Really? I understood why he was mad in the first game, but I still felt the revelation and execution of that was really stupid and not easy to relate to.
I understood his anger more in the second game, to be honest. Zeus tried to kill him, fool. I'd be pissed!
Yeah, they kinda messed that up in the sequel. Or he became kinda insane basically. This kind of thing was handled a lot, lot better in the first game - they nailed that motivation aspect amazingly well, and unveiled it slowly and carefully throughout the game.
I have only played the first game so far, and thought he was basically an asshole in that as well.
The way I see it...his ingame (non-story) persona is a crazy badass...his persona in the story is probably more vile and evil than any antagonist in a game Ive played. I enjoy the game, but I am actually waiting with relish to see Kratos's (painful) death
Ok just did the demo level. Off the top of my head, changes I can make out are, better contrast and shadow depth, better shadows, cleaner image, better AA, better lighting and a smoother frame rate. Nothing drastic, but enough to make the overall look and feel that much more dynamic and impressive. It mow has that umph the rest of the game has, where as before with the demo, whilst really impressive, it was not as blow your socks off as other parts.
A nice surprise is that the entire beginning segment of the demo level is different, and much, much cooler. Glad they changed it.
Damn it's gonna be tough to avoid all the end game spoilers while waiting for mah new TV. I don't care about spoiled bosses too much, but I know there's some surprises in the end, has to be.
I have only played the first game so far, and thought he was basically an asshole in that as well.
The way I see it...his ingame (non-story) persona is a crazy badass...his persona in the story is probably more vile and evil than any antagonist in a game Ive played. I enjoy the game, but I am actually waiting with relish to see Kratos's (painful) death
Uh. Yeah. Kratos was never a very good dude (though, he has shown to have some good in him). He was a brutal killer in the Spartan Army to begin with and rose up the ranks that way. He's a heavy anti-hero. He exchanged his soul for victory. Then he was betrayed by his Gods after serving them in exchange for victory. Tricked into killing his wife and child. Been through hell and back multiple times.
So, uh. Yeah. Somewhere along the way, there's no question his sanity was lost. That's why I like him though. He is unlike any "hero" we have in gaming. Greek mythology was brutal shit man. As loosely based at this series is, I'm glad they kept that part of it.
And is the very reason why Hades is pissed at him. Poor Hades, he is only doing his job containing the souls of the damned, and Kratos has not only escaped once but twice!
It's pretty much Hiphopgamer ripping on the author of the IGN review for the presentation score and Gamespot for complaints about diversity. Hiphopgamer does spoil on parts of the game, so be careful if you are going to listen.
The presentation score is ridiculously low. Not commenting on anything else, but graphics, direction, the blending between gameplay and cinematics...deserves praise...a lot and lot of it.
Ok, so 4.5 hours later I've decided to take a brief break. One of the lads wants to play the game after me so I need to do it fairly quick, plus I have other games and work to be doing which is all the more reason for more to plough through. Whilst I am playing WAY too much of it, I'm not actually rushing. Trying to explore a bit and soak the world in, but not with a magnifying glass or anything like I did with Uncharted 2 the second time. I'll do that with GOW3 the second time too.
My opinion so far? Exceptional. So much of this game is breathtaking and thrilling beyond measure. It does have it's lull moments, but I think they're necessary to pace out all the carnage. I'm playing on normal and I'm finding it's a decent difficulty. I've actually died a fair few times and now and again some of the battles are quite challenging.
The game is quietly varied offering a nice balance between general level exploration/routing, battles, puzzles, gameplay switch ups and story/cut scene. What I'm loving most though are the boss battles. Whilst none so far have been epic in the same way as the first (Poseidon), one has come close, and I actually prefer the latter bosses in terms of actual gameplay and strategy. They aren't quite as grand or elaborate (so far, only beaten 3, Helios doesn't really count as a boss battle), but they are more personal and well designed imo.
Hades is a more back to basics, old school one on one dual of gritty riveting proportions, and Hermes was just so damn quirky and enjoyable. Offering a slightly different sort of thrill ride and grand spectacle building up to a very classy end battle. With every boss though, their ultimate deaths are just so incredibly brutal you can't quite prepare yourself for what's to come.
GOW3 compared to it's predecessors is similar to what Uncharted 2 was to Uncharted. It's essentially more of the same, but just on a more polished and grand scale. With more production value, more gloss, technical merit, diversity and overall quality of pacing. Still not perfect, one example being that some of the level exploration can be a bit frustrating (dying because of missed jumps where you didn't know you had to double jump because it either came too fast, or the camera was so far back you didn't realise etc), but overall, I'd still say it was easily class leading thus far. It literally is the Uncharted 2 of the hack and slash genre.
I just hope it is longer than 8 hours for me. 12 hours would be just about right, but ideally I would have wanted it to be 15 or so hours. That's how long GOW2 took me the first time, if not longer.
There is no logical reason to give God of War 3 a lower presentation score than many other less impressive titles that have come out the past few months.
I have no issue with their final score but giving anything less than 10 to the presentation is fucking absurd. I would like to see a single game that outdoes gow in that department.
Ok, so 4.5 hours later I've decided to take a brief break. One of the lads wants to play the game after me so I need to do it fairly quick, plus I have other games and work to be doing which is all the more reason for more to plough through. Whilst I am playing WAY too much of it, I'm not actually rushing. Trying to explore a bit and soak the world in, but not with a magnifying glass or anything like I did with Uncharted 2 the second time. I'll do that with GOW3 the second time too.
My opinion so far? Exceptional. So much of this game is breathtaking and thrilling beyond measure. It does have it's lull moments, but I think they're necessary to pace out all the carnage. I'm playing on normal and I'm finding it's a decent difficulty. I've actually died a fair few times and now and again some of the battles are quite challenging.
The game is quietly varied offering a nice balance between general level exploration/routing, battles, puzzles, gameplay switch ups and story/cut scene. What I'm loving most though are the boss battles. Whilst none so far have been epic in the same way as the first
(Poseidon)
, one has come close, and I actually prefer the latter bosses in terms of actual gameplay and strategy. They aren't quite as grand or elaborate (so far, only beaten 3, Helios doesn't really count as a boss battle), but they are more personal and well designed imo.
Hades is a more back to basics, old school one on one dual of gritty riveting proportions, and Hermes was just so damn quirky and enjoyable. Offering a slightly different sort of thrill ride and grand spectacle building up to a very classy end battle. With every boss though, their ultimate deaths are just so incredibly brutal you can't quite prepare yourself for what's to come.
GOW3 compared to it's predecessors is similar to what Uncharted 2 was to Uncharted. It's essentially more of the same, but just on a more polished and grand scale. With more production value, more gloss, technical merit, diversity and overall quality of pacing. Still not perfect, one example being that some of the level exploration can be a bit frustrating (dying because of missed jumps where you didn't know you had to double jump because it either came too fast, or the camera was so far back you didn't realise etc), but overall, I'd still say it was easily class leading thus far. It literally is the Uncharted 2 of the hack and slash genre.
I just hope it is longer than 8 hours for me. 12 hours would be just about right, but ideally I would have wanted it to be 15 or so hours. That's how long GOW2 took me the first time, if not longer.
It's a new mechanic in Halo where you hold B to go into an assassination sequence. The camera goes into a 3rd person perspective and it shows the character taking out an enemy with his combat knife. You can watch a Halo Vidoc explaining it here.
Now can you explain why Kratos' finger's are part wood, or do you have other off topic material to discuss?
People asking for consistency across the board are dreaming, there's simply no way things will ever be judged in the exact same fashion. That's just wishful thinking and boils down to inherently human errors, hidden bias, attitude, you name it, not to speak of different fucking reviewers. Don't see why people get so stuck up about petty crap, it's not like the game's reviewing badly.
Anyway, GoW3, fuck yeah! Watched a small snippet from the GT trailer, and this game looks completely mindblowing. Will probably take the GOTY crown for me, I love the old games and this looks like the most badass game ever.
People asking for consistency across the board are dreaming, there's simply no way things will ever be judged in the exact same fashion. That's just wishful thinking and boils down to inherently human errors, hidden bias, attitude, you name it, not to speak of different fucking reviewers. Don't see why people get so stuck up about petty crap, it's not like the game's reviewing badly.
I'm not going to argue and say the score should be more or less. It's not the score that counts but the review itself (to me at least).
I would prefer a world where review scores did not exist.
But as a media outlet, some consistency is key IMO. It's indeed impossible to be 100% consistent with different reviewers, platforms, etc... but an overal idea of how games are reviewed, articles are written, etc... is just necessary. And I don't see that in IGN, or GT, or several other media outlets for that matter.
People asking for consistency across the board are dreaming, there's simply no way things will ever be judged in the exact same fashion. That's just wishful thinking and boils down to inherently human errors, hidden bias, attitude, you name it, not to speak of different fucking reviewers. Don't see why people get so stuck up about petty crap, it's not like the game's reviewing badly.
Anyway, GoW3, fuck yeah! Watched a small snippet from the GT trailer, and this game looks completely mindblowing. Will probably take the GOTY crown for me, I love the old games and this looks like the most badass game ever.
I'm not complaining about the scores GoW 3 is getting, just the reasoning behind them. I have a major problem with hypocrisy and double standards, and sadly the gaming media is full of them.
But as a media outlet, some consistency is key IMO. It's indeed impossible to be 100% consistent with different reviewers, platforms, etc... but an overal idea of how games are reviewed, articles are written, etc... is just necessary. And I don't see that in IGN, or GT, or several other media outlets for that matter.
Where do you base this? In what media can you find this kind of behaviour? The only thing that should be required from journalists is writing skill. They sure as fuck shouldn't cater to gamers as general. We aren't the most literate and civilized bunch. (which then again reflects as the level of professionalism in videogame journalism)
Uh. Yeah. Kratos was never a very good dude (though, he has shown to have some good in him). He was a brutal killer in the Spartan Army to begin with and rose up the ranks that way. He's a heavy anti-hero. He exchanged his soul for victory. Then he was betrayed by his Gods after serving them in exchange for victory. Tricked into killing his wife and child. Been through hell and back multiple times.
So, uh. Yeah. Somewhere along the way, there's no question his sanity was lost. That's why I like him though. He is unlike any "hero" we have in gaming. Greek mythology was brutal shit man. As loosely based at this series is, I'm glad they kept that part of it.
Where do you base this? In what media can you find this kind of behaviour? The only thing that should be required from journalists is writing skill. They sure as fuck shouldn't cater to gamers as general. We aren't the most literate and civilized bunch. (which then again reflects as the level of professionalism in videogame journalism)
I'm not going into the "gaming journalism debate".
I'll try to explain by giving an example:
If game A gets a lower score for not having a MP option but game B doesn't, while both games would both have some significant benefit from having a MP mode.
A media outlet is percieved as a whole, not as some bunch of dudes working together.
Also, I should start shutting the fuck up op GAF. I never feel like arguing over the internet, yet I seem to do so every day...
If reviews were anonymousas they used to be in critical magazines of the highest prestige, including the Times Literary Supplement, until 1974you'd have a point. They're not. It's an individual. If you don't go to reviews and to criticism in general at least in part for the variation of individual points of view, then I don't know if you should go to them at all.
I'm not going into the "gaming journalism debate".
I'll try to explain by giving an example:
If game A gets a lower score for not having a MP option but game B doesn't, while both games would both have some significant benefit from having a MP mode.
A media outlet is percieved as a whole, not as some bunch of dudes working together.
Also, I should start shutting the fuck up op GAF. I never feel like arguing over the internet, yet I seem to do so every day...
Try to guess the problem here. Because for reals, there won't be any magical consistency in any respectable outlet. If you want it, then seek sites like xbots.com and ps3hasnogames.org. Because you won't find it anywhere else. Ever.
Shouldn't reviewer be specialized based on game genres or something. For example, the guy who review gow3 at ign should be the same guy reviewing other game like bayonetta, ninja gaiden, darksiders, and dante' inferno.
That way, we know what the individual score are compared with.
Wait... IGN gave it a 93 and that's what's causing all the fuss?
I mean I love watching the HipHipGamer rant about stuff as much as anyone else, but the way he (and people here) were talking I thought they gave it a much lower score like in the 80's.
Wait... IGN gave it a 93 and that's what's causing all the fuss?
I mean I love watching the HipHipGamer rant about stuff as much as anyone else, but the way he (and people here) were talking I thought they gave it a much lower score like in the 80's.
You aren't agreeing with the biggest clown in "games journalism". If you actually think he's right about ANYTHING you must also think Nick Simmons is an innovative artist and that white chicks is the funniest film ever made.
Are you hiphopgamer? If so, FUCK YOU.
And what's the point of saying "wait till sunday" when you tell people God of War II gets a 10 no question asked? This fucking asshole, I swear to Christ.