Yeah it's a really weird choice. The invasion levels also have online leaderboards, making them the only persistent competitive levels (the challenge levels change on a daily or weekly basis).
Rayman Legends on Vita appears to be missing content - it has none of the invasion stages.
Ubisoft have yet to comment, but yeah, far from having all the content as promised. There's a GAF thread following this.
What are "invasion" stages and how much content does that mean?
Oops, thought I'd responded to this already
The majority of the levels in the new worlds (ie not the levels from origins) have an "invasion" version, where enemies/obstacles from other worlds are put into it. They're basically speed run levels, where you have to complete them within 40-60 seconds. They're balls-hard though, probably the toughest content in the game.
They're not the most important content, but they're hardly throw-away content either - the levels are changed up quite a bit. Best way I can think to put it, imagine Origins without the chest runs.
Yeah, that is disappointing. The treasure chest runs were great. I wonder why they didn't put that in.
Makes it seem like a purely political move to keep the Wii U version standing as the definitive one
Except reviews are saying that if you're playing single-player, the PS3/360 versions are better
Were the excised modes even involving Murphy stuff?
Nope, completely Murphy free.
This version of the game was outsourced, which might be the source of this bullshittery.
Wait, there's no Murphy stuff in the Vita version? That actually makes me interested in the Vita version again, since it was my least favorite aspect of the Wii U demo.
Makes it seem like a purely political move to keep the Wii U version standing as the definitive one
Except reviews are saying that if you're playing single-player, the PS3/360 versions are better
Were the excised modes even involving Murphy stuff?
Nope, completely Murphy free.
This version of the game was outsourced, which might be the source of this bullshittery.
Wait, there's no Murphy stuff in the Vita version? That actually makes me interested in the Vita version again, since it was my least favorite aspect of the Wii U demo.
You should try the PS3/360 version
You actually play as Rayman instead of just playing as the green thing that holds open doors for him
I got to try out that Batman Arkham Blackgate game on Vita this weekend, it was pretty awesome. Still keeps the combat from the Arkham games but its more of a side scroller 2.5D experience. I think it's gonna be a solid game when it releases just based on the demo, I had a lot of fun with it.
I got to try out that Batman Arkham Blackgate game on Vita this weekend, it was pretty awesome. Still keeps the combat from the Arkham games but its more of a side scroller 2.5D experience. I think it's gonna be a solid game when it releases just based on the demo, I had a lot of fun with it.
Do you know if you can use the d-pad for movement, or is it strictly limited to the analog stick?
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I got to try out that Batman Arkham Blackgate game on Vita this weekend, it was pretty awesome. Still keeps the combat from the Arkham games but its more of a side scroller 2.5D experience. I think it's gonna be a solid game when it releases just based on the demo, I had a lot of fun with it.
Do you know if you can use the d-pad for movement, or is it strictly limited to the analog stick?
I would've figured that movement was on the stick, and gadget quick select was on d-pad with (hopefully) the option to reverse them. It doesn't sound like you used the d-pad at all, though so who knows.
Not a big deal, anyway. I just find it more comfortable on extended sessions to use the d-pad over the stick. Still gonna get it on Vita for dat screen.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I know people mentioned it on here earlier, but is Tokyo Jungle on PS Mobile worth picking up if you love the PS3 version? Or should I just remote play the PS3 version from bed, since, if that works, it would be amazing?
You know how the PS3 version is Metal Dear Solid?
Well, the mobile version is Metal Deer Ac!d.
Makes it seem like a purely political move to keep the Wii U version standing as the definitive one
Except reviews are saying that if you're playing single-player, the PS3/360 versions are better
Were the excised modes even involving Murphy stuff?
Nope, completely Murphy free.
This version of the game was outsourced, which might be the source of this bullshittery.
Wait, there's no Murphy stuff in the Vita version? That actually makes me interested in the Vita version again, since it was my least favorite aspect of the Wii U demo.
You should try the PS3/360 version
You actually play as Rayman instead of just playing as the green thing that holds open doors for him
That's my problem. I really prefer Rayman as a portable game, so neither version has everything I want.
Ok, so yeah. Other than Dragon's Crown what are some good games with Ad-Hoc multiplayer (not wifi).
Not sure what you would qualify as good, but of the Vita games I own, the ones that list ad-hoc(other than Dragon's Crown) are Hot Shots Golf World Invitational, Dynasty Warriors Next, BlazBlue Continuum Shift Extend, and Ragnarok Odyssey. There may be others, but that's what I see looking at game boxes.
Ok, so yeah. Other than Dragon's Crown what are some good games with Ad-Hoc multiplayer (not wifi).
Not sure what you would qualify as good, but of the Vita games I own, the ones that list ad-hoc(other than Dragon's Crown) are Hot Shots Golf World Invitational, Dynasty Warriors Next, BlazBlue Continuum Shift Extend, and Ragnarok Odyssey. There may be others, but that's what I see looking at game boxes.
Hey, neat. I have Dynasty Warriors and Ragnarok, I just don't have them downloaded at the moment so I didn't think to check them for ad-hoc.
Switch SW-5832-5050-0149
PSN Hypacia
Xbox HypaciaMinnow
Discord Hypacia#0391
I know people mentioned it on here earlier, but is Tokyo Jungle on PS Mobile worth picking up if you love the PS3 version? Or should I just remote play the PS3 version from bed, since, if that works, it would be amazing?
You know how the PS3 version is Metal Dear Solid?
Well, the mobile version is Metal Deer Ac!d.
Metal Deer?!
Little does anyone know that this is actually a preview of the medallion for the new School of the Deer in Witcher 3.
They're....not the brightest school. In fact I hear that the Witchers in that school tend to be mesmerized into paralysis by bright, rapidly-approaching lights.
+1
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
So reviews are starting to trickle out for Killzone: Mercenaries, first two I've seen so far were both 9/10.
Looks like we finally have an FPS winner for the Vita on our hands. *thumbs up*
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
The beta for Mercenaries has been more than fun enough to get a purchase from me. Never would've even considered it otherwise.
+1
The_SpaniardIt's never lupinesIrvine, CaliforniaRegistered Userregular
Man now that embargo has lifted and the reviews are pouring in, they are all over the map. I've seen reviews ranging from 10/10 all the way down to 5/10. Mind you the majority of the reviews are solidly to overwhelmingly positive, there are quite a few middling to downright scathing reviews. And these lower reviews seem to be chock full of idiocy in absolute spades.
Here are some of the complaints in no particular order that I've seen from some of these reviews:
Not as good as console shooters.
There are other "console" shooters that are better.
The Vita does not control as well as a dual shock controller.
Single-player is awesome but multiplayer sucks.
Multiplayer is awesome but single-player sucks.
Multiplayer isn't as good as the multiplayer in console shooters.
Multiplayer is too laggy, or I lost connection in most games I played... No of course it isn't my connection!
So people are blaming it for not being exactly as good as "insert console shooter name here" in every way, without giving credit where credit is due for making a pretty friggen close approximation in every way on a damn handheld! It's just like when a game gets ported to a handheld and then instead of acknowledging that it's not as good as the full fledged console version because it's on a handheld, they just bitch about how it isn't as good like there is no excuse for it not to be.
Man now that embargo has lifted and the reviews are pouring in, they are all over the map. I've seen reviews ranging from 10/10 all the way down to 5/10. Mind you the majority of the reviews are solidly to overwhelmingly positive, there are quite a few middling to downright scathing reviews. And these lower reviews seem to be chock full of idiocy in absolute spades.
Here are some of the complaints in no particular order that I've seen from some of these reviews:
Not as good as console shooters.
There are other "console" shooters that are better.
The Vita does not control as well as a dual shock controller.
Single-player is awesome but multiplayer sucks.
Multiplayer is awesome but single-player sucks.
Multiplayer isn't as good as the multiplayer in console shooters.
Multiplayer is too laggy, or I lost connection in most games I played... No of course it isn't my connection!
So people are blaming it for not being exactly as good as "insert console shooter name here" in every way, without giving credit where credit is due for making a pretty friggen close approximation in every way on a damn handheld! It's just like when a game gets ported to a handheld and then instead of acknowledging that it's not as good as the full fledged console version because it's on a handheld, they just bitch about how it isn't as good like there is no excuse for it not to be.
Let's be fair
I don't care how close of an approximation they made
I don't care if Killzone for Vita blows Killzone 3 out of the water graphically
If it doesn't do what it sets out to do well, it doesn't matter worth a shit. If the single-player is bad, or the multiplayer is bad, or the matchmaking sucks, I could give a damn whether "this looks good but it's expected to be shittier because it's on the Vita"
No, it's not expected to be shittier. I don't go into any game expecting it to be shitty just because it's on a particular platform
+2
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
I tried the Beta at various times across 4 different days and never once managed to get into a game, so I'm inclined to believe that final one. But I'm mostly waiting on feedback from this thread on the single player.
Man now that embargo has lifted and the reviews are pouring in, they are all over the map. I've seen reviews ranging from 10/10 all the way down to 5/10. Mind you the majority of the reviews are solidly to overwhelmingly positive, there are quite a few middling to downright scathing reviews. And these lower reviews seem to be chock full of idiocy in absolute spades.
Here are some of the complaints in no particular order that I've seen from some of these reviews:
Not as good as console shooters.
There are other "console" shooters that are better.
The Vita does not control as well as a dual shock controller.
Single-player is awesome but multiplayer sucks.
Multiplayer is awesome but single-player sucks.
Multiplayer isn't as good as the multiplayer in console shooters.
Multiplayer is too laggy, or I lost connection in most games I played... No of course it isn't my connection!
So people are blaming it for not being exactly as good as "insert console shooter name here" in every way, without giving credit where credit is due for making a pretty friggen close approximation in every way on a damn handheld! It's just like when a game gets ported to a handheld and then instead of acknowledging that it's not as good as the full fledged console version because it's on a handheld, they just bitch about how it isn't as good like there is no excuse for it not to be.
Let's be fair
I don't care how close of an approximation they made
I don't care if Killzone for Vita blows Killzone 3 out of the water graphically
If it doesn't do what it sets out to do well, it doesn't matter worth a shit. If the single-player is bad, or the multiplayer is bad, or the matchmaking sucks, I could give a damn whether "this looks good but it's expected to be shittier because it's on the Vita"
No, it's not expected to be shittier. I don't go into any game expecting it to be shitty just because it's on a particular platform
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I said approximation in every way, graphics, gameplay, multiplayer, etc. And that list of complaints was showing people complaining left right and center about contradictory things, or reviewing and directly bashing because it isn't exactly as good as a console shooter which is ridiculous.
I would never defend a shit game just because it looked good, I never even mentioned graphics.
Also it's nothing to do with expecting a game to be shittier because of its platform, but realistically managing expectations.
But not being as good as a console shooter is a legitimate complaint, is what I was saying
You've got a game on a system that's more than capable in terms of Internet connection (like a console), has the hardware power behind it (like a console), has a near identical control scheme to a console controller, has a comparable price to console shooters and is clearly trying to be a console shooter in style
All those things considered, you shouldn't have to manage any expectations
The Vita is a more-than-capable system that seems perfectly able to give a full-on multiplayer shooter experience
Well, at least the game is being supported, there's apparently a 1.2 gig day one patch already. Whether that fixes many or any of the complaints, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Incidentally, with the game plus patch, it's looking to take up almost 5 gigs. Hope you have a big enough memory stick!
Well, at least the game is being supported, there's apparently a 1.2 gig day one patch already. Whether that fixes many or any of the complaints, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Incidentally, with the game plus patch, it's looking to take up almost 5 gigs. Hope you have a big enough memory stick!
Goodness bloody gracious I've only got an 8GB stick!
Erm, that is if you went digital. Obviously cart + patch won't be that severe. :P
Anyway, I had some connection issues with the multi beta but overall it was a phenomenal experience, and I'm up for picking this up next week. Maybe I'll skip going all digital on it though...
I didn't realize it was out so soon. Looks like I don't need to find something to spend my fun bucks on! I'm glad that sale ended, I was going to get a few more just because they were cheap. Definitely on board for mercenary.
But not being as good as a console shooter is a legitimate complaint, is what I was saying
You've got a game on a system that's more than capable in terms of Internet connection (like a console), has the hardware power behind it (like a console), has a near identical control scheme to a console controller, has a comparable price to console shooters and is clearly trying to be a console shooter in style
All those things considered, you shouldn't have to manage any expectations
The Vita is a more-than-capable system that seems perfectly able to give a full-on multiplayer shooter experience
So you take a platform not nearly as powerful as consoles, with less buttons and less precise controls, a game with a smaller budget, being developed by a smaller B team, and you say it's okay to expect it to be the same quality in every way as a AAA, $1-200 million budget, console blockbuster?
What if a company was trying to put a near console quality experience on a cellphone? Would it be okay then to complain that it isn't as good as on a console? What if we go as far back as the Game Boy and arcades? When they tried to release decent portable approximations of a major 8 foot arcade cabinet hits on a small grey brick with a couple of buttons, and a green dot matrix display?
At what point is it acceptable to manage expectations, and understand that this isn't a console, it never will be, and some games\genres translate greatly to it, but others just simply can't and won't ever be exactly as good as on a console on this handheld?
For example if I was playing/reviewing a console game shooter, I wouldn't bash it for not controlling as well as on a PC, or not having graphics as good as on a PC. Those are ridiculous and unrealistic complaints.
Oh, and I don't think a third cheaper than the release price of a major console shooter is all too comparable a price as you said when expecting the same quality.
Posts
Except reviews are saying that if you're playing single-player, the PS3/360 versions are better
Were the excised modes even involving Murphy stuff?
Yeah, that is disappointing. The treasure chest runs were great. I wonder why they didn't put that in.
Nope, completely Murphy free.
This version of the game was outsourced, which might be the source of this bullshittery.
You should try the PS3/360 version
You actually play as Rayman instead of just playing as the green thing that holds open doors for him
Do you know if you can use the d-pad for movement, or is it strictly limited to the analog stick?
This. This is crucial information
3DS: 1118-0304-5441 | PSN: b1rdman385 | steam:b1rdman385 | BattleTag(Diablo 3): Marticus#1981 | NNID: b1rdman
Not a big deal, anyway. I just find it more comfortable on extended sessions to use the d-pad over the stick. Still gonna get it on Vita for dat screen.
I like you.
Can't we buck the trend?
You hurt my hart.
Shit, now I feel dirty.
Ok, so yeah. Other than Dragon's Crown what are some good games with Ad-Hoc multiplayer (not wifi).
PSN Hypacia
Xbox HypaciaMinnow
Discord Hypacia#0391
Not sure what you would qualify as good, but of the Vita games I own, the ones that list ad-hoc(other than Dragon's Crown) are Hot Shots Golf World Invitational, Dynasty Warriors Next, BlazBlue Continuum Shift Extend, and Ragnarok Odyssey. There may be others, but that's what I see looking at game boxes.
Hey, neat. I have Dynasty Warriors and Ragnarok, I just don't have them downloaded at the moment so I didn't think to check them for ad-hoc.
PSN Hypacia
Xbox HypaciaMinnow
Discord Hypacia#0391
Kickass rhythm game, at any rate :^:
Little does anyone know that this is actually a preview of the medallion for the new School of the Deer in Witcher 3.
They're....not the brightest school. In fact I hear that the Witchers in that school tend to be mesmerized into paralysis by bright, rapidly-approaching lights.
Looks like we finally have an FPS winner for the Vita on our hands. *thumbs up*
Here are some of the complaints in no particular order that I've seen from some of these reviews:
Not as good as console shooters.
There are other "console" shooters that are better.
The Vita does not control as well as a dual shock controller.
Single-player is awesome but multiplayer sucks.
Multiplayer is awesome but single-player sucks.
Multiplayer isn't as good as the multiplayer in console shooters.
Multiplayer is too laggy, or I lost connection in most games I played... No of course it isn't my connection!
So people are blaming it for not being exactly as good as "insert console shooter name here" in every way, without giving credit where credit is due for making a pretty friggen close approximation in every way on a damn handheld! It's just like when a game gets ported to a handheld and then instead of acknowledging that it's not as good as the full fledged console version because it's on a handheld, they just bitch about how it isn't as good like there is no excuse for it not to be.
Let's be fair
I don't care how close of an approximation they made
I don't care if Killzone for Vita blows Killzone 3 out of the water graphically
If it doesn't do what it sets out to do well, it doesn't matter worth a shit. If the single-player is bad, or the multiplayer is bad, or the matchmaking sucks, I could give a damn whether "this looks good but it's expected to be shittier because it's on the Vita"
No, it's not expected to be shittier. I don't go into any game expecting it to be shitty just because it's on a particular platform
Killzone's never really been my thing anyways though so I wasn't crying over it, I just wanted to see how good it looked
I would never defend a shit game just because it looked good, I never even mentioned graphics.
Also it's nothing to do with expecting a game to be shittier because of its platform, but realistically managing expectations.
You've got a game on a system that's more than capable in terms of Internet connection (like a console), has the hardware power behind it (like a console), has a near identical control scheme to a console controller, has a comparable price to console shooters and is clearly trying to be a console shooter in style
All those things considered, you shouldn't have to manage any expectations
The Vita is a more-than-capable system that seems perfectly able to give a full-on multiplayer shooter experience
Incidentally, with the game plus patch, it's looking to take up almost 5 gigs. Hope you have a big enough memory stick!
Goodness bloody gracious I've only got an 8GB stick!
Anyway, I had some connection issues with the multi beta but overall it was a phenomenal experience, and I'm up for picking this up next week. Maybe I'll skip going all digital on it though...
What if a company was trying to put a near console quality experience on a cellphone? Would it be okay then to complain that it isn't as good as on a console? What if we go as far back as the Game Boy and arcades? When they tried to release decent portable approximations of a major 8 foot arcade cabinet hits on a small grey brick with a couple of buttons, and a green dot matrix display?
At what point is it acceptable to manage expectations, and understand that this isn't a console, it never will be, and some games\genres translate greatly to it, but others just simply can't and won't ever be exactly as good as on a console on this handheld?
For example if I was playing/reviewing a console game shooter, I wouldn't bash it for not controlling as well as on a PC, or not having graphics as good as on a PC. Those are ridiculous and unrealistic complaints.
Oh, and I don't think a third cheaper than the release price of a major console shooter is all too comparable a price as you said when expecting the same quality.