 News | Forum | People | FAQ | Links | Search | Register |
Log in |
|
|
http://www.absention-game.com/
UE4 indie game, set in a nice lake house, but there's some scaryness that comes and kills you. You relive the same day again and again Groundhog Day style, and try to survive. Looks sexy, monster looks awful. Pre-alpha though. I decided to replay Half-Life after years (might be a decade by now). It is still such a fantastic game and well worth all the praise. I did not remember so many secrets/optional places. The flow is great, although I remember it feeling much slower when I first played it, probably because I could not aim nor move and "used" everything. Played up to the introduction of the military for now.
Especially the sounds, their use and the environmental effects are impressive. I would even say, they are a huge part of the atmosphere. The "seamless" world still feels great, probably better nowadays when loading times are just single seconds. I started up Unreal for the first time since the 90s, the other week. Using the unofficial 227 patch, it runs a dream now on a modern computer, and you can re-enable the original sounds.
It's pretty great, although you kind of have to grit your teeth through a lot of the incredibly obscure level progression "90s charm" that the game suffered from. I remember back in the day I thought nothing of walking down to HMV and picking up one of those game guide books to help me through when I got stuck. How times change, hehe. Can't argue with that. More DX:HR done equally well would get my vote.
Main character still has the personality of a turnip though. ... looked graphically excellent but I was hoping to hear a musical score that was as good as those for the previous Deus-Ex titles. I thought the DX-HR soundtrack was very fitting for a dystopian near-future vision and the excellent Icarus theme (if I got that right) was in the trailer for it. I like when games have musical scores that feel like they were crafted to contribute to the game's character instead of going with something that could be part of any big budget Hollywood action flick.
I thought the DX-HR music was great, and it's the same composer on the new project (Micheal Mccann), so I'm optimistic.
I care, a lot. Especially for the 15 seconds before I find the audio settings and turn it down to 20%.
"Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 deploys players into a dark, twisted future where a new breed of Black Ops soldier emerges and the lines are blurred between our own humanity and the technology we created to stay ahead, in a world where cutting-edge military robotics define warfare. With three unique game modes: Campaign, Multiplayer and Zombies, providing fans with the deepest and most ambitious Call of Duty ever"
They must be trolling by now... My Facebook feed was lit up with Black Ops 3 love yesterday and I don't want to be a dick but
They're unique from each other.
It also has thirty unique weapons! For very narrow values of 'unique.' You're onto something there, even if you were just trying to be glib. If you pay attention to the marketing copy of CoD games, they only talk within the scope of the franchise. They don't care if other games have done X feature or used Y tech, they care if a CoD game has. CoD has a distinct player base in games, namely, they have a lot of players who don't otherwise play games. They have the metrics on this and know that their primary competitor is themselves. They need each release to be different enough from previous ones to justify a purchase, but not so different that it doesn't appeal to their unique column of players, the ones who only play their game.
This is part of why other companies, especially EA, are so silly in trying to make a CoD Killer. How do you convince people who typically don't play Other Games, to play Your Other Game which doesn't look that different from what they've already got, but it is on untested grounds? As one YouTuber put it, the CoD Killer is the game that is nothing like it but appeals to CoD players. Minecraft thus far is the only thing which has posed a threat. Now as for "unique weapons", that depends on the goal you have in implementing weapons. I wrote this almost two years ago, but it still applies: http://scar3crow.com/2013/04/am-gun-will-travel/ Now, I wouldn't call myself "excited" for Black Ops 3. But I will keep an eye on it, because Black Ops 2 was by far the strongest entry in the franchise, and this is the first time that development team has had a three year cycle to work with. It will still be Call of Duty, with all the faults that implies, but I've always found it interesting to observe how these teams balance the demands for change and the requirement of familiarity. I will say though, if you play Black Ops 2's multiplayer for a few hours, and you don't feel the difference between the weapons - to the extent that you develop particular favorites, and find your play style adjusting to them - then I would argue that CoD is actually too involved for you. It isn't a good game, but it is, when on point, a game about focused differences and applying them correctly. I would love to know how the game modes of Campaign Multiplayer and Zombies are radically different to all the other previous CODs that includes Campaign Multiplayer and Zombies (the latter in DLC), and how the cutting-edge military robotics are a huge conceptual progression over the previous COD:AW's cutting-edge military robotics.
Basically, they are cocks. As would I, since Treyarch has developed a good track record for this. Black Ops 2 in particular was noteworthy for its branching storyline which shifted between the 2020s, and the 1980s. Sixteen different endings, many of which are seeded by non-obvious events, with levels that you can fail and have the game continue (there is one particular chase sequence... yeah, you want to catch him, he can actually get away, and it makes a big difference in the end). There are the RTS side missions where you instruct multiple squads on routes to take in order to flank enemies and secure safehouses, with the ability to possess any of them. Their addition of numerous side areas and unique items per level were enjoyable, as well as the easter eggs, and the level unique deaths. I liked that because I performed well enough to earn the trust of the Chinese in one mission, that I got air cover from them in another mission to take out snipers. I liked that my failure to veer far enough left to avoid a burst gas pipeline, in a mission where I had chosen to drive, resulted in a friendly NPC's face getting disfigured, and that being brought up in later missions. I liked that I played through the campaign like mister badass, and got... the worst possible ending because I didn't take it seriously. I sowed the seeds of a very bad conclusion.
I liked the fact that in Black Ops 2 they rebuilt the entire class creation system around a card game mechanic (supposedly they developed actual card games in-house, and had employees play them - the most popular one became the structure for class building), eschewing the franchise's tradition of 1 Primary, 1 Secondary, 3 Perks, 1 Lethal Throwable, 1 Tactical Equipment. I liked their replacement of killstreaks with scorestreaks, meaning that you no longer begrudged an assist, that destroying enemy equipment had a longer term payoff, that capturing flags - especially taking one by force because it had additive bonuses - was a lucrative activity. That kills from rewards were worth fewer points, so you bypassed the issue of rewards feeding into rewards. I liked their inclusion of meaningful non-violent equipment to assist teammates and stymie enemies. Was it a perfect game? Hardly. It was a 5.5-6/10 in my book, but it changed up a lot, and continually shifted the expectations of CoD players toward meaningful changes, while still anchored to the CoD base gameplay. I'm not a Zombies player, I liked it in World at War when it was a stinger at the end credits, with a rather spooky tone and a dash of camp, but they took it in a weird camp-comic direction that I don't enjoy, so I've not bothered with it. As for the cutting-edge military robotics, well, Black Ops 2 went the route of a national defense being reliant on drones, but becoming vulnerable to what was essentially DDOSing to gain control, through the breakthrough of major computing power. Ghosts went into the subject of developing a singular super weapon, which was of such power that once successfully taken, was able to lay waste to much of America in short order, leaving it vulnerable. Advanced Warfare focused on technology as it could improve personal mobility without a vehicle, as well as awareness and a dash of augmented reality visualization. The leaked marketing materials for Black Ops 3 suggests that they are going the route of further individual integration with technology. The classic science fiction dilemma of blurred lines between the technology and the person. But this is speculation. The only real stipulation here is that phrase "unique", which would be better replaced by "distinct". Each CoD is generally three games. You've got the campaign by the main studio on that release, the cooperative function (be it Spec Ops, Zombies, or Extinction) by another team in that studio, receiving assistance, and Multiplayer which is generally designed in-house, cooperating with the themes and tone of the campaign, with maps provided largely by third party studios, typically Raven and Nerve. So yeah, distinct would be much more appropriate. But who knows, maybe Treyarch is going to pull another Black Ops 2 where they shift up major chunks of the formula. It certainly paid dividends in 2012.
|
|
| You must be logged in to post in this thread. |
|
| Website copyright © 2002-2025 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors. |