[PS3] Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time

It's always been labelled as more of an "action platformer," but classic R&C has a lot of emphasis on jumping and maneuverability, and this one does too. So while it may have a heavier action (and more notably, projectile) than the likes of Mario, it has a lot more emphasis on platforming elements than other action titles, so...

And these days, since there aren't many platformers of any real quality left, they stretch to embrace what they can. ;)
 
[maven];1079992 said:
Why is this called a platformer anyway? Judging from the demo, there little (controlled) jumping and a lot of shooting...
Click to expand...

Platformer label is as good as any, but it certainly is not your average platformer.
Typically R&Cs have shooting, platform jumping, evasion jumping, wall jumping, wall walking, spherical worlds, flying, RPG elements, mini games etc.

R&C 2 had delta wing navigation through obstacles which was somewhat hard for me, but overall platforming sections are a little easier compared to many platformers.
R&C 3 had very little platform jumping, and no flying besides combat.
R&C 4 is said to be a shooter, but haven't played it. :)

Personally, I like the gameplay variety and flow in the first three, but in the third one, you can see the tendency to go more of a action platformer/shooter way.
 
Arwin said:
Here's travelling back in time, to the wonderful year of 2004:
Click to expand...
Well I really don't see the point in that for this title. Aren't there enough Deathmatch and Capture the Flag games in the world already? Back in 2004 it made sense with a limited PS2 online presence, but I don't think this title is really made for multiplayer and any attempt would be forced. If they added 40 player versus with lots of weapons, what would they have? R:FoM in technicolor?
 
betan said:
But I agree with your comment mostly because when people talk about online, they often mention co-op, which wouldn't work for games like R&C and Uncharted.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it work for Uncharted?

I think it would be cool if you could play the secondary character to help solve the puzzles. Say have the second person trip switches which would make some puzzles easier to get through. But to balance the game, maybe ramp up the number of AI enemies and make it harder to get through the combat than hitting and running with just one player.

Hopefully, LBP will influence other games to add online co-op components where additional players make getting through levels easier but with more difficult AI to balance the game.

Heavenly Sword could have Nariko fighting a bunch of enemies with Kai picking off stragglers here and there. But Nariko would also have to protect Kai as well since she can't do hand to hand combat.

Now would all of this make these singleplayer games sell better? Not necessarily but it would offer some replay value which minght attract some buyers who otherwise would have only rented or played and sold these single-player games, which seems a typical pattern.

On R&C, yeah the online modes on the PS2 games were derivative of shooters. I think a co-op mode might have been something different because there are some singleplayer levels which were hard to get through.

Then again, maybe the designers don't think it's in their interest to make it easier for people to complete the games with the aid of a co-op mode. I think the fun factor would be higher though.
 
wco81 said:
Why wouldn't it work for Uncharted?

I think it would be cool if you could play the secondary character to help solve the puzzles. Say have the second person trip switches which would make some puzzles easier to get through. But to balance the game, maybe ramp up the number of AI enemies and make it harder to get through the combat than hitting and running with just one player.

Hopefully, LBP will influence other games to add online co-op components where additional players make getting through levels easier but with more difficult AI to balance the game.

Heavenly Sword could have Nariko fighting a bunch of enemies with Kai picking off stragglers here and there. But Nariko would also have to protect Kai as well since she can't do hand to hand combat.

Now would all of this make these singleplayer games sell better? Not necessarily but it would offer some replay value which minght attract some buyers who otherwise would have only rented or played and sold these single-player games, which seems a typical pattern.

On R&C, yeah the online modes on the PS2 games were derivative of shooters. I think a co-op mode might have been something different because there are some singleplayer levels which were hard to get through.

Then again, maybe the designers don't think it's in their interest to make it easier for people to complete the games with the aid of a co-op mode. I think the fun factor would be higher though.
Click to expand...

But why? Why can't people play alone? I don't understand. I want to play a movie, I don't want to ply with my friends. When you go to the cinema you experience the movie alone, even though you are surrounded by others. Games should not be defined by multiplayer, it's an extra that can so often mar the quality of the single-player experience.

This generation is my first introduction to online gaming, and though it's fun, if it overtakes or shadows over some of the best single-player experiences around then I will be mightely pissed off. All my favorite games are single-player - and I'd say the most important gaming experiences around are single-player from Shadow of the Collossus to Tomb Raider, to Bioshock. There is a certain depth to these experiences which is lost in the pure fun of multiplayer.

Another review is in: 9/10 form pro-g http://www.pro-g.co.uk/ps3/ratchet_clank_future_tools_of_destruction/review.html
 
Having a multiplayer component and a great singleplayer experience aren't mutually exclusive.

Nobody would force you to go online to find someone to do the co-op mode.

If Halo3's co-op mode is a big hit, who knows, it might become a checklist feature for other games. But let's hope it's not limited to shooters but instead spreads to other genres like platformers, action/adventure games which historically hasn't had online modes.
 
wco81 said:
Why wouldn't it work for Uncharted?

I think it would be cool if you could play the secondary character to help solve the puzzles. Say have the second person trip switches which would make some puzzles easier to get through. But to balance the game, maybe ramp up the number of AI enemies and make it harder to get through the combat than hitting and running with just one player.
Click to expand...
Co-op shooting is cool and all but there is little value in co-op platforming, puzzle solving or other parts of those games. For platforming, I don't want to wait for my buddy trying to pass a series of not-so-forgiving acrobatic jumps after zillions of failures..
"Co-op puzzle solving" doesn't really require two controllers, unless the designers force it like simultaneous button press etc. Those changes require different level design than of single player. I guess objective related randomly hidden collectables may make non-linear exploration co-op worthy, but I personally don't like blind treasure hunt.

Overall I'm sure it's possible to make any of those parts fun with co-op, but the effort would simply be too much compared to shooting which itself is not exactly easy.

The issue is very different in case of LBP as the levels are relatively short and hopefully plenty meaning replay value related problems are lesser to an extend.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Well I really don't see the point in that for this title. Aren't there enough Deathmatch and Capture the Flag games in the world already? Back in 2004 it made sense with a limited PS2 online presence, but I don't think this title is really made for multiplayer and any attempt would be forced. If they added 40 player versus with lots of weapons, what would they have? R:FoM in technicolor?
Click to expand...
What makes you think they'd be delivering "just another Deathmatch and Capture the Flag?" Their first foray also had them delivering a "Siege Mode" similar to what other games were rolling in, around the same time as they were delivering it. Not to mention well thought out maps, a choice of control schemes (3rd person, 1st person, and a hybrid), and pretty much rock solid performance. While also delivering the most streamlined and fun version of the single player game.

It certainly didn't feel "tacked on" or "just" anything. And there's no reason they would be likely to deliver something shruggable or tacked on now.


Multiplayer might not be something that's really looked for or cared about from the "platformer" direction, but give any AAA game solid and fun multiplayer, and you broaden the fanbase, keep create more hardcore fans, keep them playing your game and actively looking for new content... The gamestyle R&C would probably work best with would indeed be a bit off the beaten path for the giant, sprawling battlefield games now, or slower-paced tactical shooters, but then again, that's what Team Fortress 2 delivers. It's not really showing off new ideas or complex encounters, but rather few modes and few maps with a level of spit and polish, focused action and "jump right in" gameplay that makes it probably the most fun and addictive game out there, and undoubtedly one that will keep people coming back to it for years to come. (Heck, I'd still have been playing TFC if they'd spent the same time and attention to balancing it.)

There's no reason R&C couldn't deliver something similar, and I have plenty of faith in Insomniac's ability to deliver. (And PS3 owners' desires for more fun multiplayer. ;) )
 
R&D: Deadlocked had co-op, actually. Probably the best part of the game. They did make the platforming easier to compensate. Co-op platforming wouldn't be that hard to do right. Just make it so the best player is the limiting factor instead of the worst. In R&C, if 1 player makes it through have it so he can toss down a line or just teleport the other player to him. In Uncharted, make it so if the better player waits on the target platform, his character will reach out to assist the other character, giving the less skilled player a wider margin of error. Or just include a rope so one of the players can skip puzzles.

Also, Cookies & Cream had many great ideas for co-op platforming just waiting to be borrowed.
 
What's with Gamespot's 7.5 review? Seems to be wildly against the trend - generally a sign of a bad review *shrug*
 
mister slim said:
Also, Cookies & Cream had many great ideas for co-op platforming just waiting to be borrowed.
Click to expand...

Cookie and Cream had alot of great ideas for giving someone a splitting headache! At least in single player, it did.

I just placed a little money down so I can get the game tomorrow. Probably will be unable to play it soon, as Folklore has a tight grip on me and the story requires you to "stay on top of things" in order not to get lost in what's going on.

I'm sure noone needs my impressions, anyhow. The game is sure to be near-flawless.

If Gamespot did indeed give the game a 7.5, I'm eager to read the reasoning behind it. What platformer does is better? Or can platformers just not do it anymore?
 
Just read the review. Complained that the game was too easy.... while making a brief mention of a hard mode but no comments about playing it.

Overall, they say it's just not as good as the previous games. I'm open minded about it. Perhaps the game really isn't all that. Seems a harsh review either way. Really... in the absence of Mario, what platformer is better?
 
All the REVIEWS so far!

GameTap-10
GamePro-10
Play-10
PSM-9.5
GamerNode-9.5
IGN-9.4
PSM3-9.3
GameZone-9.3
Game Informer-.9.3
UnderGroundOnline-9.0
PSX Extreme-9.0
Gaming Age-9.0
Pro-G-9.0
Gametrailers-9.0
Games Rader-9.0
GameAlmighty-9.0
1UP-8.5
GameSpot-7.5

Should I still care about GameSpot? Are they some kind of holy grail of all video game reviews?
 
Gamespot are one of the few quality review sites out there still, so I wouldn't throw them under a bus just yet. Just because they don't agree with the overall glowing trend doesn't mean they're wrong or you "shouldn't care about them any more" - as long as their feedback in text justifies the review.

Personally, I only read three review sites that I'd trust -
Eurogamer
Gamespot
1UP (for the text, not the score)

Most other stuff out there is just nonsense. Still, GS seems to have a glaring "outlier" here, so I'm really interested in Eurogamer's score.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top