Resistance: Fall of Man gameplay impressions
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Nesh said:Well you ve got a point but if AI, interactivity and physics is top notch super duper realistic everywhere except on the bulb I dont think I would have trashed the game's physics, AI and interactivity just for one bulb
...Uhh.. Except it's not just 'one bulb' it would be every bulb in the game.
Or, what? Are some lights going to be able to be shot out and others are not?
That would really add to immersion and make a great deal of sense!
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
BlueTsunami said:
Oh yes! My wrath!
Again, here you are clinging to hopes and wishes of things that might come to pass but certainly aren't demonstrated at the current moment.
I suppose you're part of the group that feels that it's ok that Sony decided not to pay licensing fees to save money while overcharging for a console because they want to push BR, so they left out FF and Rumble from their controller?
It's the same thing. Destructible lights are something that should be in EVERY game. If you want to point to a 360 game that has the same flaws (and I'm sure there's many), I'll berate it in the same manner.
To hold this game up as 'Next Gen' and a 'AAA title' when silly little stupid things like shooting a very obviously destructible light source simply aren't 'allowed' is absurd.
If you're making a game and you don't want the light source in the area to be destructible then you portray that light source in such a manner as to demonstrate that it can't be shot out. (It's behind protective glass, etc..) and even it THAT case, shooting at the light should still result in bullet marks on the glass, etc.
Oh NO! We don't want B3D to incur the wRath of Rancid! Whooptie Doo. If I hadn't re-watched the trailer and mentioned the fact, this thread would have been completely dead.
So forgive me for reviving a dead thread about a game that some people loved and some people thought was just a HL2 knockoff by pointing out how ridiculous a certain 'feature' of the game is.
RancidLunchmeat said:
Wow, that lightbulb was pretty important to you
_phil_ said:
And yet they don't. Like I said, time to rethink the virtual world and gameplay. My point was not merely technological, but that the industry is not adapting to the technology. We are still treating FPS like lights cannot be broken. We have been seeing dynamic lights in retail games since 2004. Far Cry and Doom 3 in 2004 and a slew of PC and 360 titles in 2005. The graphics are decent in this title by next gen/PC standards, but Insamniac is a very good developer. As their first FPS I would like them to bring something new to the table in a big way.
That is how people in the industry get ahead and make an impression in the VERY tough FPS category. Just some examples of how this genre has evolved and what it took are below (there are a lot more examples, but this shows what a "new comer" has to do to strike it big):
GoldenEye 007 -- Rare created a great SP experience broken into chapters roughly following the movie; the AI was good and the story elements were strong. One of the first FPS to really feel like a codified story that involved the player; MP had 4 players on one console and had a variety of characters, weapons, game types, and maps that further extended gameplay.
Unreal -- Epic offered great mod tools to the community, online was very good for the day, and had excellent graphics.
Half-Life -- Valve offered a rare blend of story telling and action with excellent AI and a lot of interactive characters (for the time). The mod tools and community support also spun off some massive franchises (Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress Classic, etc)
Call of Duty -- Through the use of heavy scripting and visceral music, Infinity Ward was able to create an intense, "Saving Private Ryan" experience where players felt immersed in WWII.
Halo -- Bungie had a great mix of story telling and epic music with a unique health system, unique weapons, and the ability to use vehicles (which was one of the first games to do this, and it did it well); Halo also had coop, LAN, and a strong online offering and codified the "proper" way a FPS is to use a gamepad.
Battlefield 1942 -- DICE created a new sort of FPS where up to 64 players played online, at the same time, fighting for control points. With an excellent balance of no-pressure teamwork/lone wolf and having dozens of easy to control vehicles with a high learning curve, Battlefield attracted a massive faithful following. The game also spun off a number of very successful mods.
Far Cry -- Behind the excellent graphics, extremely long draw distance, and pretty water and forest were solid mod tools, strong AI, and semi-non-linear gameplay.
Basically, if you don't do anything new, it is hard to get noticed. There are dozens of 80-90% FPS released every year. The great ones are either super refined and take lots of evolutionary baby steps (so many it is hard to ignore) or they are solid across the board and introduce a number of elements that make them fresh, unique, and fun.
We all expect nice graphics out of an FPS. But a new title needs more than that.
When I see a FPS that looks a lot like the competition I want to see how it plans to set itself apart. One great way is to make it a more thinking game. Lights are Dynamic? Why not allow us to shoot the lights out in a room (or hall) to gain the upper hand... or at least allow us to confuse the enemy and disable their vision long enough to avoid them.
Perfect Dark is a perfect example of a game just not doing enough. It had solid graphic technology, nice animation, and great online and coop. But the game had some "style" issues, and even though it had a roll and cover system, the SP seemed dated.
A new FPS that is an "action" FPS run-and-gun will have a hard time distinguishing itself, even if it has pretty graphics. We obviously have not seen much of Resistance. My guess is they are keeping mum on most of the story and gameplay elements and all the various weapons, vehicles, enemies, and environments. That is to be expected and a good reason not to rush to judgement.
But as a jaded FPS player it is the same reason I am not jumping up and down. Over half my games I own are FPS. I want developers to take a step back and say, "Our technology allows us to do X, Y, and Z now... lets step back adn see how that can alter our version of FPS reality... wowzers! We can now shoot out lights! How can that change gameplay?"
That is how a lot of great/famous FPS got started. They tried something new that the "traditional" FPS were not brave enough to do. That is the only way to brake all the cloning. Because after a while, Quake is Quake, Unreal is Unreal, and everyone wants to make their version of Half-Life 2. We heard a lot of, "Half-Life 2 like story telling with no cut scene" hype at this E3. GREAT! Now... what are you doing that HL2 did not do?
My point was only on the tech side of the things.
Btw ,in Duke nuken back in 94 (?) ,you had some light you could turn on an off (yes ,i know it was a trick,- mostly everything is a trick-).
And frankly ,the last fun i had with this FPS cloning industry was with pain killer.At leas it was assumed vocation of being blunt and purely brutal,and not trying to involve me in something i could never believe in (HL2 ,Fear ,... ).
Btw ,in Duke nuken back in 94 (?) ,you had some light you could turn on an off (yes ,i know it was a trick,- mostly everything is a trick-).
And frankly ,the last fun i had with this FPS cloning industry was with pain killer.At leas it was assumed vocation of being blunt and purely brutal,and not trying to involve me in something i could never believe in (HL2 ,Fear ,... ).
Last edited by a moderator:
You have to remember, not all ( a lot ) PS3 buyers have played fps's on PC's.
To many, a Playstation has been the only gaming platform, and a good, solid quality FPS even without fully destructible lights can be very well received.
To many, a Playstation has been the only gaming platform, and a good, solid quality FPS even without fully destructible lights can be very well received.
I wonder if the reason why Insomniac games didn't add the breaking light bulbs on the game because of how the level is set up, people might accidentally shoot all the bulbs and end up trying to go through that area in the dark. I think more people would be pissed coz there wouldn't be an available alternative light source. Would be very cool if they gave you flares to use when you shoot out all the lights though
rabidrabbit said:
True. Many a good FPS has not had them, and many a good FPS in the future wont either.
And your point is taken about many PS2 players not playing many FPS; I am more looking at it from a potential buyer position. I don't own either platform and no one owns a PS3. If they are undecided you look at the genres in general. If I was set on PS2 franchises I may be more excited as my decision was already made, but as a FPS/Sports type gamer I am looking at the "body of work" so to speak. From that perspective any new FPS franchise has it tough.
The good news for the PS3 is it will be getting MoH:A, BiA3, UT2007, Rainbow Six: Vegas, GRAW, etc so the FPS lineup should be fairly fleshed out. From the limited footage I have seen Rainbow Six: Vegas showed a lot of exciting new features with great graphics, and BiA3 has demonstrated great AI and strategical gameplay and some great graphics as well, so much so those are higher on my radar. And both are PS3 bound :smile:
Lunchbox said:
I know id Software never heard of this technological innovation, but maybe you have: A Flashlight.
LunchBox said:I wonder if the reason why Insomniac games didn't add the breaking light bulbs on the game because of how the level is set up, people might accidentally shoot all the bulbs and end up trying to go through that area in the dark. I think more people would be pissed coz there wouldn't be an available alternative light source. Would be very cool if they gave you flares to use when you shoot out all the lights though
Well you could use the gun, you know when you fire it lits up.
I like this game. Awesome style, good multiplayer features, vehicles...
If they make the lamps breakable, surely they should give similar attention to other things too, like realistic reactions based on weapon type when the enemy or self is hit at different body parts and from different distances and strenght, physics and material properties applied to everything in the game world, not just lightbulbs...
This just smells too much like delibrately picking out relatively insignificant "faults" just because it's not your platform of preference.
I think there is a word or two for it too... vanhoyism and drolling I think they are.
This just smells too much like delibrately picking out relatively insignificant "faults" just because it's not your platform of preference.
I think there is a word or two for it too... vanhoyism and drolling I think they are.
How many Insomniac devs does it take to change a lightbulb? Hope no one's made this comment before cos I'm quite proud of it!
Rancid does have a point but it's not something that I'd personally get too worked up about. And the same probably goes for the majority upgrading from PS2 -> PS3 (as hinted at by rabid). Will it stop me enjoying the game? Probably not (although now it's been mentioned it might!).
In all the time I've been playing video and PC games I've never come across perfection. The next noticeable thing after realistic lighting (e.g. destructible) would be fully destructible enviroments. Then I think you'll start coming up against game design decisions. If I were a dev/publisher and I'd thought about this issue, I'd weigh up the cost benefit and ultimately the decision would be about "will this game sell regardless and/or will it stop the game being enjoyable?" Guess it depends how much of a perfectionist you are.
Rancid does have a point but it's not something that I'd personally get too worked up about. And the same probably goes for the majority upgrading from PS2 -> PS3 (as hinted at by rabid). Will it stop me enjoying the game? Probably not (although now it's been mentioned it might!).
In all the time I've been playing video and PC games I've never come across perfection. The next noticeable thing after realistic lighting (e.g. destructible) would be fully destructible enviroments. Then I think you'll start coming up against game design decisions. If I were a dev/publisher and I'd thought about this issue, I'd weigh up the cost benefit and ultimately the decision would be about "will this game sell regardless and/or will it stop the game being enjoyable?" Guess it depends how much of a perfectionist you are.
mckmas8808
Legend
OMG.
