Wait a second, forget what I said.
Warhawk confirmed for Thursday release in Europe.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/815/815701p1.html
Warhawk confirmed for Thursday release in Europe.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/815/815701p1.html
Warhawk - The Official Thread
- Thread starter dralla
- Start date
Hmmm. What about this? Mistake/Error?
http://ps3.us.playstation.com/content/portal/warhawk/hd/default.aspx
http://ps3.us.playstation.com/content/portal/warhawk/hd/default.aspx
Metalmurphy
Member
methane47 said:
I need a high rez/full version of the picture
spwolf said:
I don't care how good or bad Q3 bots were, mainly because this sort of stuff gets better over time. Q3A came out nearly a decade ago...really. UT2004 had better bots, and newer games had better bots.The fact of the matter is that both id and Epic released games that could be played as one player experiences. And yes, I played a little of Warhawk, that doesn't change the fact that there are no bots.
kaching said:
What I meant was no single player campaign. They would be objective based matches or deathmatch. Games like UT2004, or more recently, Shadowrun. Clearly, it should have some relevance in a game review.
When any game breaks a norm, it should be mentioned in a review. EA's NHL 07 lacked a typical Season mode. It's a norm for sports games to have a season mode, and so reviewers were unanimous in mentioning it. And like in the case of Warhawk, I agree with the fact that it should be mentioned and if it hurts the score, so be it. I've already stated that I don't agree with how WH was scored (I don't think spwolf read my post closely enough), but they make a valid point.
Killthee said:
It seems that both this game and Shadowrun had their fair share of development issues. Sorta interesting considering both are of the same sort of MP-only games, but their issues were completely unrelated, but notable and interesting.
Alex
Member
A bunch of the people who signed up probably won't even buy the game, another bunch will probably stop playing shortly after.
The communities for these shrink and stabilize fairly quickly, at least they have in the past so I don't think getting in genuinely interested folk will be difficult.
The communities for these shrink and stabilize fairly quickly, at least they have in the past so I don't think getting in genuinely interested folk will be difficult.
I wonder, if somebody could help me, to get Warhawk. I played the beta and i really love that game, but my problem is, i live in thailand and i don't have a credit card. Since i already have a headset, i don't really wanna buy the retail version, if it even comes out here in thailand.
I know, i'm new, so maybe it's hard for you guys to trust me, but i think i figured out a way, that is completely without risk for you. First i send you the money for the game by paypal, after that i give you my log-in info for my psn-account. you change the pw, write in your credit card infos, put the money in my wallet, take out your credit card infos and change back to my old password.
I would be ready to pay the full price and I would be ready to share the game for free with the person who helps me to get it (if it's sharable).
Would be really really great, if somebody would help me, to get this great game. Just contact me here or directly to my PSN-Name: OsamaBongLaden
I know, i'm new, so maybe it's hard for you guys to trust me, but i think i figured out a way, that is completely without risk for you. First i send you the money for the game by paypal, after that i give you my log-in info for my psn-account. you change the pw, write in your credit card infos, put the money in my wallet, take out your credit card infos and change back to my old password.
I would be ready to pay the full price and I would be ready to share the game for free with the person who helps me to get it (if it's sharable).
Would be really really great, if somebody would help me, to get this great game. Just contact me here or directly to my PSN-Name: OsamaBongLaden
I know what you meant.FightyF said:
Eh, a review should mention whatever aspects about the game most influenced the reviewer's final assessment. If the breaking of a norm is part of that for the reviewer, then of course they should mention it but ideally games get reviewed on the strength of their own merits, not the merits of an archetype.
Reiterating what Sony and Incog have already made clear - the nature of the game - is not making a valid point, it's just redundant. It'd be like saying it's a valid point that Madden games only let you play football and then docking the score because of that. We're talking about the fundamental gating factors of these games which determines if you're even interested in it in the first place, before you even take notice of how it reviews.
polyh3dron
Banned
Dizzan said:
I found you!!! I did what you said and the money never came!! WTF?? Bastard.
Dizzan said:
Because I'm living in Thailand but I'm not a thai citizen, so it's not possible for me to open a bank account here. I also don't get one in my home country germany since i don't have a regular income there.
But another question, maybe I can "borrow" the credit card of a friend here, but can I even use it with the american store since I don't have a 'real' address in america?
Dizzan said:
So can u help me
No, kidding, I know it's hard to trust somebody in the internet, especially with all those nigeria connections all around. I guess I'll just try the credit card of my friend and if it's not working, i just keep on writing desperate questions for help till someone shows some mercy.
By the way, is that your dog in your avatar? Cause I have the same one, name's Mopsy
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1722580
FightyF said:
Nobody used Q3A bots. Nobody played Q3A singleplayer. Yes, Warhawk doesnt have single player, but thats why it is $40 game. Did anyone play BF1942 singleplayer?
What Team Incog. wanted to do is focus on stuff that matters and not do stuff that dont. And thats why Warhawk is AAA experience.
It would have been pointless to have crappy bots and crappy single player, and us paying $20 more for it.
As to your comparison to season mode, well, that would be more as if Warhawk didnt have team modes like CTF.
I played Q3A and BF1942 (and few other multiplayer-centric games) extensivly, never heard anyone say anything good about bots at all or anything good about singleplayer.
You diminish your own argument that bots are a "valid point" for this game by saying further discussion about it would derail the thread. If you're comfortable with the points you've made, that's fine, but you haven't countered anything.
And, no, I wouldn't say the more merits, the better, I would say the right merits are what matter.
And, no, I wouldn't say the more merits, the better, I would say the right merits are what matter.
Ok, if you don't mind...
Everyone who wanted to get a hang of the game played with bots. For a summer I had to run a computer store ('EMO Computing', no joke!), and we had an internet cafe on the other side, since the boss was gone he hired his friend to look after the cafe, this guy was easily in his 30s. I got him hooked on Q3A, and to start, he played against bots.
Again, you can claim that the bots suck, but that game is a decade old. Since then there have been a lot of progress. The point is, bots are instrumental to learning a game. Many games have the advantage of single player to learn the game...but the games we are talking about, don't.
Obviously, as posted earlier, they were having issues with the AI and didn't have the time to finish it, and concentrated on other aspects of the game. The game was already delayed (was supposed to be out earlier), so I can't blame them for that choice. Every game has features knocked off due to time constraints. But the very fact that they were working on it shows that Incognito themselves saw some importance in it. Obviously though, it's more important to get a game out, more than anything else (even if it means canned weapons, vehicles, and bots).
How about good bots, and a good single player progression? Games like UT 2004 have done it very well. UT 3 will carry the same tradition.
If that's the case, then how would a sports game fare if there was no AI at all? :lol
Those were the earliest examples of games, since then, there have been a multitude of games. I brought up Q3A to show that it has been a staple for nearly a decade.
There are a lot more recent examples, one of which is coming to the PS3 this Fall, will offer 32 players (with or without bots) a large variety of vehicles and a large variety of maps with a variety in scale (suitable for 2 vs 2, or 16 vs 16)...Unreal Tournament 3.
I think it's easy, and fair, for people to compare features for both games, as I think both will be great online games with similar features.
Well, we know that if there is a feature that is a staple among a certain type of game, it is definitely a "right" merit. Ie. something to be concerned about.
Well, what do you think of the bot support in UT 3? Does it not matter? If not, what makes the merit "wrong"?
spwolf said:
Everyone who wanted to get a hang of the game played with bots. For a summer I had to run a computer store ('EMO Computing', no joke!), and we had an internet cafe on the other side, since the boss was gone he hired his friend to look after the cafe, this guy was easily in his 30s. I got him hooked on Q3A, and to start, he played against bots.
Again, you can claim that the bots suck, but that game is a decade old. Since then there have been a lot of progress. The point is, bots are instrumental to learning a game. Many games have the advantage of single player to learn the game...but the games we are talking about, don't.
Obviously, as posted earlier, they were having issues with the AI and didn't have the time to finish it, and concentrated on other aspects of the game. The game was already delayed (was supposed to be out earlier), so I can't blame them for that choice. Every game has features knocked off due to time constraints. But the very fact that they were working on it shows that Incognito themselves saw some importance in it. Obviously though, it's more important to get a game out, more than anything else (even if it means canned weapons, vehicles, and bots).
How about good bots, and a good single player progression? Games like UT 2004 have done it very well. UT 3 will carry the same tradition.
If that's the case, then how would a sports game fare if there was no AI at all? :lol
Those were the earliest examples of games, since then, there have been a multitude of games. I brought up Q3A to show that it has been a staple for nearly a decade.
There are a lot more recent examples, one of which is coming to the PS3 this Fall, will offer 32 players (with or without bots) a large variety of vehicles and a large variety of maps with a variety in scale (suitable for 2 vs 2, or 16 vs 16)...Unreal Tournament 3.
I think it's easy, and fair, for people to compare features for both games, as I think both will be great online games with similar features.
kaching said:
Well, we know that if there is a feature that is a staple among a certain type of game, it is definitely a "right" merit. Ie. something to be concerned about.
Well, what do you think of the bot support in UT 3? Does it not matter? If not, what makes the merit "wrong"?
Can you even do bots for the kind of "literally go anywhere on any vehicle in the air AND on the ground" game like Warhawk? Not sure how realistic an expectation that would be for Incog to incorporate bots, there are perhaps too many choices in terms of actions for a bot to choose from even in terms of standard deathmatch, let alone fighting for territory and CTF, how good can teh bots even be? It would be kind of silly to argue for bots simply for the sake of argument. If bots can be implemented for Warhawk, I would like to know how that can be done.
Grayman said:
So? I'm asking whether it's feasible to do bots in Warhawk.
Can the bots fly upside down while in a dogfight while picking up ammos and be able to decide when to land and get into a tank or a jeep or carry out combat on foot, lay mines or pick off people with airstrikes? There would probably be a dozne planes in the air and a dozen people on the ground at least, who does the bot go after? How does it decide? With which weapon? How will the bot travel? Which weapon to pick up before the bot decides to go after its target? Aside from the standard "flank an opponent, use cover, navigate the environment on the ground", there are a lot of additional challenges for a bot in Warhawk. Warhawk battles are very dynamic, things change constantly, with 32 people it's complete mayhem, perhaps a little too crazy for bots.
Kittonwy said:
It is.
As Incognito said, they were working on it, and if need be, would work on it.
My point is that there are plenty of other titles out there doing it, and because of that it was a good point on PSM's part to point it out (again, I don't agree with the score...or the idea that it should knock a full point off a score because of the lack of it, a half point is fair).
Some casual gamers don't know anything about the game so mentioning that in the review is helpful. When games like UT 3 coming out, and gamers on a limited budget due to this Fall's lineup, it's something people may see value in.
I don't see why people are so averse to pointing that out, in a game review.
Vyse The Legend
Member
I wonder what Sony is doing to stop the sharing of Warhawk, if anything. I can't imagine they'd allow it, or want to.
FightyF said:
Explain how. This isn't UT3 where things happen on a flat map, this is a completely 3D warzone where people are doing cockscrews in the air, flying upside down while diving under arches trying to lock on each other with missiles, deploying chaffs while some will land and do a whole lot of other stuff on the ground, all happening at the same time in an environment that is far from having restrictive and pre-defined paths, but with tons and tons of obstacles that can change on a moment's notice.
For a single player game perhaps they can have AI troops fighting only on the ground and pilots only in the air fighting in warhawks, but in the multiplayer game a bot would have to dynamically switch from one mode of transportation to another and the battle conditions and options would change constantly, a bot would have to dynamically react to all the things happening without ending up just easy cannon fodder.
Kittonwy said:
You never played UT2k4 did you? The vehicle maps are not flat. It is comparable. Of course bots can never replace a human. They ar enot able to do some of the maneuvers a human can do or use a vehicle with more strategy behind it BUT they can be fun non the less.