Not really, they've mentioned numerous times its more sandbox-y maps now. The joy of the first was the hit-and-run element for me. You really felt like a rebel. I know the story here is different, more about survival and I guess they felt they had to move in this direction but it still irks me a little.
Not really, they've mentioned numerous times its more sandbox-y maps now. The joy of the first was the hit-and-run element for me. You really felt like a rebel. I know the story here is different, more about survival and I guess they felt they had to move in this direction but it still irks me a little.
Wait, I'm confused. So is it sandbox or no? I always thought open world and sandbox meant the same thing.
Not like the first game where you had this big open sprawling map where you could go anywhere, no. Admittedly there's very little to go on but everything I've seen involves small, constrained environments and little maps. The interviews also keep bringing up the 'maps with a sandboxy feel'. Very linear compared to the first.
Oh, I absolutely loved Guerrilla and just driving around, and it bothers me that some vocal gonks ruined that for the rest of us. But I think to jump straight for "no sandbox? no sale!" is an incredibly hasty decision. Volition can tell a great story (Freespace 2, for one example) which is why they've taken more control over your actions in this one. So it's different to Guerrilla, doesn't mean it's going to be a worse game.
I hope the demolition challenges are in there somewhere. The puzzle gameplay of stuff like "Ok, I have to destroy this building in 90 seconds and I have these exploding barrels, a single mine and my hammer. Hmmmm" was fantastic.
Oh, I absolutely loved Guerrilla and just driving around, and it bothers me that some vocal gonks ruined that for the rest of us. But I think to jump straight for "no sandbox? no sale!" is an incredibly hasty decision. Volition can tell a great story (Freespace 2, for one example) which is why they've taken more control over your actions in this one. So it's different to Guerrilla, doesn't mean it's going to be a worse game.
It may be for you, it's not for me. I'm not interested in story, great or otherwise. I know what I like and a linear action game is not it. That does not make it a bad game or even a worse game then the first. It just doesn't have what I want in a game anymore.
I'm not completely put off, if anything I'm withholding my opinion a little on the matter. They've chosen this system because it fits the narrative; you've been forced unerground because some eco-nuts have destroyed the atmosphere generator or something silly. And underground you find these new alien monsters, so its now taken a survival horror vibe slightly but with comical OTT destruction.
I'm definitely still going to end up getting the game, it just won't be a day one purchase for me.
Big Classy on
0
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Exploding and wrecking shit in the best way possible was the most fun in the game. Actually playing it (i.e. doing the missions and advancing the plot) was... meh. I still haven't beaten the game because I really have no motivation to do so. Blame it on the tepid missions and the I-don't-give-a-shit story.
Guerrila was my first real foray into online multi (I'm old and stuck in my ways), and I played that game way too much that summer, was in the top 50 for a while. Going all kool-aid man on people just never got old.
I have a feeling this summer is going to be very similar to that one, after watching that quick look. Can't wait to use the magnet gun in multiplayer if it's in.
Have they revealed anything about the multi? Are they using backpacks as power-ups again? All I can find through a cursory google search is that they were going to announce something last fall.
What about the XBLA game they're working on? What do we know about it?
A shame about the new Red Faction game being linear. I liked the open-world. They did a great job with it, and it was so unique. A shame they gave up on it. I probably pick it up, but used. Sorry devs. It sounds like you're not making a product I want too much. (either marketing failed to properly communicate or the designers failed to identify what fans want)
I think I might be the only person glad they're doing away with the open world. I know they're on Mars, but that didn't mean it had to be a completely boring, pointless, utterly barren game world devoid of anything but awful vehicle missions, boring building busting missions* and a landscape lacking in things to make go boom.
RFG shined when I was toying with the nanorifle, the jetpack, and the mechs. None of which require an open world, plus they stepped up the "weapons that wreck shit" count. I'll be glad to have a focused set-up where I can maximize my use of these insane things, plus a freeplay mode just for the purpose of further shit wrecking.
Also, whatever jerk on their development team decided that salvage and ore should just bounce away instead of going straight into my pocket is, as already stated, a jerk. This alone killed most of my enjoyment, because the reward for my destruction (which allows further destruction) would go flying off into the abyss or into the arms of the 500 soldiers that keep spawning out of thin damned air.
*Allow me to qualify that statement by saying it's incredibly pointless that there is a side mission focused on it, because that's all I was ever doing anyways. Why would I even bother with that?
I think I might be the only person glad they're doing away with the open world. I know they're on Mars, but that didn't mean it had to be a completely boring, pointless, utterly barren game world devoid of anything but awful vehicle missions, boring building busting missions* and a landscape lacking in things to make go boom.
RFG shined when I was toying with the nanorifle, the jetpack, and the mechs. None of which require an open world, plus they stepped up the "weapons that wreck shit" count. I'll be glad to have a focused set-up where I can maximize my use of these insane things, plus a freeplay mode just for the purpose of further shit wrecking.
Also, whatever jerk on their development team decided that salvage and ore should just bounce away instead of going straight into my pocket is, as already stated, a jerk. This alone killed most of my enjoyment, because the reward for my destruction (which allows further destruction) would go flying off into the abyss or into the arms of the 500 soldiers that keep spawning out of thin damned air.
*Allow me to qualify that statement by saying it's incredibly pointless that there is a side mission focused on it, because that's all I was ever doing anyways. Why would I even bother with that?
RF:G suffered from a poor map, as well. Too much open/wasted space, a giant area in the middle of Oasis that's inaccessible and never used, lots of obvious mountain boundaries, very few rewards for exploring....
I'm totally okay with RF:A being more linear.
Nightslyr on
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
I think I might be the only person glad they're doing away with the open world. I know they're on Mars, but that didn't mean it had to be a completely boring, pointless, utterly barren game world devoid of anything but awful vehicle missions, boring building busting missions* and a landscape lacking in things to make go boom.
RFG shined when I was toying with the nanorifle, the jetpack, and the mechs. None of which require an open world, plus they stepped up the "weapons that wreck shit" count. I'll be glad to have a focused set-up where I can maximize my use of these insane things, plus a freeplay mode just for the purpose of further shit wrecking.
Also, whatever jerk on their development team decided that salvage and ore should just bounce away instead of going straight into my pocket is, as already stated, a jerk. This alone killed most of my enjoyment, because the reward for my destruction (which allows further destruction) would go flying off into the abyss or into the arms of the 500 soldiers that keep spawning out of thin damned air.
*Allow me to qualify that statement by saying it's incredibly pointless that there is a side mission focused on it, because that's all I was ever doing anyways. Why would I even bother with that?
RF:G suffered from a poor map, as well. Too much open/wasted space, a giant area in the middle of Oasis that's inaccessible and never used, lots of obvious mountain boundaries, very few rewards for exploring....
The Giantbomb quicklook was pretty much exactly what I was hoping to see. Free play mode, big blue balls of destruction, repair gun, outside stuff. Sold.
The only thing that matters is being able to blow shit the fuck up as often as possible, in as many different ways as possible. I don't give a shit if it's more linear or not unless it gets in the way of me blowing shit up, in which case I'll probably pass on this game.
Also, if the multiplayer is as good as the first game then I'll be happy. I just hope it won't die as quickly as the multi for the first one did.
Darmak on
0
CarbonFireSee youin the countryRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
Red Faction: Armageddon : Big Blue Balls (of Destruction)
it's like you guys tried your hardest to hate the game wherever possible
Who said I hated the game? You do realize that it's possible to enjoy something while acknowledging whatever flaws it may have, right? Shit, my favorite game of all time is Xenogears, and it's covered in warts of various size.
RF:G didn't benefit much from being an open game. The best parts, for me, were reducing EDF control of an area by assaulting medium and high priority targets and the various destruction puzzles, neither of which, mechanically, needed an open world to work.
I loved a lot of the ideas in RF:G, but they didn't feel all that fleshed out. Being able to inspire and rally the locals is a very cool idea. It never becomes more than a cool idea, however, because it simply leads to NPCs clashing, and the EDF always inevitably wins these encounters due to the infinite waves that spawn unless you die or escape them. There's no sense of progress, of "Hey, we're actually winning the war" outside of story missions.
The same goes for the mini games. Again, I loved the timed demolition puzzles. Unique, well crafted, and loads of fun. I also loved the mech rampages. Fuck yeah, destruction everywhere! But the driving missions? The rail shooter missions? Not so much.
And, again, the map sucked. There's no excuse for Oasis to have, what, around half of what's on the map screen to be totally inaccessible. Don't make me think that there's going to be a ton of room for mayhem, and then pull the rug out from under me. Don't give me a jet pack and then close off the map with invisible walls. Don't make a huge area like the Badlands and then hardly have anything interesting in it (RF1 guy excepted).
All that said, I'd kill for a more tactical RF:G with more/bigger buildings, where winning/losing zones or buildings meant more than what kind of EDF troops would be sent after you. Hell, an entire destructible city would be awesome, even if it was only the size of GTA 3's Liberty City.
Nightslyr on
PSN/XBL/Nintendo/Origin/Steam: Nightslyr 3DS: 1607-1682-2948 Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
0
Big DookieSmells great!Houston, TXRegistered Userregular
edited March 2011
I personally liked the open-ended nature of the first game, but you have to admit that Klash and Night make some good points. The layout of the world was not very well utilized, and many if the missions were either infuriating or just flat out boring. I'm not crazy about the linear direction, but if they use it to good effect (meaning fun gameplay and laser-focused narrative) then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think my favorite memory from RF:G was attempting to rescue some hostages via a roof insertion with a mech. The mech was fine but the top floor, third floor, second floor and hostages learned a harsh lesson in weight tolerance limits.
What about the XBLA game they're working on? What do we know about it?
It's an top-down twin stick vehicle-based shooter with four player co-op that should arrive during the first week of April. There's an article with some details about it here.
it's like you guys tried your hardest to hate the game wherever possible
Who said I hated the game? You do realize that it's possible to enjoy something while acknowledging whatever flaws it may have, right? Shit, my favorite game of all time is Xenogears, and it's covered in warts of various size.
RF:G didn't benefit much from being an open game. The best parts, for me, were reducing EDF control of an area by assaulting medium and high priority targets and the various destruction puzzles, neither of which, mechanically, needed an open world to work.
I loved a lot of the ideas in RF:G, but they didn't feel all that fleshed out. Being able to inspire and rally the locals is a very cool idea. It never becomes more than a cool idea, however, because it simply leads to NPCs clashing, and the EDF always inevitably wins these encounters due to the infinite waves that spawn unless you die or escape them. There's no sense of progress, of "Hey, we're actually winning the war" outside of story missions.
The same goes for the mini games. Again, I loved the timed demolition puzzles. Unique, well crafted, and loads of fun. I also loved the mech rampages. Fuck yeah, destruction everywhere! But the driving missions? The rail shooter missions? Not so much.
And, again, the map sucked. There's no excuse for Oasis to have, what, around half of what's on the map screen to be totally inaccessible. Don't make me think that there's going to be a ton of room for mayhem, and then pull the rug out from under me. Don't give me a jet pack and then close off the map with invisible walls. Don't make a huge area like the Badlands and then hardly have anything interesting in it (RF1 guy excepted).
All that said, I'd kill for a more tactical RF:G with more/bigger buildings, where winning/losing zones or buildings meant more than what kind of EDF troops would be sent after you. Hell, an entire destructible city would be awesome, even if it was only the size of GTA 3's Liberty City.
I agree with everything Nightslyr said. Those are exactly my feelings. I really hated the freedom fighters that showed up when you increased the rebellion side meter. they only got in the way and made me lose freedom fries, i mean, points. Invading and destroying the HVTs was by far the most fun part, but the infinite spawn mechanics made that kinda annoying too.
I agree about infinite spawn but I just played on easy so that the mooks had very low hit points and did little damage. If I wanted to kill them, I'd kill them, but if I was busy doing something else more fun (so nearly always) then actually killing them was often a low priority and I could get away with it.
Posts
EDIT: Nooo! Get back in the mech, damn it!
EDIT2: :whistle: there's a repair ability? Nice.
If no-one's gotten around to it by the time I get home from work in about ten hours, I'd be happy to do it.
What?!? They got rid of open world??
Pre-order cancelled I guess. No loss, I suppose, it is THQ after all.
The destruction's still all there but yeah, it's not Saints Row Mars anymore or nuffin'
Yeah, that's too bad. I don't really like action games unless it's a fee roam is all. Just not my cup of tea.
Well, that's a rather hasty decision..
No, it's not. I only like sandbox action games. Regular action games are nice enough but just not my niche.
Wait, I'm confused. So is it sandbox or no? I always thought open world and sandbox meant the same thing.
It may be for you, it's not for me. I'm not interested in story, great or otherwise. I know what I like and a linear action game is not it. That does not make it a bad game or even a worse game then the first. It just doesn't have what I want in a game anymore.
I'm definitely still going to end up getting the game, it just won't be a day one purchase for me.
I have a feeling this summer is going to be very similar to that one, after watching that quick look. Can't wait to use the magnet gun in multiplayer if it's in.
Have they revealed anything about the multi? Are they using backpacks as power-ups again? All I can find through a cursory google search is that they were going to announce something last fall.
A shame about the new Red Faction game being linear. I liked the open-world. They did a great job with it, and it was so unique. A shame they gave up on it. I probably pick it up, but used. Sorry devs. It sounds like you're not making a product I want too much. (either marketing failed to properly communicate or the designers failed to identify what fans want)
RFG shined when I was toying with the nanorifle, the jetpack, and the mechs. None of which require an open world, plus they stepped up the "weapons that wreck shit" count. I'll be glad to have a focused set-up where I can maximize my use of these insane things, plus a freeplay mode just for the purpose of further shit wrecking.
Also, whatever jerk on their development team decided that salvage and ore should just bounce away instead of going straight into my pocket is, as already stated, a jerk. This alone killed most of my enjoyment, because the reward for my destruction (which allows further destruction) would go flying off into the abyss or into the arms of the 500 soldiers that keep spawning out of thin damned air.
*Allow me to qualify that statement by saying it's incredibly pointless that there is a side mission focused on it, because that's all I was ever doing anyways. Why would I even bother with that?
RF:G suffered from a poor map, as well. Too much open/wasted space, a giant area in the middle of Oasis that's inaccessible and never used, lots of obvious mountain boundaries, very few rewards for exploring....
I'm totally okay with RF:A being more linear.
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
http://steamcommunity.com/id/idolninja
Also, if the multiplayer is as good as the first game then I'll be happy. I just hope it won't die as quickly as the multi for the first one did.
Who said I hated the game? You do realize that it's possible to enjoy something while acknowledging whatever flaws it may have, right? Shit, my favorite game of all time is Xenogears, and it's covered in warts of various size.
RF:G didn't benefit much from being an open game. The best parts, for me, were reducing EDF control of an area by assaulting medium and high priority targets and the various destruction puzzles, neither of which, mechanically, needed an open world to work.
I loved a lot of the ideas in RF:G, but they didn't feel all that fleshed out. Being able to inspire and rally the locals is a very cool idea. It never becomes more than a cool idea, however, because it simply leads to NPCs clashing, and the EDF always inevitably wins these encounters due to the infinite waves that spawn unless you die or escape them. There's no sense of progress, of "Hey, we're actually winning the war" outside of story missions.
The same goes for the mini games. Again, I loved the timed demolition puzzles. Unique, well crafted, and loads of fun. I also loved the mech rampages. Fuck yeah, destruction everywhere! But the driving missions? The rail shooter missions? Not so much.
And, again, the map sucked. There's no excuse for Oasis to have, what, around half of what's on the map screen to be totally inaccessible. Don't make me think that there's going to be a ton of room for mayhem, and then pull the rug out from under me. Don't give me a jet pack and then close off the map with invisible walls. Don't make a huge area like the Badlands and then hardly have anything interesting in it (RF1 guy excepted).
All that said, I'd kill for a more tactical RF:G with more/bigger buildings, where winning/losing zones or buildings meant more than what kind of EDF troops would be sent after you. Hell, an entire destructible city would be awesome, even if it was only the size of GTA 3's Liberty City.
Switch: SW-3515-0057-3813 FF XIV: Q'vehn Tia
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
You're the bestest ever.
It's an top-down twin stick vehicle-based shooter with four player co-op that should arrive during the first week of April. There's an article with some details about it here.
RF:B Trailer
I agree with everything Nightslyr said. Those are exactly my feelings. I really hated the freedom fighters that showed up when you increased the rebellion side meter. they only got in the way and made me lose freedom fries, i mean, points. Invading and destroying the HVTs was by far the most fun part, but the infinite spawn mechanics made that kinda annoying too.