Alex Connolly
Member
Price Drop said:
Nice to hear some positive thoughts on it! I was worried the thread would turn into a few supporters commenting through a torrent of haters or the disappointed! Bring on the game, I say!
-
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.
Lost Planet 2 |OT| Rolling, Grappling, Bugs and Mechs
- Thread starter Alex Connolly
- Start date
Nice to hear some positive thoughts on it! I was worried the thread would turn into a few supporters commenting through a torrent of haters or the disappointed! Bring on the game, I say!
palpabl_purpura
Member
Price Drop said:
The reviews say the areas of concern emerge further in the game. Gamespot really, really hated the train level. Continue to provide us with you impressions as you progress further in the game.
Baloonatic
Member
I like everything I've seen to be honest and really enjoyed the original. Waiting on the PC version though.
Alex Connolly
Member
Wazzim said:
Thing is, though, MvC3 will be running on the MT Framework engine, not the SFIV engine. That's the issue.
WickedLaharl
Member
some of you guys are really paranoid.
unless MvC3 turns out to be a third person action game i really won't worry.
unless MvC3 turns out to be a third person action game i really won't worry.
Besides, the only MT Framework game to really be noticably worse on PS3 is Lost Planet 1.
DMC4 was virtually identical on both platforms. RE5 was only barely better on 360. And Lost Planet 2 seems to have conflicting reports, but I'm guessing it's a similar case like RE5.
A fighting game is more controlled graphics-wise too. It's hard to predict what kind of craziness can happen in a 3rd person shooter, but in a fighting game there's always only 2 or 4 characters on screen with some special effects. So it'll be a lot easier for them to balance the performance of the game.
DMC4 was virtually identical on both platforms. RE5 was only barely better on 360. And Lost Planet 2 seems to have conflicting reports, but I'm guessing it's a similar case like RE5.
A fighting game is more controlled graphics-wise too. It's hard to predict what kind of craziness can happen in a 3rd person shooter, but in a fighting game there's always only 2 or 4 characters on screen with some special effects. So it'll be a lot easier for them to balance the performance of the game.
Isn't SF4 running on MT too? and it's similar to LP2 in terms of IQPylon_Trooper said:
PS3 Street Fighter IV = 1280x720 (no AA), 1120x630 (no AA, in up-close character view)
360 Street Fighter IV = 1280x720 (2xAA)
I wouldn't worry about performance issues in a fighting game really, SF4 runs great on PS3 it only lacks AA which doesn't really matter much in a fighting game anyway. Lost Planet is a completely different and chaotic game and it's much more demanding, it was probably hard to optimize the engine properly. The engine worked well in RE5, DMC4 etc.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
miladesn said:
No, it's a custom engine, not MT.
Kinda offtopic, but for the heck of I decided to download the Lost Planet 1 demo from E3 2006, and yikes! This is probably one of the best demos ever released. 2 rather long levels. Very varied gameplay which is all fun. And no spoilers since it's all near the beginning of the game. And the demo was released 6 months before release. Nowadays we're lucky if we get a demo which is longer than 5 minutes and released maybe a few weeks before release.
LP1 still looks insanely good too. I think I'm gonna miss the snow in LP2. Even though LP1 was all snow, I never got tired of it.
LP1 still looks insanely good too. I think I'm gonna miss the snow in LP2. Even though LP1 was all snow, I never got tired of it.
WickedLaharl
Member
having played both of the demos i was kind of conflicted as to purchase the game.
the co-op demo was great but the MP demo blows since they did nothing to refine the controls/gameplay and make it less annoying (the constant stuns and juggling are annoying).
even still i was willing to buy the game based on the co-op demo alone until i read the reviews that highlighted the flaws such as no join in progress and having to complete the game to a certain point before you can join another player at that point
those kind of restrictions are pretty shitty for a co-op focused singleplayer campaign.
the co-op demo was great but the MP demo blows since they did nothing to refine the controls/gameplay and make it less annoying (the constant stuns and juggling are annoying).
even still i was willing to buy the game based on the co-op demo alone until i read the reviews that highlighted the flaws such as no join in progress and having to complete the game to a certain point before you can join another player at that point
those kind of restrictions are pretty shitty for a co-op focused singleplayer campaign.
Alex Connolly
Member
I willing to endure the game's shortfalls simply for the wonderful art design and graphical touches. I suffer an affliction known as MIHED (Mecha-Induced Hyper-Erectile Dysfunction), which goes hand-in-hand with the awesome VS designs in the game. Also, wonderful effects, such as on the multiplayer demo where explosions really affect the long grass in the blast radius.
I dunno, it just seems like a ridiculously complete package let down by a few niggling, yet crucial, design missteps.
I dunno, it just seems like a ridiculously complete package let down by a few niggling, yet crucial, design missteps.
Jack Random
Member
unfortunately, it's difficult to form meaningful opinions without actually playing something. otherwise you're simply deciding something will be good based on what? their PR campaign? I'm certain that publishers would love this concept.a176 said:
Reviews shouldn't be blindly followed, but for the large part, they're an excellent source of information and shouldn't be discarded out of hand.
a176 said:
What am I forming my opinions based on if I don't go by reviews? Why should I just ignore all the reviews and waste $60 on a game just to find out that it's a shitty game as the reviewers have pointed out? I can understand if the game gets one or two bad reviews but it's been poorly reviewed by many sites.
Y2Kev said:
When it was announced, pretty much everyone went "WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU MAKING A SEQUEL TO THIS."
It's pretty much inevitable to be polarizing. I'll rent/buy it cheap for the co-op, but that's only if Capcom learned their lesson and didn't put in stupid fucking multiplayer achievements (Still have 5000 kills in LP1 versus to do, which has been put on hold as I've gotten tired of the grenade spam and magical shotgun stun/I-Frames when I should be killing that person with two shotgun blasts AT CLOSE RANGE) in. From what reviews are saying, they haven't even learned their lesson with the mis-steps of LP1.
Uhhh, well, at least you'll be happy to know there are no difficult multiplayer achievements this time around.TheSeks said:
On the other hand, there are achievements like completing the game twice on easy difficulty. Getting to lvl99 with 5 characters. Completing 90 levels while online but not playing with anyone. And completing the game *15* freaking fucking times.
TheSeks said:
What? No. People liked LP1 even if it wasn't fantastic and people were excited about a sequel that would fix LP1's issues and build on its great ideas.
People only went WTF when they announced instead of making Lost Planet 2 they were making Lost Planet Monster Hunter and refusing to label it correctly.
There are some games, I would say, that just review badly, regardless of what the developer does. On those games, it's best go go by the opinion of actual fans, demo experiences, and just ones own personal gaming understanding. Due to playing sooo many games, I find reviews to have too much tunnel-vision, and no appreciation for the finer points of many of the games I enjoy.
JRPGs and "Warriors (Musou)" games are 2 instances where I find reviews almost entirely worthless. They single out the things THEY think need to change in the genre, and then prattle on about how it's not like this WRPG, or this 3rd person action game. I find it very hard, in such reviews, to see any concentration on what the game they're reviewing is actually trying to convey, or accomplish.
I think this game has a nostalgic appeal, and I'd rather hear at least a few reviews see this as "Capcom has made a game that looks modern, plays oldschool" rather than every one of them simply speaking on how the game is not like other 3rd person western shooters.
I find it funny how many little nuggest of info I've seen in the reviews, that others never mention. Some mention how items are aquired, some mention the variety of gameplay, others mention the quality of the maps and environments. Very few mention mid-mission data post acting as quicksave options, even fewer mention the training missions (which sound just like VR missions in Metal Gear), and seemingly none of them talk about the perks one can apply to their characters, to customize them even further? Most reviewers just seem to get sidelined talking about the features they expected that are not there.
I find it pretty funny that the lack of drop in/out is bemoaned so much with this game, by the way... Didn't we figure out this game is basically now "Monster Hunter: SPACE GUNS Edition!!"?
Monster Hunter doesn't have Drop in/Out, it has a lobby system. MH has controls that are unlike anything else, that lead to some VERY nice fights what you master them. MH has awkward, lengthy animations for various actions (Man, that steak was GREAT!), that would be insane and dumb in any other game. They both sell themselves on personality and uniqueness, now. Both also share customizable player characters, and the ability to bring your personal fav weps and items into the field.
But unlike MH, LP2 has a variety of new modes to explore online; Not only Co-Op affairs, but also competative ones that seem to do a good job of refreshing old standbys. I feel like Lost Planet, as a series, offers some of the best variety of multiplayer available. And I expect this to be the best Split Screen Co-Op I've had since Borderlands and ODST, which I am especially looking forward to.
I've seen too much good, and played too many fun demo matches, to let negative opinions cloud my personal judgement.
JRPGs and "Warriors (Musou)" games are 2 instances where I find reviews almost entirely worthless. They single out the things THEY think need to change in the genre, and then prattle on about how it's not like this WRPG, or this 3rd person action game. I find it very hard, in such reviews, to see any concentration on what the game they're reviewing is actually trying to convey, or accomplish.
I think this game has a nostalgic appeal, and I'd rather hear at least a few reviews see this as "Capcom has made a game that looks modern, plays oldschool" rather than every one of them simply speaking on how the game is not like other 3rd person western shooters.
I find it funny how many little nuggest of info I've seen in the reviews, that others never mention. Some mention how items are aquired, some mention the variety of gameplay, others mention the quality of the maps and environments. Very few mention mid-mission data post acting as quicksave options, even fewer mention the training missions (which sound just like VR missions in Metal Gear), and seemingly none of them talk about the perks one can apply to their characters, to customize them even further? Most reviewers just seem to get sidelined talking about the features they expected that are not there.
I find it pretty funny that the lack of drop in/out is bemoaned so much with this game, by the way... Didn't we figure out this game is basically now "Monster Hunter: SPACE GUNS Edition!!"?
Monster Hunter doesn't have Drop in/Out, it has a lobby system. MH has controls that are unlike anything else, that lead to some VERY nice fights what you master them. MH has awkward, lengthy animations for various actions (Man, that steak was GREAT!), that would be insane and dumb in any other game. They both sell themselves on personality and uniqueness, now. Both also share customizable player characters, and the ability to bring your personal fav weps and items into the field.
But unlike MH, LP2 has a variety of new modes to explore online; Not only Co-Op affairs, but also competative ones that seem to do a good job of refreshing old standbys. I feel like Lost Planet, as a series, offers some of the best variety of multiplayer available. And I expect this to be the best Split Screen Co-Op I've had since Borderlands and ODST, which I am especially looking forward to.
I've seen too much good, and played too many fun demo matches, to let negative opinions cloud my personal judgement.
One thing I find really frustrating about the reviews is how they drag down on the online coop. Sure, drop in would have been a nice feature, but the majority of people group up in the lobby anyway. Not being join a mission you haven't gotten to yet is also a slight annoyance, but still, most people play with the same people, and coop is a lot about replayability anyway.
But you know what's really important about online play? The freaking netcode! That's the very foundation. Without a good netcode, any online functionality is useless. Capcom has implemented extremely good netcodes for their coop games which is fully playable even with pings close to 500.
On the other hand... games like Splinter Cell Conviction, Halo 3 coop, Halo ODST, Army of Two and others are almost unplayable unless you play with someone who lives really close to you. But do reviewers mention that? Nope, not at all.
But you know what's really important about online play? The freaking netcode! That's the very foundation. Without a good netcode, any online functionality is useless. Capcom has implemented extremely good netcodes for their coop games which is fully playable even with pings close to 500.
On the other hand... games like Splinter Cell Conviction, Halo 3 coop, Halo ODST, Army of Two and others are almost unplayable unless you play with someone who lives really close to you. But do reviewers mention that? Nope, not at all.
AgentOtaku
Member
SAB CA said:
*high-five*
Diablohead
Member
Yet another turn off for me :lolSectus said:
Amazing how I loved LP1 so much that I bought it 3 times to now where I think capcom dropped the ball with the sequel, will be picking it up for the PC once it's a good price, like sub £15.
Or I can wait for the enebitible gold edition/colonies version with all DLC.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
My main bummer is that I wish it was as playable as L4D and Borderlands is solo. Obviously, those games are way more fun with others, but it's not unplayable without them. My gaming time is too all over the place to really be able to commit to something so online/co-op requiring.
It sucks because it looks like it's beefed up all the awesome shit I loved in Lost Planet by like a billion.
That being said, I had no problem playing RE5 solo. If it's the same situation, I may get it anyway.
It sucks because it looks like it's beefed up all the awesome shit I loved in Lost Planet by like a billion.
That being said, I had no problem playing RE5 solo. If it's the same situation, I may get it anyway.
SAB CA said:
Good games occasionally get a couple of bad reviews, but they don't review badly in general, the games that get a ton of bad reviews, get them not because the developers of said games did a good job with core game design and controls.
Why would I listen to fans who have already made up their minds about the game enough to buy it?
Its hard not to listen to reviews when they are all saying the same thing and seem to be making valid points. Its not reviews I ignore, its the scores themselves.a176 said:
I always go point by point and decide what I can deal with and what I cant as far as criticisms go. I did this with heavenly sword. There were plenty of complaints described in reviews that I knew I just wouldnt mind or care about so I bought it and loved it.
Taking reviews at face value and deciding whether or not to buy them based on scores is stupid but ignoring them is just as stupid if not more. What am I supposed to buy every game Im kind of interested in so I can form my own opinion? Can I borrow a bit from your bottomless pit o cash Mr. Gump?
I already went through the game on Normal solo just fine. Really don't get the complaints against a.i.
They get data posts, heal you if you are hurt, pick up vs weapons and mechs, don't get stuck, they know how to grapple and they target the enemy boss's weak points. Was honestly surprised how good they were without annoying squad commands.
They get data posts, heal you if you are hurt, pick up vs weapons and mechs, don't get stuck, they know how to grapple and they target the enemy boss's weak points. Was honestly surprised how good they were without annoying squad commands.
Kittonwy said:
You already made it a point to post that you were passing on the game, is this more passive aggressive trolling?
Monster Hunter is a good game, and it got tons of bad reviews. People are just now starting to get it with MH3. Its obvious this game follows that same design philosophy with player movement and animation timing, along with a more western approach to VS. and online features.
But at its core its still a japanese designed MP game, which have always been kinda goofy.
and :lol at developer doing a good job = good game review scores
edit: not trying to attack you, just tryin to explain a different perspective
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Phloxy said:
This is very heartening.
Kittonwy said:
It's a matter of perspective in this case, I'd wager. What I'm saying is that many reviewers miss the point, and just look at things in limited ways, and by doing such, they sell the game short. They don't get to know it, or try to appreciate it's way of doing things, they just know the way it's doing them isn't the way they're used to.
Thus, niche games recieve crappy reviews from those who'se ideals are to view the game from the perspective of "the average joe". It's just a shame, when gaming itself used to be a celebration of varied genres, over-the-top concepts, and "hard, yet rewarding to master!" gameplay and challenge.
For me, these reviewers don't focus on what I find important. They have a jaded view, and are influencing more by spouting the same stuff collectively. As I demonstrated in my previous post, these guys don't even touch on features that seem to define the originality of the game, they're stuck at a surface level.
I guess if you're looking for the same things the reviewers are, then following their impressions closely is fine. But all the "I was really hype, now I don't care based on reviews" mentality is just very... meh.
And as mentioned by Sectus:
Sectus said:
It's just very odd, that with games from certain publishers, they can get away with SOOO much, but other games, other publishers, can make the same problems, and they get draged through hot coals over it.
So much inconsistency, that I find it hard to take most "professional" reviewers seriously.
Phloxy said:
This is what I'm personally expecting, lol. Not that I'll be seeing it much, as I'll be playing a lot of splitscreen...
So conflicting with the other impressions, though! :lol
Well, my co-op buddy's got it already (that piece of crap), and he's been playing it splitscreen with his sister, and raving about the game. He loves LP1, and he seems to love this one even more (being the huge co-op fans we are). Not sure how far in he is now, but he hasn't really expressed any design issues that are new to this game as compared to the first (in which case, whether they're design issues to begin with depends on how you view the first game).
eso76
Member
thanks to a friend i was able to play pieces from various episodes yesterday.
(i should mention it's from a retail/review copy)
And the early verdict is: Eurogamer's review is spot on.
There's a lot to love and a lot to hate in this game.
LP2 won't just split people between lovers and hater; it will go on splitting each one of them in half, because everyone will find things to love and things to hate about the game.
At times, LP2 really shines; everything clicks into the right place, combat feels solid enough, monsters are beautiful and rather original in design and in the way they are fought, scale is epic, graphics are good to gorgeous. Hopping into a mech to fight a 5 stories tall aikrid is exhilarating, exciting. There's a few segments during which LP2 resembles a classic masterpiece, where it looks and feels like the first, true successor to 2d action epics (think Contra) and i think anyone who consider him/herself a gamer needs to play through it at least once.
Unfortunately, most of the time, you'll witness questionable design choices (and plain mistakes) like the infamous "explosions will put you down, and you can bet there's another rocket hitting you the very moment you get up". Awkward control system, bad level design and checkpoint placement, bad friendly AI (which i thought was worse than RE5's, but more on that later). Most of the time you'll find yourself running around with your only purpose being finding data posts to activate, for reasons you don't know/don't care for/don't make sense, just to see what's next.
While AI is decent at taking regular enemies down, it can't perform more complex actions often required by the level design. LP2 was obviously, entirely designed around 4 human player coop, and it often requires communication and a degree of cooperation which goes beyond shooting at the same enemies and healing friends. Even boss fights will drag on a lot longer than acceptable, because just shooting at them won't always cut it. Which is great as long as you are able to play the game with 3 friends, but it makes single player almost pointless. The fact the game defaults to online-coop mode and you almost have to force it into single player offline to go solo is telling already.
Having said that, whlie the game suffers from a number of problems you just can't look past, there's too much epic and too many holy shit moments to be found in the lenghty campaing not to give LP2 a chance, when it's cheaper maybe.
(i should mention it's from a retail/review copy)
And the early verdict is: Eurogamer's review is spot on.
There's a lot to love and a lot to hate in this game.
LP2 won't just split people between lovers and hater; it will go on splitting each one of them in half, because everyone will find things to love and things to hate about the game.
At times, LP2 really shines; everything clicks into the right place, combat feels solid enough, monsters are beautiful and rather original in design and in the way they are fought, scale is epic, graphics are good to gorgeous. Hopping into a mech to fight a 5 stories tall aikrid is exhilarating, exciting. There's a few segments during which LP2 resembles a classic masterpiece, where it looks and feels like the first, true successor to 2d action epics (think Contra) and i think anyone who consider him/herself a gamer needs to play through it at least once.
Unfortunately, most of the time, you'll witness questionable design choices (and plain mistakes) like the infamous "explosions will put you down, and you can bet there's another rocket hitting you the very moment you get up". Awkward control system, bad level design and checkpoint placement, bad friendly AI (which i thought was worse than RE5's, but more on that later). Most of the time you'll find yourself running around with your only purpose being finding data posts to activate, for reasons you don't know/don't care for/don't make sense, just to see what's next.
While AI is decent at taking regular enemies down, it can't perform more complex actions often required by the level design. LP2 was obviously, entirely designed around 4 human player coop, and it often requires communication and a degree of cooperation which goes beyond shooting at the same enemies and healing friends. Even boss fights will drag on a lot longer than acceptable, because just shooting at them won't always cut it. Which is great as long as you are able to play the game with 3 friends, but it makes single player almost pointless. The fact the game defaults to online-coop mode and you almost have to force it into single player offline to go solo is telling already.
Having said that, whlie the game suffers from a number of problems you just can't look past, there's too much epic and too many holy shit moments to be found in the lenghty campaing not to give LP2 a chance, when it's cheaper maybe.
I didn't. I think LP1 is supershit. It's by far the worst capcom IP this generation. But I loved the idea of a Mohun for next gen systems with great graphics and online play. But they kept all the stupid shit that came with LP1 like loopy animations, hitstun, controls designed from 1992, etc., AND didn't improve any of the stuff I wanted.Bebpo said:
Capcom has fallen off a cliff this gen imo.
Always-honest
Banned
a176 said:
well.. reviews sometimes tell about stuff we didn't know yet, or confirm what you allready feared.
palpabl_purpura said:
It's difficult not to hate that particular level on single player. Have you ever seen Modern Times? It looks like the scene where Charlot has to cope with 50 duties all by himself, running like crazy from one place to another. It turns pretty soone from a spectacular battle into a chore, since you can't enjoy it and it's overly long, like all bosses on single player.
I know, if only this was a Sony published game. Pity.Kittonwy said:
Sabo hit on the right point. It's the idea that separates children from adults. When you read some of the reviews, instead of working with what is there. They bitch on why it isn't like "Insert" game. I saw a lot of bitching on RE5 with it...to basically sum it up, why was it not like Dead Space or Uncharted? I went through it and never once felt like I was limited or had to "fight" with the controls. I simply took what the game gave me, and worked with it. Not cry on why I can't run and shoot. Never once did I feel like I needed to do so.
Kabuki Waq
Member
shintoki said:
well you are in the minority if you never once felt the need to run and shoot in RE5. This thread is typical for Mid hype b level games. "Omg all teh reviewers are wrong...they shouldnt compare games....blah blah blah"
Fact is if your standards are low enough you can enjoy anything. Be happy you can do that. But dont try to pretend issues dont exist and players should just "deal with it".
Also when Agent Otaku gets hyped for a game it is time to worry
wayward archer
Member
eso76 said:
I remember this being one of the huge problems people had with the first game but I thought it was common knowledge by now that spamming dodge while you're getting up almost always prevents this knockdown loop from happening.
In fact I replayed Colonies last week and didn't get caught in a knockdown loop once, no crazy timing involved. Did they take away the invulnerability from dodging in LP2?
wayward archer
Member
Kabuki Waq said:
Rereading this thread, I haven't seen anybody arguing that everybody should like this game and should be forced to buy it and "deal with it". However I have seen people implying NOBODY should like this game, or that everybody should just accept that it's a 'mediocre game', which is ridiculous.
Alex Connolly
Member
Kabuki Waq said:
Is it really a case of having low standards, or the ability to accept flaws or look beyond what other people seem to have wanted the game to be in its entirety? From what I gather, it checks the boxes in terms of what a third-person shooter should be. Sure, some bosses take a long time to bring down and there does seem to be an emphasis on co-op which seems to negate a solo play-through. There's hitstun, there's ridiculous knock-down, but don't games like Monster Hunter and Demon's Souls feature similar no holds-barred and no prisoners taken gameplay? This isn't Gears or Uncharted.
What a bunch of spoiled brats gamers have become.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Pylon_Trooper[B said:
err..... you seem to have answered your own question there :lol