-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
God Of War 3 Has Gone Gold - Lots of Reviews Out Already
- Thread starter Baki
- Start date
Lagspike_exe said:I believe GT5 is >$60 million.
It's cool dude, sorry if I sounded too harsh.
No prob man. It's just that GAF can take some stuff WAY too seriously.
Ganondorfo said:
He was creative director of the first, and oversaw the second game but he has nothing to do with GoW III.
Also, I want to see what Sony Santa Monica is up to next!
Ganondorfo
Junior Member
GuardianE said:
So each god of war game had a different director? That is very interesting and not so common in the videogame industry...
Leatherface
Member
You know what would make a GOW style game awesome? Co-OP. For example, how great would it be to go through a game like this and have to tag team bosses in order to bring them down? It could seriously make for some intense gaming IMO. I do think if Co-Op was added, the game should be scripted to react differently to accommodate multiple players. Single Player could be the "easy" mode so to speak and each major event would be scripted and play out to accommodate 1 player. In Co-Op mode each major encounter is scripted completely different and requires more complex interactions to beat properly.
I dunno. I was just thinking of something like Golden Axe mixed with the game play and epic perfection that is the GOW series. That would be a damn fun game!
I dunno. I was just thinking of something like Golden Axe mixed with the game play and epic perfection that is the GOW series. That would be a damn fun game!
ACE 1991 said:
Did everyone really have so much trouble with those spiked columns? I mean I even got the trophy for getting past the vertical one on my first try.
lol @ Cruzader saying I must suck at GoW.
Then again, I'm also the kind of person that has absolutely no problem getting past LittleBigPlanet's platforming mechanics, and I got the Platinum trophy for that game in 2 days.
The team considered this and then quickly rejected it.
The Bookerman
Member
chubigans said:
Maybe but it's a different reviewer.
RustyNails
Member
Maybe these different reviewers should set up their own fucking websites instead of writing for IGN, so that IGN doesn't get flack?The Bookerman said:
Same here. I mean not the first try but it's very easy to pass through the columns without taking any damage. Same goes with challenges. Strategy is a key to succes.Dogenzaka said:
Even with taking this into account, how can you possibly give MW2 a 10 for a graphics?!The Bookerman said:
Dogenzaka said:
Who the fuck takes 20 hours on a linear game meant to be finished in 8-10 hours, 12 Max??
Maybe you dont but obviously you played the game wrong. Anyhow still wondering why the hell you make a big issue of GOW3's length when you clearly take an extra 8 hours on a typical playthrough???
If the game is taking some users 8 hours, why not add your +8? That would mean its gonna take you 16 hours. Thats pretty good if you ask me.
RustyNails
Member
Its obviously a different reviewer, so we should stop questioning IGN.reKon said:
/sarcasm
Leatherface
Member
Dogenzaka said:
I wonder why? time constraints? I can see that certain elements would probably need to be reworked for co-op play, but that could be a good thing. It can make the experience fresh when doing another play through with a partner. Have different cut scenes, boss battle could be remixed and play out differently etc.
ah well. Maybe next time?
RustyNails
Member
Maybe I was being facetious?zoukka said:
D:
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
RustyNails said:
reKon said:
It all makes sense when you think about three letters:
IGN
I wonder why? time constraints? I can see that certain elements would probably need to be reworked for co-op play, but that could be a good thing. It can make the experience fresh when doing another play through with a partner. Have different cut scenes, boss battle could be remixed and play out differently etc.
ah well. Maybe next time?
No, they thought it ruined the feeling of God of War. They wanted Kratos to feel a lot like a loner, and they didn't know who would play the second role. Co-op apparently messed with the feeling of the game.
reKon said:
Here let me help. They are reviewed by different people. They are on different machines. One is a multiplatform title and the other is an exclusive.
If you still have a need to whine about consistencies after those facts, then tough luck. Because it's never achieved nor should be even tried to. Not in other mediums and not in the videogame industry. Peace.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I hope that was just sarcarsm. MW2 looks like jaggy, muddy mess on my TV 50% of the time. It's impressive in some ways sometimes, but completely fails to impress in many other ways visually. A far cry from something I'd give 10 for graphics, at least on consoles.Tom Penny said:
Leatherface
Member
Dogenzaka said:
You guys realize that different reviewers have different opinions, right? Did the same person who gave a 10 to the MW2 graphics review GOW3? If not then what is the problem here? Person X can have a completely different POV than Person Y, ya know?
Leatherface
Member
Dogenzaka said:
I can see that, I suppose. Would be a great idea for the future if they do a game in this style though.
Leatherface said:I wonder why? time constraints? I can see that certain elements would probably need to be reworked for co-op play, but that could be a good thing. It can make the experience fresh when doing another play through with a partner. Have different cut scenes, boss battle could be remixed and play out differently etc.
ah well. Maybe next time?
Just the single player campaign alone costs them $44 million, 3 years and 132 people to make, it's not like they have extra people just sitting around scratching their asses who can devote their time to make a co-op mode, they hire more people just for co-op and the development costs get even higher, not to mention when the game is done you have to either lay them off or take on the additional overhead when GOW2 took 60 people to make.
RustyNails
Member
But shouldn't the rubric being used to judge MW2 graphics be the same one used to judge GoW 3?Leatherface said:
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Kittonwy said:
And just to add to this point, it's probably way harder to balance co-op/multiplayer for a game like GOW than a game like Uncharted (or any shooter, really). So they would have had two options. 1) Spend a ton of time and money making the co-op close in quality to the single player, without compromising the single player, which is what most of the fans are waiting for anyway, or 2) Don't bother balancing it, throw another character in there for kicks, and hope that it's more fun than it is shitty.
And I'm sure many people would have some fun playing a shitty, tacked-on, unbalanced co-op mode (myself included), but SMS had to weigh that against following their own vision. I respect them for having a clear design in mind for the game.
RustyNails said:
I agree with this to an extent. Of all the aspects of a game, graphics seems like one of the more objective. If they said they didn't like the art style and then gave it an 8.5, that's one thing, but technically, the game is at the top with a select few others. Still, I guess I can see how one might prefer the realistic look of MW2 to GOW3, but again, technically, there's no contest.
electroshockwave
Member
Leatherface said:
But if you can't at least expect consistency from the same review site then their scores are unreliable and meaningless (I know you could say all scores are ultimately meaningless but that's a different argument). Metacritic doesn't treat review scores as being from Chris Roper/Hilary Goldstein they say IGN and a site or magazine should have consistent scoring policies that their reviewers adhere to. Graphics can be fairly objectively measured, at least compared to any other factor in a review.
RustyNails said:
Here I guess you missed this:
zoukka said:
Also different production values. And how could the "rubric" be the same when the games weren't reviewed by the same person? I honestly ask you. How?
The stuff from which modern games are made from. At least some people think so.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
Not to be a total dick, but I just can't comprehend someone spending 18 hours with God 2. It just seems so absurd to me. Are you sure you didn't leave you PS2 on at some point or something?Dogenzaka said:
Completely aside from the IGN review of GOWIII I have to say I find it very difficult that any reviewer could find MW2 as the absolute pinnacle of Next Gen Graphics. Especially post Gears 2, and KZ2. I don't think anyone on Gaf would have MW2 in their top 10 and that includes the PC version.
But whatever, it is what it is.
But whatever, it is what it is.
Leatherface
Member
Kittonwy said:
Balancing issues aside, I'd just like to say Naughty Dog made a little game called Uncharted 2 and it had 18+ hour single player campaign, co-op, and regular multi-player. how big was their team and budget for comparisons sake? I'm just saying the extra time to tweak an optional co-op type experience would be the next logical step for a game like GOW. Imagine a 2-4 player Co-op in a game with the epic scale and perfection of the GOW franchise? =O
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Dogenzaka said:
I think the difficulty setting surely had a greater effect on playtime than "exploring" possibly could have. How many parts did you have to replay several times?
If you play GOW3 with the same "exploratory" approach, then surely it will take you longer than 8 hours. Your time for GOW2 is on the long side. Do you have reason to expect your time for GOW3 will be on the short side instead?
Rez said:
I'm feeling the same incredulity. I spent beat Titan mode in just under 20 hours, and I fought Theseus for probably a total of an hour and a half. Protect the translator added another hour or two. The elevator platform in Atlas was another sticking point, as was the phoenix flame room. I think Zeus also took many attempts. The point is, I don't see how you could spend that long on the game without dying a lot, or standing still for several hours.
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
0_oLeatherface said:
I must rush through games or something.
Which is weird, as I usually get most of the collectible trophies.
DON'T BE SUCH A KILLJOY KILLJOYMAN MDarkman M said:
Rez said:
I might have, but I usually never do that, so I'd still say it'd be around that long.
Like I said, I'm absolutely OCD in games that require item collection and so I backtrack and explore a lot. It's a habit I've acquired since Spyro the Dragon on PS1, where I'd get all the eggs and gems before I beat the game.
GoW tapped into that with me lol. My GoW1 playthrough was like 10 hours now that I checked, and my GoW2 playthrough was like 18 hours.
I'd say it got hardest towards the end for me, and the Euryale fight. Euryale fight itself was like an hour for me LOL
Ahh another moronic, unproductive comment unrelated to the discussion at hand, never fucking fails good job man.
I guess not, which is why I feel a bit better about the issue having thought about it.
makingmusic476
Member
I know this is somewhat off topic, but to the people mocking IGN's Modern Warfare 2 score, did you know they gave Killzone 2 a 9.5 in graphics too? :lol
Me too man. =(
PseudoPrime1979 said:
Me too man. =(
PseudoPrime1979
Neo Member
Man, I really wish God of War were this week and FFXIII were next. I am going to hate putting FF on the side after a week when I get this--I only hope I will still be interested enough to pick the game back up after I beat GoW.
lowrider007
Licorice-flavoured booze?
Dogenzaka said:
18 hours?
Then why have you been shitting this thread up complaining about the length of GOW3 then?, if people are causally completing the game in 8/9 hours then it's a safe bet considering how you chose to play GOW2 that you will take around the same time if not more to complete the 3rd game so what's the problem?, so why complain about something which common sense tells you that it most probably won't be an issue for you.
Leatherface
Member
electroshockwave said:
This is true and a great point. However, I know when I the reader go to IGN to look at a review, I take into consideration who is writing the review before I put my confidence in how accurate it is (in line with my tastes). So basically, if Joe Wacknut reviews a game I like and rates an aspect of the game a little lower than I was expecting, I can deal with that and understand. I can do that because I know that Joe Wacknut's tastes aren't quite in tune with mine.
RustyNails
Member
So what you're suggesting is that there are different rubrics/standards/measuring sticks used on the basis of a title? So if I have a multiplatform title, it has different graphical standards than an exclusive title, so that there is no unfair advantage to graphically powerful consoles?zoukka said: