-
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.
Warhawk - The Official Thread
- Thread starter dralla
- Start date
A2D said:
When you use motion controls you have complete control of your machine gun with the left sick, opposed to dual sticks where your machine gun fires in the direction you're facing. As for working better? I found them very comfortable and trained hard to get used to them, which I did. I enjoy them but they do take some practiceand patience.
A2D said:
i think it is debatable... it is harder to use motion controls than sticks, but at the same time you get more control... So in theory, you can get more control over Warhawk which should make you more deadly... i think we will know in 2-3 months after game was released. And besides, they might have tuned something in both control options.
AKingNamedPaul
I am Homie
Motorstorm is horrible with motion control on. It works well with warhawk though.
subzero9285
Banned
FootNinja said:
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there, I personally found the motion control very intuitive once I got the hang of it, I couldn't really go back to using analogue control, but hey that's just me.
AKingNamedPaul
I am Homie
It might be exciting but its not good for actually winning imo.subzero9285 said:
FootNinja said:
Ever try playing with your arms somewhat outstretched in front of you? It may look corny, but it really helps. I never got used to controlling bikes with this, but it works like a wheel for trucks. Once you get used to that, you don't have to play with your arms out, it just clicks.
Speakingofclick FREE CLICK.
Edit: Sorry, some magazine that game it a bad score (that i thought was IGN) related...
Honestly, I told you guys how horrible i thought the game was when i was playing the beta and i "broke the NDA" when telling you guys about it... If you haven't played the game yet then just rent it because i thought that it was awful. This is coming from a hardcore multiplayer gamer who had played every game similar to this one (like the battlefields and so on). Do some post history research if you have to and you'll see that everything that the reviewer complains about at any major website is something that i've complained about during the beta. Do not listen to the majority of GAF on this one... Stay the hell away from this awful game. Save some money for little big planet... A game that actually looks somewhat promising.
Honestly, I told you guys how horrible i thought the game was when i was playing the beta and i "broke the NDA" when telling you guys about it... If you haven't played the game yet then just rent it because i thought that it was awful. This is coming from a hardcore multiplayer gamer who had played every game similar to this one (like the battlefields and so on). Do some post history research if you have to and you'll see that everything that the reviewer complains about at any major website is something that i've complained about during the beta. Do not listen to the majority of GAF on this one... Stay the hell away from this awful game. Save some money for little big planet... A game that actually looks somewhat promising.
DemonSwordsman
Banned
Hey guess what guys Halo 1 2 and 3 dont have bots. Which means that they are all shitty multi player games and not AAA. Below avg at best amirte?
Ecchi-Time7
Banned
Why is this game $40? It's just a downloadable like a VC game right?
SpacLock said:
Thanks a lot! I was gonna buy this game on the recommendation of other GAFers, but anyone with a Master Chief avatar knows shooters, and even though IGN hasn't reviewed it yet, I'm sure they'll agree with you. Now I can save my money for Little Big Planet, since there's no good games on PS3 until next summer.
captive said:
Did i not write good enough in English for you to understand? I don't feel like reading the entire thread at this point because i'm definitely not interested in this game anymore since i played the demo and didn't like it, so i'm sorry if what i said wasn't really on topic. Just trying to write my opinion like everyone else on this message board. It did kind of come out of nowhere didn't it?
Azrael said:
I like the art. If i had a different avatar would you agree with me?
What demo? You mean the beta...SpacLock said:
What does what you said have to do with the IGN review, which isnt even out yet?
And i whole heartily disagree with you, having played countless hours of Counter-strike, battlefield 1942 desert combat mod and Battlefield 2, Warhawk is really good.
Vyse The Legend
Member
SpacLock said:
There is no IGN review; that's why people are confused.
Vyse The Legend said:
Edited my post... Sorry. I meant the latest review that wasn't too great. Expect more like that one. quote me on it.
captive said:
I said beta and i corrected myself on what site did the review. That's alright that you disagree with me since all reviews will vary. I'm just saying that the majority of the reviews from the popular gaming websites (IGN, 1UP, Etc.) will agree with me more than they will with you. I'm not trying to rain on your guys parade or anything... I'm just trying to help!
Ashhong said:
There was thread where both Warhawk and Lair were reviewed by the same magazine and they got scores that were lower than a lot of Gaffers expected. I believe that it was either Play or PSM magazine? I'm sorry but the thread is no longer in the first 2 pages. Sorry if i didn't make myself clear guys... Like i said, i'm just trying to help. I like Ps3 just as much as everyone else in the thread. I just don't believe that Warhawk is what everyone here has been hyping it up to be. can i not express a different opinion than others?
Take it easy fellas... these are video games we're talking about.
Point taken and yeah, it was PSM.SpacLock said:
People are allowed to have different opinions, but sometime in the past year GAF as a whole forgot that. Thanks for the impressions, by the way. I'm likely going to get the PSN downloadable version and your impressions are helpful as a PC gamer since they have tempered my expectations
Gattsu25 said:
Haha i'm glad you understand! I knew there was going to be people to disagreed and people who just wanted to flame, but i didn't think there would be others who understood where i was coming from. I'm not saying that no one would like this game... I'm just saying that i didn't like it personally.
BigBoss said:
Again, i stand corrected. I haven't payed much attention to the news of this game so i didn't know that the reviewer was a "raving xbot". If you like the game then by all means... buy it!
SpacLock said:
Looking over your post history, let's see if I reconstructed this correctly.
1) You called Warhawk garbage before the beta began.
2) You posted in the beta thread that you were off to play the game, then came back a whopping 15 or so minutes later and said that the opinion you had of Warhawk before you played it was correct.
3) You were warned to not post impressions because a) it was a violation of your NDA and b) it wasn't fair to bash the beta because other posters who liked the beta couldn't state their own opinions because it would break the NDA.
Did I miss anything?
UnholySpectacle
Member
Would you folks please take this piss fest to PMs. Please stop ruining this thread for other people.
narcosis219
Member
Varshes said:
If we do where do I sign up?
Quotes from FightyF, to keep post length shorter:
"That doesn't discount the usefulness of bots."
I didn't say it did.
"But he did say they would add it, if it came down to it, am I right?"
His answer amounted to a polite "Don't count on it".
"Epic did it to give more value to the gamer."
Either Mark or Cliffy have specifically said they did it because they didn't want to sacrifice the single-player gamer sale.
"This doesn't make sense at all. If Madden had a staple "Franchise Mode" and it was missing it in 08, the reviewer would definitely mention it."
Since when were we talking about games within a single franchise? We're talking about individual games, in completely separate franchises, in different price brackets.
"Halo is not an MP only game. Neither is Resistance"
So? Their MP modes are a very significant portion of the game. The time that people sink into playing the MP portion of these games will often dwarf the time they put into the SP portion. Post release support from the dev in the form of patches and add-on packs is almost entirely focused on the MP portion of the game.
You can't discount these games simply because they're not MP only, because then you're undermining your whole argument about how bots have merit and add value - why would bots add any less value just because the game isn't MP only? But then if you don't discount these games, you can't argue that bots are truly a staple. Pick your poison.
"I don't see why you're trying to argue my point.
Most level headed gamers here agree that there is NOTHING wrong with the reviewer mentioning the lack of bots, in his review."
But I'm not arguing with you about a mere "mention" - nice try softening the language to try to coax a concession.
"That doesn't discount the usefulness of bots."
I didn't say it did.
"But he did say they would add it, if it came down to it, am I right?"
His answer amounted to a polite "Don't count on it".
"Epic did it to give more value to the gamer."
Either Mark or Cliffy have specifically said they did it because they didn't want to sacrifice the single-player gamer sale.
"This doesn't make sense at all. If Madden had a staple "Franchise Mode" and it was missing it in 08, the reviewer would definitely mention it."
Since when were we talking about games within a single franchise? We're talking about individual games, in completely separate franchises, in different price brackets.
"Halo is not an MP only game. Neither is Resistance"
So? Their MP modes are a very significant portion of the game. The time that people sink into playing the MP portion of these games will often dwarf the time they put into the SP portion. Post release support from the dev in the form of patches and add-on packs is almost entirely focused on the MP portion of the game.
You can't discount these games simply because they're not MP only, because then you're undermining your whole argument about how bots have merit and add value - why would bots add any less value just because the game isn't MP only? But then if you don't discount these games, you can't argue that bots are truly a staple. Pick your poison.
"I don't see why you're trying to argue my point.
Most level headed gamers here agree that there is NOTHING wrong with the reviewer mentioning the lack of bots, in his review."
But I'm not arguing with you about a mere "mention" - nice try softening the language to try to coax a concession.
Safe Bet said:
Yeah I re-read your post, at first I couldn't tell which was sarcasm and which were serious points, so I dismissed it all as crazy talk, and yes, you are right, I totally ignored your second post because I thought you went crazy. :lol
Ah well, do what you want.
Oh wait, you're not even gonna see this. Which means you'll miss out on stuff like this sexy PS3:
And stuff like this...
narcosis219
Member
SpacLock said:
But it seems you're putting a bit of effort into discrediting the game.
Kittonwy said:
Well yeah I don't think we'd get 64 Canadian GAFers but we might still be able to do something.
I'll take the initiative here and gather some names:
If you are interested in joining a GAF Canada clan, PM me.
I can share the names with whomever is interested in getting this organized.
narcosis219
Member
the_id said:
I woulda bought my PS3 on launch day if I knew it came with that.
Decalgirl ftw.
His answer amounted to a polite "Don't count on it".
It is interesting, the fact that this issue came up though, no? It only proves my argument that it is a staple feature for games of this type.
Either Mark or Cliffy have specifically said they did it because they didn't want to sacrifice the single-player gamer sale.
Do you have a link to the actual interview? And again, it bolsters my point that it's done to add value to games of these sorts.
Since when were we talking about games within a single franchise? We're talking about individual games, in completely separate franchises, in different price brackets.
Then apply APF into my hypothetical situation, rather than Madden. Again, a real life example is NHL 07 which lacked a season mode, whereas other similar games (ie. NHL 2k7) featured that. Reviewers mentioned it.
So? Their MP modes are a very significant portion of the game. The time that people sink into playing the MP portion of these games will often dwarf the time they put into the SP portion. Post release support from the dev in the form of patches and add-on packs is almost entirely focused on the MP portion of the game.
Neither of those games were sold as multiplayer only games.
You can't discount these games simply because they're not MP only, because then you're undermining your whole argument about how bots have merit and add value - why would bots add any less value just because the game isn't MP only? But then if you don't discount these games, you can't argue that bots are truly a staple. Pick your poison.
These games offer a lot to begin with. Both have deep single player campaign modes, as well as a multiplayer mode. A game like PDZ has it and it's a great feature on top of what's there. But these sorts of games aren't lacking in content. Games like Q3A, UT, etc. do not feature anything of the sort, and so the more these games offer, the better.
If GT:HD cost $30, would you have bought it? PD and Sony knew that people wouldn't pay for such a game, with it's limited offerings.
This is so obvious I'm not sure why I have to explain this, I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.
But I'm not arguing with you about a mere "mention" - nice try softening the language to try to coax a concession.
If you aren't arguing that this is a staple feature among games of this type, and that the review was right to point out the lack of such a feature...what are you arguing about?
If you're arguing that the game is great and will be fun without it, I agree. If you think that it should have no effect on the scoring of a review, I somewhat agree, I don't think it should be a full mark off the score, but perhaps some impact (either listed as a con or .5 docked off). If you think there is no room for bots in games of this type, I disagree. There's overwhelming evidence that people do play these sorts of games with bots, despite how primitive they are in some games. It's unreasonable to dismiss them. Especially when games like UT3 are coming out (on the same platform, ie. direct competition) and feature the same sort of gameplay (with flight, ground vehicles, and advanced objectives) and feature bots as well.
It is interesting, the fact that this issue came up though, no? It only proves my argument that it is a staple feature for games of this type.
Either Mark or Cliffy have specifically said they did it because they didn't want to sacrifice the single-player gamer sale.
Do you have a link to the actual interview? And again, it bolsters my point that it's done to add value to games of these sorts.
Since when were we talking about games within a single franchise? We're talking about individual games, in completely separate franchises, in different price brackets.
Then apply APF into my hypothetical situation, rather than Madden. Again, a real life example is NHL 07 which lacked a season mode, whereas other similar games (ie. NHL 2k7) featured that. Reviewers mentioned it.
So? Their MP modes are a very significant portion of the game. The time that people sink into playing the MP portion of these games will often dwarf the time they put into the SP portion. Post release support from the dev in the form of patches and add-on packs is almost entirely focused on the MP portion of the game.
Neither of those games were sold as multiplayer only games.
You can't discount these games simply because they're not MP only, because then you're undermining your whole argument about how bots have merit and add value - why would bots add any less value just because the game isn't MP only? But then if you don't discount these games, you can't argue that bots are truly a staple. Pick your poison.
These games offer a lot to begin with. Both have deep single player campaign modes, as well as a multiplayer mode. A game like PDZ has it and it's a great feature on top of what's there. But these sorts of games aren't lacking in content. Games like Q3A, UT, etc. do not feature anything of the sort, and so the more these games offer, the better.
If GT:HD cost $30, would you have bought it? PD and Sony knew that people wouldn't pay for such a game, with it's limited offerings.
This is so obvious I'm not sure why I have to explain this, I'm sure you understand what I'm talking about.
But I'm not arguing with you about a mere "mention" - nice try softening the language to try to coax a concession.
If you aren't arguing that this is a staple feature among games of this type, and that the review was right to point out the lack of such a feature...what are you arguing about?
If you're arguing that the game is great and will be fun without it, I agree. If you think that it should have no effect on the scoring of a review, I somewhat agree, I don't think it should be a full mark off the score, but perhaps some impact (either listed as a con or .5 docked off). If you think there is no room for bots in games of this type, I disagree. There's overwhelming evidence that people do play these sorts of games with bots, despite how primitive they are in some games. It's unreasonable to dismiss them. Especially when games like UT3 are coming out (on the same platform, ie. direct competition) and feature the same sort of gameplay (with flight, ground vehicles, and advanced objectives) and feature bots as well.
narcosis219
Member
FightyF said:
GT4 Prologue and GT3 Concept were sold in stores.