more than once since it''s so damn cool. The gun fights are a blast. After taking out everyone it's cool to just walk around to se all the colateral damage you have done. The only thing this game really lacks is length and Multiplayer (live?)
ZeldaFreak Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Maybe so, but at £30 plus I wouldn't be happy with a four hour game, no matter how good it was. No reason why gameplay has to suffer to lengthen the game either, I'm sure if they spent longer on it they could've kept the quality of gameplay and doubled or even tripled the length of the story/campaign. Also don't really see the problem playing bad guys in a multiplayer game because it's hollywood style, in most hollywood action flicks the bad guys are usually just as good (if not better) characters than the good guys, plus it'd be nice to see the bad guys persevere for a change. Because they just wanted the idea of portraying the action hero, thats all. P.S. Rokhed you live in london right £30 for a game is cheap, considering the fact that a pint in london costs about £20
rokhed00 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Because they just wanted the idea of portraying the action hero, thats all. P.S. Rokhed you live in london right £30 for a game is cheap, considering the fact that a pint in london costs about £20 I understand what you're saying, but it really does come across more as an excuse for not giving us a fuller game than an actual real reason.
DiemetriX Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 Black was shiped to gamestores yesterday. You can probably buy it most places now... Just ask them to sell it on the DownLo
Domstercool Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Stil waiting for a email to say it's been posted today, they usually come thurs so weeee. Should get Grandia III in post today, ARRGGH GAMES! Eurogamer gave it 8/10 http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=63014
Babooo Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Most reviews are giving the game an eight out of ten, EDGE, Games TM, Eurogamer...etc. Will definately be getting this and ICO very soon. Can't wait.
Owen Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Saw it on Gamer TV today! Looked like Killzone (graphically) in my opinion, although it had more colour! I won't be getting it, i doubt i even will if it comes on the 360. I like the idea of causing total mayhem and being able to blow most things-up, but overall it does nothing to me!
DiemetriX Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 ALERT!!!! Don't buy the PS2 version. the framerate dropps easely. just having alot of enemies on screen will sieriosly cripple the framerate. And ther is in game loading :| Nothing like that on the xbox version. smoth runing even in the most fannatic gun fights.
Babooo Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 The only option I have is getting the PS2 version Hopefully the frame rate aint THAT bad....
Cheapshot Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I heard the game runs terribly on older PS2's, like with GTA:San Andreas. I never get slowdown on my slim PS2.
1UP Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Saw it on Gamer TV today! Looked like Killzone (graphically) in my opinion, although it had more colour! I won't be getting it, i doubt i even will if it comes on the 360. I like the idea of causing total mayhem and being able to blow most things-up, but overall it does nothing to me! oh shizzle, i missed gamer tv, its not that good but i still like to watch it.
Owen Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Why the smiley Owen? People may take my post as having a real-go at the game when i wasn't, so just to make sure i put a smiley face at the end. Why you asking anyway? I feel suspicious now.
Babooo Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I heard the game runs terribly on older PS2's, like with GTA:San Andreas. I never get slowdown on my slim PS2. Shit, I've got an older PS2!!! Oh well, looks like I'll have to cope with some slowdown then.
Cheapshot Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 People may take my post as having a real-go at the game when i wasn't, so just to make sure i put a smiley face at the end. Why you asking anyway? I feel suspicious now. Sorry I just didn't understand why some people say something sucks and then they put an ironic smile at the end.
DiemetriX Posted February 22, 2006 Author Posted February 22, 2006 I heard the game runs terribly on older PS2's, like with GTA:San Andreas. I never get slowdown on my slim PS2. ok. I tested it on a old Ps2.
Cheapshot Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Shit, I've got an older PS2!!! Oh well, looks like I'll have to cope with some slowdown then. How old is it exactly?
Recommended Posts