Trailer of Red Faction Armageddon

Commented on 2011-05-17 02:55:30

good trailer!! I might buy this game if the reviews are good but since I am loving infamous right now, I will probably put my money down for infamous 2 ;)

In reply to

PlumbDrumb

Commented on 2011-05-17 02:57:23

reviews be doin me wrong too often.

In reply to

Doom_Bringer

Commented on 2011-05-17 03:06:04

^ yea but this game is nothing like guerrilla and most of the gameplay they have released looks kinda wonky. I might buy it for half price...

In reply to

PlumbDrumb

Commented on 2011-05-17 03:18:09

shit, if it's any good, I'll buy it full price.

In reply to

digi_matrix

Commented on 2011-05-17 06:51:02

I'll buy that for a dollar!

In reply to

JBear

Commented on 2011-05-17 13:05:02

Yeh, i wasn't interested in Red Faction at all until this trailer. Looks like they are have tried to make a cool story and cutscenes so i'll give it a go.

In reply to

IRAIPT0IR

Commented on 2011-05-17 14:45:52

This is way better than Guerrilla in my opinion, open world for open world sake is not a very good thing, plus when you have weak gunplay everything is worthless, now this one has very meaty gunplay and killing feedback, you are killing aliens and humans with some crazy weapons, kinda like the movie Aliens in the caves.

Im debating if getting this or wait for Shadows of the Damned.

IMO this feels more tight than Guerrilla but losing the openworld might be a very bad thing for some, hell I would be pissed myself if a game I loved lose that feature.

Posted by PlumbDrumb

shit, if it's any good, I'll buy it full price.

Have you tried the demo?

Is very good IMO.

In reply to

PlumbDrumb

Commented on 2011-05-17 14:58:15

No demo for PC players.

We are not worthy, or, they just don't give a crap what we think.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/03/no-pc-d...

In reply to

romeolives

Commented on 2011-05-17 18:25:14

trailer looks great, but looking at the past Red FAction games i wouldn't get my hopes up.

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2011-05-17 22:22:31

guerrilla was great, surprised me how much fun i had with it. this game is just dull (based on the demo). i dunno what the hell possessed them to go linear and underground when they had such an awesome destruction mechanic. the developers just seem confused. they know the series doesnt have a real identity so they're just throwing any old shit at it and seeing if anything sticks. i guess guerrilla didnt do that well, so it's understandable if they didnt want to make "more of the same", but this dead space wannabe is just a weird direction to take the series. and with the whole "insta-rebuild" button, all the destruction seems largely inconsequential. just there for the sake of it.

In reply to

IRAIPT0IR

Commented on 2011-05-17 22:40:24 In reply to KORNdog

Posted by KORNdog

guerrilla was great, surprised me how much fun i had with it. this game is just dull (based on the demo)

No its not based on the demo.

. i dunno what the hell possessed them to go linear and underground when they had such an awesome destruction mechanic. the developers just seem confused.

They are not confused, they wanted to create a different experience and in my opinion is a nice way to go, destruction is still there.

but this dead space wannabe is just a weird direction to take the series.

No its not, DS plays a and feels diferent, in here there is no scare factor nor the jump at your face aout of nowhere monsters, they come in packs in here.

and with the whole "insta-rebuild" button, all the destruction seems largely inconsequential. just there for the sake of it.

What do you mean for the sake of it, the rebuild thing is for you to be able to reconstruct destroyed bridges and so on to be able to move forward, is an interesting mechanic to go along the destruction engine they have, the destruction you make is a "consequence" of the weapons you fire like it should, in that aspect is very nice to see if you are in a fight and are throwing explosives and heavy weaponry the enviroment be destroyed by it, all games should have this IMO.

But I guess if you were very invested and had a lot of fun in Guerrilla you probably feel insulted by this, as for me I didn't even cared for that game at all while this one IMO is awesome as hell.

In reply to

[quote=KORNdog]guerrilla was great, surprised me how much fun i had with it. this game is just dull (based on the demo)
[/quote]
No its not based on the demo.
[quote]
. i dunno what the hell possessed them to go linear and underground when they had such an awesome destruction mechanic. the developers just seem confused.
[/quote]

They are not confused, they wanted to create a different experience and in my opinion is a nice way to go, destruction is still there.

[quote] but this dead space wannabe is just a weird direction to take the series.[/quote]
No its not, DS plays a and feels diferent, in here there is no scare factor nor the jump at your face aout of nowhere monsters, they come in packs in here.

[quote]
 and with the whole "insta-rebuild" button, all the destruction seems largely inconsequential. just there for the sake of it.[/quote]

What do you mean for the sake of it, the rebuild thing is for you to be able to reconstruct destroyed bridges and so on to be able to move forward, is an interesting mechanic to go along the destruction engine they have, the destruction you make is a "consequence" of the weapons you fire like it should, in that aspect is very nice to see if you are in a fight and are throwing explosives and heavy weaponry the enviroment be destroyed by it, all games should have this IMO.

But I guess if you were very invested and had a lot of fun in Guerrilla you probably feel insulted by this, as for me I didn't even cared for that game at all while this one IMO is awesome as hell.

KORNdog

Commented on 2011-05-17 23:05:40 In reply to IRAIPT0IR

Posted by IRAIPT0IR

What do you mean for the sake of it, the rebuild thing is for you to be able to reconstruct destroyed bridges and so on to be able to move forward, is an interesting mechanic to go along the destruction engine they have, the destruction you make is a "consequence" of the weapons you fire like it should, in that aspect is very nice to see if you are in a fight and are throwing explosives and heavy weaponry the enviroment be destroyed by it, all games should have this IMO.

But I guess if you were very invested and had a lot of fun in Guerrilla you probably feel insulted by this, as for me I didn't even cared for that game at all while this one IMO is awesome as hell.

the destruction is inconsequential in the fact the destruction means diddlysquat when you can just reform it at any time. it's obvious why they did it. to prevent people destroying the way forward. but they could have done it in a slightly more imaginative, creative way then just a "fix everything" button. the destruction is there because they have the tech to do it, the game itself isn't structured around it at all. it's there for the sake of being there. whereas in guerrilla, it was there because it was a core element of the gameplay. this game would look and play exactly the same if the destruction was ripped from it entirely. so what exactly is the point of it being there? hell, why exactly is this even a "red faction" game at all?

this game will flop. thanks in-part to the devs not having a clue what to do with the series. each and every game in the series has been completely and utterly different, even down to the perspective it plays in...i'd say that was a confused developer.

In reply to

[quote=IRAIPT0IR]

What do you mean for the sake of it, the rebuild thing is for you to be able to reconstruct destroyed bridges and so on to be able to move forward, is an interesting mechanic to go along the destruction engine they have, the destruction you make is a "consequence" of the weapons you fire like it should, in that aspect is very nice to see if you are in a fight and are throwing explosives and heavy weaponry the enviroment be destroyed by it, all games should have this IMO.

But I guess if you were very invested and had a lot of fun in Guerrilla you probably feel insulted by this, as for me I didn't even cared for that game at all while this one IMO is awesome as hell.[/quote]

the destruction is inconsequential in the fact the destruction means diddlysquat when you can just reform it at any time. it's obvious why they did it. to prevent people destroying the way forward. but they could have done it in a slightly more imaginative, creative way then just a "fix everything" button. the destruction is there because they have the tech to do it, the game itself isn't structured around it at all. it's there for the sake of being there. whereas in guerrilla, it was there because it was a core element of the gameplay. this game would look and play exactly the same if the destruction was ripped from it entirely. so what exactly is the point of it being there? hell, why exactly is this even a "red faction" game at all?

this game will flop. thanks in-part to the devs not having a clue what to do with the series. each and every game in the series has been completely and utterly different, even down to the perspective it plays in...i'd say that was a confused developer.