Sent you a FR, Staats.
I was really turned off by the developer videos. They were trying way to hard to be cool and it didn't help that a majority of the gameplay I saw was of what is probably the most boring class in the game (the tank). Then, I watched Giantbombs quick look and was sold. This game actually looks pretty fun when real people are playing it.
I will be playing this most of the evening. I'm going to spam friend requests to the people that said they will be on tonight, feel free to do the same to me.
I hate assassins.
Nevermind. I see MNC has its own thread.
Aside from committing that all too common error in FPS -- the inclusion of a sniper rifle -- it seems pretty solid.
Seriously. Haven't developers ever played games on a "no sniper" server and seen how much more entertaining they are for everyone but the people who only like to snipe?
I'd barely given Monday Night Combat any thought until stumbling upon Simon Parkin over at Eurogamer giving it a 9/10.
The game demands its players to organise themselves effectively, deciding who is going to cover which bot path, and on what element each member is to spend their money on. If a multiplayer version of Plants vs. Zombies combined with Gears of War's Horde mode sounds appealing then rest easy: you're home.
Very Intriguing. Anyone have any impressions of single-player?
I'm also curious to how well this'll play with random XBL teammates, as I'd hate to only be able to play if other gwj'ers are around.
Wokavan, check out the Catch-All.
The game plays well with randoms, because teamwork with your bots is built in--there are clear avenues to cooperatively make pushes on.
Thanks!
4xis.black wrote:Quick question: Assuming I was some kind of crazy person who has never played Symphony of Night, would that be worth buying instead of this new one? (Or at all, in 2010?)
Yes. It's always worth it to buy Symphony of the Night.
Good call. Bought it, played all the way through it.
I'd barely given Monday Night Combat any thought until stumbling upon Simon Parkin over at Eurogamer giving it a 9/10.
The game demands its players to organise themselves effectively, deciding who is going to cover which bot path, and on what element each member is to spend their money on. If a multiplayer version of Plants vs. Zombies combined with Gears of War's Horde mode sounds appealing then rest easy: you're home.Very Intriguing. Anyone have any impressions of single-player?
I'm also curious to how well this'll play with random XBL teammates, as I'd hate to only be able to play if other gwj'ers are around.
Single-player is pretty poor. It's there, but it feels a bit hollow. Things get set up pretty naturally, though of course it's much more coordinated with GWJers.
Carrot is right, though, the bot dynamic helps players coordinate what they should be doing.
I played me some hydro thunder using my wheel! OMG that is intense!
I played me some hydro thunder using my wheel! OMG that is intense!
I just use a controller, but I think Hydro thunder is a blast.
I'm picking the Lara Croft game up when it comes out. I've really liked the last few Tomb Raider games, so I am curious about this direction for the game. It looks like fun, though.
I'm picking the Lara Croft game up when it comes out. I've really liked the last few Tomb Raider games, so I am curious about this direction for the game. It looks like fun, though.
After finally watching some footage and seeing its twin-stick stylez I can't wait. Couch co-op has been the phrase of my summer and LC looks like the perfect cure for FIFA whoopin' blues.
Anyone have any comments on Lara Croft so far? Anyone finish it yet? I'm curious about the total play time.
Anyone have any comments on Lara Croft so far? Anyone finish it yet? I'm curious about the total play time.
Only comment I've got is on the demo, which I *really* enjoyed. Planning on sitting down with the wife at some point and if she likes it, then it's a purchase for some conjugal couch co-op action.
I've heard nothing but good things about Lara Croft XBLA, so I'll likely be picking up the game tonight.
I understand that there are 14 levels that take 30-45 minutes each. However, each level has a set of challenges that encourage multiple playthroughs (speed runs, skull collecting, hidden powerups, etc.).
I've heard nothing but good things about Lara Croft XBLA, so I'll likely be picking up the game tonight.
I understand that there are 14 levels that take 30-45 minutes each. However, each level has a set of challenges that encourage multiple playthroughs (speed runs, skull collecting, hidden powerups, etc.).
Thanks! that sounds fantastic for a $15 game. I'm in.
Jeff-66 wrote:Anyone have any comments on Lara Croft so far? Anyone finish it yet? I'm curious about the total play time.
Only comment I've got is on the demo, which I *really* enjoyed. Planning on sitting down with the wife at some point and if she likes it, then it's a purchase for some conjugal couch co-op action.
It's a rare game that clicks for both the missus and I, but this is one of them!
I was impressed with how the assymetric co-op works, and also impressed with how differently the game plays SP vs. MP, even to the point of some of the puzzles working slightly differently with 2 players.
The first half of Lara Croft was fantastic. Expect for a few nitpicking things, it was all i could have hoped for. Then in the second half they made a terrible design decision that is just killing this game for me. The game had a great pace where it would shift between puzzles/platforming and combat sections. It was fun exploring the levels and the puzzles and then stopping that for a few mins to fight hordes and then back to the next puzzle sections, etc. Then they add enemies that are can't be killed. You can knock them down for a few seconds dry-bones style, but they just keep getting up. It's terribly annoying. They can also jump long distances. So you knock 2 or 3 of them down and then are trying to figure out a lever puzzle or get a big rolling ball into place and they just keep attacking you non-stop. It totally destroys the pacing and enjoyment. I hope there is a super weapon later on that kills them for good.
Then they add enemies that are can't be killed. You can knock them down for a few seconds dry-bones style, but they just keep getting up. It's terribly annoying.
Spolier'd just in case someone else wants to figure it out, but you don't need a super weapon.
Just use your bombs when they are down. Or any other weapons and goes boom!
Shank is kinda awesome.
It's like the Brock Samson game I've wanted for ages but never thought I'd get.
IUMogg wrote:Then they add enemies that are can't be killed. You can knock them down for a few seconds dry-bones style, but they just keep getting up. It's terribly annoying.
Spolier'd just in case someone else wants to figure it out, but you don't need a super weapon.
Spoiler:Just use your bombs when they are down. Or any other weapons and goes boom!
Ah. I was wondering why they would randomly die in later levels. I guess it wasn't random.
I did end up finishing it and besides that one frustration it was excellent.
Shank was a pretty mixed experience. For a game that is supposed to be focused on combat, it has some pretty iffy mechanics. Floaty movement, inconsistent recovery time, and frustrating mixup between block and dodge, along with other problems, spoil an otherwise enjoyable combat system. They need to polish Shank's movements a bit more, otherwise players will be fighting against the controls more than they do against the enemies on screen. I'm not sure I'm happy with this purchase.
Yeah, I'm enjoying Shank, but there are definitely some problems. The block/dodge mechanic needed some serious tightening up: you can always tell this is the case when you die and find yourself thinking, "Oh yeah, I'm supposed to block sometimes, huh?" If you're going to bother having a defensive mechanic in this sort of game at all (and you don't really NEED it; plenty of great beat-em-ups have thrived on the "best defense is a good offense" philosophy), you should make it matter and make clear which situations require you to defend.
Likewise, the "Prince of Persia Lite" platforming bits can get a little frustrating. Has anybody in the history of video games ever found it fun to go through a series of jumps, miss the last one, fall down to the bottom and then have to start all over again? The traversal mechanics aren't nearly deep enough to make it rewarding when you actually get it right, so the game would've been better served by either nixing those bits or else simply making them unfailable so that you can get your kicks out of seeing your dude flip around like a monkey, get through them, and get back to the fun bit, which is the wholesale murder of Hispanic thugs.
Hydrophobia is a game that's been in development for quite awhile now. It was originally billed as a survival-horror game, but it looks like they've shifted the emphasis to more environmental navigation and cover-based combat. The game's big selling point is its technology. It has a pretty solid dynamic fluid engine for flooding areas and the like, and they're using some sort of procedural generation technology to pack more content into an XBLA-size game. Here's a developer walkthrough recorded at some convention or another:
It doesn't look as good as the tech demos released when the game was first announced, but what does?
I'm curious to see what they've come up with and what they've scaled back when shifting this from, presumably, a AAA retail title to an XBLA release.
Tomb Raider is excellent. I don't normally replay single player games, but the mechanics of Tomb Raider are so approachable and enjoyable that multiple play-through's rarely feel like a chore. In fact, I've been playing and replaying every new level until I could obtain most of the achievements before moving further into the campaign.
Pages