Watch
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="yeaaboii"]And its still amazing! By far! I saw it yesterday & actually stayed a few minutes at work in order to watch it again.Thanks but this was posted yesterday
TheEldestGod
the new cole honestly looks and sounds stupid , i like the original one much better specially his voice it was ice cold bad a$$ voice. now he sounds like a sissy.zidan4000Nathan Drake rip off is all I can say, then again the original Cole was more like a Nathan Hale rip off. Maybe this is Sucker Punch's way of paying homage to other developers.
Looks mediocre to me.GrandJuryYou wanna see something mediocre? Look down next time you're in the shower! :P Ya know I love ya! :D
You wanna see something mediocre? Look down next time you're in the shower! :P Ya know I love ya! :DYeah you're right, my feet look terrible. :lol:[QUOTE="TheEldestGod"][QUOTE="GrandJury"]Looks mediocre to me.GrandJury
I honestly don't understand why they had to COMPLETELY change the look of Cole that one, instead of playing a bad ass now we get to play an f*g emo character, YAY! I'm gonna pass on this game and they don't do something about this none sense.jack00
harsh much?
and even if Cole looked that way, simply looking like an *expletive* emo does not equate to him being one.
the new cole honestly looks and sounds stupid , i like the original one much better specially his voice it was ice cold bad a$$ voice. now he sounds like a sissy.zidan4000The original Cole was not much of a character, the angry at the world anti hero thing has been done to death. My question from this trailer is if the destruction shown something that can happen anytime, or was it a one time set piece.
[QUOTE="jack00"]I honestly don't understand why they had to COMPLETELY change the look of Cole that one, instead of playing a bad ass now we get to play an f*g emo character, YAY! I'm gonna pass on this game and they don't do something about this none sense.Rakuho
harsh much?
and even if Cole looked that way, simply looking like an *expletive* emo does not equate to him being one.
Emo? Yeah, that's just absurd. For god's sake he's wearing track pants. I mean, I guess he's as much of an "emo" as Nathan Drake, but more than that? No. I personally think the only thing that's really odd about the new Cole is his voice. Growing your hair out and changing your clothes is one thing, changing your voice is another. If Snake (MGS) or Kratos (GoW) got a change in voice, they just wouldn't be the same, they would loose what made them unique or special in the first place. Now, I'll be the first to say that Cole isn't the most original character to begin with. That has to do mostly with his look more than anything else, because his voice was incredible. Well, either way, it's a bad move on Sucker Punch's part. Thankfuly, the rest of the game looks more than great.[QUOTE="Rakuho"]
[QUOTE="jack00"]I honestly don't understand why they had to COMPLETELY change the look of Cole that one, instead of playing a bad ass now we get to play an f*g emo character, YAY! I'm gonna pass on this game and they don't do something about this none sense.Animatronic64
harsh much?
and even if Cole looked that way, simply looking like an *expletive* emo does not equate to him being one.
Emo? Yeah, that's just absurd. For god's sake he's wearing track pants. I mean, I guess he's as much of an "emo" as Nathan Drake, but more than that? No. I personally think the only thing that's really odd about the new Cole is his voice. Growing your hair out and changing your clothes is one thing, changing your voice is another. If Snake (MGS) or Kratos (GoW) got a change in voice, they just wouldn't be the same, they would loose what made them unique or special in the first place. Now, I'll be the first to say that Cole isn't the most original character to begin with. That has to do mostly with his look more than anything else, because his voice was incredible. Well, either way, it's a bad move on Sucker Punch's part. Thankfuly, the rest of the game looks more than great.From what I've read, SP only changed voice actors because it decided to implement Motion Capture in InF2 (a la Uncharted). Since the previous voice actor was only a voice actor and nothing more, SP decided to hire someone who could sing and dance, so to speak :P.
So why go through all of this trouble? the answer is to simply make the game more cinematic and the animations more realistic and fluid.
side note: the old voice actor kind of sounded like Snake with a throat infection :P ... which was pretty awesome actually.
Emo? Yeah, that's just absurd. For god's sake he's wearing track pants. I mean, I guess he's as much of an "emo" as Nathan Drake, but more than that? No. I personally think the only thing that's really odd about the new Cole is his voice. Growing your hair out and changing your clothes is one thing, changing your voice is another. If Snake (MGS) or Kratos (GoW) got a change in voice, they just wouldn't be the same, they would loose what made them unique or special in the first place. Now, I'll be the first to say that Cole isn't the most original character to begin with. That has to do mostly with his look more than anything else, because his voice was incredible. Well, either way, it's a bad move on Sucker Punch's part. Thankfuly, the rest of the game looks more than great.[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]
[QUOTE="Rakuho"]
harsh much?
and even if Cole looked that way, simply looking like an *expletive* emo does not equate to him being one.
Rakuho
From what I've read, SP only changed voice actors because it decided to implement Motion Capture in InF2 (a la Uncharted). Since the previous voice actor was only a voice actor and nothing more, SP decided to hire someone who could sing and dance, so to speak :P.
So why go through all of this trouble? the answer is to simply make the game more cinematic and the animations more realistic and fluid.
side note: the old voice actor kind of sounded like Snake with a throat infection :P ... which was pretty awesome actually.
At the least they could have found someone who has a similar voice to him. It's like giving Kratos the voice of Nathan Drake. It's just a bad move all around.I was hoping to see a lot more new things. This looks like Infamous 1.5, but thats not really a bad thing. The game looks better than the first and I'm sure it will be just as awesome.Ninja_Zombie83
then what would be InFamous 2.0 from your perspective then? [conditional question]: and if it's something wildly different from the first, would it be reasonable to implement such changes in the sequel? I'm only asking out of pure curiosity, not to start something.
[QUOTE="Rakuho"][QUOTE="Animatronic64"] Emo? Yeah, that's just absurd. For god's sake he's wearing track pants. I mean, I guess he's as much of an "emo" as Nathan Drake, but more than that? No. I personally think the only thing that's really odd about the new Cole is his voice. Growing your hair out and changing your clothes is one thing, changing your voice is another. If Snake (MGS) or Kratos (GoW) got a change in voice, they just wouldn't be the same, they would loose what made them unique or special in the first place. Now, I'll be the first to say that Cole isn't the most original character to begin with. That has to do mostly with his look more than anything else, because his voice was incredible. Well, either way, it's a bad move on Sucker Punch's part. Thankfuly, the rest of the game looks more than great.
Animatronic64
From what I've read, SP only changed voice actors because it decided to implement Motion Capture in InF2 (a la Uncharted). Since the previous voice actor was only a voice actor and nothing more, SP decided to hire someone who could sing and dance, so to speak :P.
So why go through all of this trouble? the answer is to simply make the game more cinematic and the animations more realistic and fluid.
side note: the old voice actor kind of sounded like Snake with a throat infection :P ... which was pretty awesome actually.
At the least they could have found someone who has a similar voice to him. It's like giving Kratos the voice of Nathan Drake. It's just a bad move all around.I'm not for or against the move. Like you, I would have preferred for SP to select someone with a voice similar to the previous voice actor's, but truth be told, it wasn't Cole's voice that made me fall in love with InF in the first place. It was the game play. So naturally, I'm not going to let this new voice actor to get in my way of enjoying the sequel.
BTW, did you watch the E3 trailer (where Cole said a bit more than just one line)... I must say, his voice really didn't seem so bad, despite it being different.
[QUOTE="Ninja_Zombie83"]I was hoping to see a lot more new things. This looks like Infamous 1.5, but thats not really a bad thing. The game looks better than the first and I'm sure it will be just as awesome.Rakuho
then what would be InFamous 2.0 from your perspective then? [conditional question]: and if it's something wildly different from the first, would it be reasonable to implement such changes in the sequel? I'm only asking out of pure curiosity, not to start something.
Thats a good question honestly, and my reason for calling it InFamous 1.5 is based off of what little I have seen so far, so I will be happy to admit that I could be jumping the gun because I liked the first one.Honestly, what is different so far? Gameplay wasn't much, but from what I see, the enemies are different and there's a new skin to the player. Not much else.
To me, InFamous 2 (or any sequel) should take the core of the game and find new ways to apply it. Cole is basically a spiderman that can use lightning so toss in some characters with other powerswho came about them in a similar way that Cole did. Hell make each one have a faction to progress the story line. This could lead to a multiplayer option if they wanted. Maybe instead of making Cole look totally different (including voice) how about you just keep the old Cole, give this new Cole a different name, and present us with Co-op!
Since the game hasn't even been released and we barley know much about the game in terms of powers, story etc. I could very well be wrong...but it issomewhat dissapointing for the selling points of InFamous2 to be "look, a new skin! Andwe gave him amassive tuning fork to fightDead Space zombies!"
I was hoping they would push things a little further than what was showed to us so far. Having not read anything about the game and only seen the gameplay, I would guess the game goes something like this: Government now see's Cole as a terrorist, tries to kill/blackmail him, things go wrong, Cole saves the day, gets maybe 4 new powers, goes undercover till InFamous 3. Very similar to InFamous 1.
Everything was great except i don't really like how the camera zooms in every time you hit an enemy.
I got used to Cole's voice from the first game and don't like this one but thats a minor complaint.
I really find that new voice annoying...Maybe SP will explain why the voice changed. I mean getting hit by a blast that give you lightning powers might give you hair right? and a new voice?
Thats a good question honestly, and my reason for calling it InFamous 1.5 is based off of what little I have seen so far, so I will be happy to admit that I could be jumping the gun because I liked the first one.
Honestly, what is different so far? Gameplay wasn't much, but from what I see, the enemies are different and there's a new skin to the player. Not much else.Ninja_Zombie83
A sequel is interesting, basically what you said is what they have shown so far, you added a few new characters, the whole faction thing you mentioned sounds like an expansion on those nuts that popped up everywhere in the first game. With a sequel, expansion is really all you can do, if you change a lot, its not a sequel, its a completely new game. The basic core of the experience will remain the same, the powers, the parkour, the mission based structure, you have to retain those elements for it to be the same series.
Adding co-op is just a second guy doing the same thing, it doesn't really change anything. With a sequel, definitely in the case of Infamous, the sequel should be a better overall game. Because the first had its fair number of problems, those should be ironed out in the second. That's all a sequel is, improvements, a few new mechanics built on top of the core and a new or continued story. Also your guess is way off lol, there is a game informer article floating around, I recommend giving it a read.
gameplay = pretty awesome
graphics = better then the first (hope the framerate is better)
his look = better
his voice = earplugs :P
It does look phenominal.
The more i watch video for this game, the more i get used to coles voice.
I love the new look (minus the hair) but i will look for any excuse to steal another tattoo to put on myself :lol:
I quite like the building destruction, but i'm concerned that it'll have an affect on the game's playability.
If the game has to reload certain buildings having been destroyed, how are they going to keep the next to perfect zero load time they had in 1.
I suppose i will get used to changes, i am looking forward to getting on that crazy cattle prod looking thing. And the combat looks pretty decent
InFamous 2 looks like InFamous 1, but more polished and a couple of tweaks. I don't see this as a bad thing at all for a sequel, but like GoW series, it can become boring (to me at least) very quickly if they choose to refine instead of expand. But...it worked really well for Uncharted 2, so maybe InFamous 2 can get away with it.
But you can drastically change a sequel without changing the core of the game. MGS series has done this with every new release, so has CoD andRE. Some for the better, some for the worse, but at least it keeps you interested.
Granted, I don't have a lot of room to speak since there isn't a lot of information about InFamous 2 (and I'll look for that article btw, thanks), I still have high expectations. One thing is for sure, I've got my eye on it and some money already set aside.
the new cole honestly looks and sounds stupid , i like the original one much better specially his voice it was ice cold bad a$$ voice. now he sounds like a sissy.zidan4000I thought he was just a new guy altogether?
Are you kidding me. There is so much new New graphics, new voice actor, new look, Ice powers, Destructible enviroments, in an interview their changing how you upgrade the powers, there dcould be mulitplayer (SP neither denied or confirmed it) New City, new enemys, more powers. If you want to complain about a 1.5, talk about every game. What game really was a 2.0,if Infamous 2 is a 1.5.InFamous 2 looks like InFamous 1, but more polished and a couple of tweaks. I don't see this as a bad thing at all for a sequel, but like GoW series, it can become boring (to me at least) very quickly if they choose to refine instead of expand. But...it worked really well for Uncharted 2, so maybe InFamous 2 can get away with it.
But you can drastically change a sequel without changing the core of the game. MGS series has done this with every new release, so has CoD andRE. Some for the better, some for the worse, but at least it keeps you interested.
Granted, I don't have a lot of room to speak since there isn't a lot of information about InFamous 2 (and I'll look for that article btw, thanks), I still have high expectations. One thing is for sure, I've got my eye on it and some money already set aside.
Ninja_Zombie83
lol CoD? CoD is the worst example for everything except how to repackage the same game every year lol. I never noticed any drastic changes in MGS in any of the first 4, those were definitely expanding and refining mechanics. RE never changed until RE4 and then RE5 was just RE4, but they gave Ashley a gun. If these are series that you believe really changed in their sequels, you should be fine with Infamous and just about everything really except maybe Madden which is the only game worst than CoD with the same thing every year-itis :PInFamous 2 looks like InFamous 1, but more polished and a couple of tweaks. I don't see this as a bad thing at all for a sequel, but like GoW series, it can become boring (to me at least) very quickly if they choose to refine instead of expand. But...it worked really well for Uncharted 2, so maybe InFamous 2 can get away with it.
But you can drastically change a sequel without changing the core of the game. MGS series has done this with every new release, so has CoD andRE. Some for the better, some for the worse, but at least it keeps you interested.
Granted, I don't have a lot of room to speak since there isn't a lot of information about InFamous 2 (and I'll look for that article btw, thanks), I still have high expectations. One thing is for sure, I've got my eye on it and some money already set aside.
Ninja_Zombie83
[QUOTE="Ninja_Zombie83"]lol CoD? CoD is the worst example for everything except how to repackage the same game every year lol. I never noticed any drastic changes in MGS in any of the first 4, those were definitely expanding and refining mechanics. RE never changed until RE4 and then RE5 was just RE4, but they gave Ashley a gun. If these are series that you believe really changed in their sequels, you should be fine with Infamous and just about everything really except maybe Madden which is the only game worst than CoD with the same thing every year-itis :PCoD changes everything except for the engine it uses (thats normal anyways), and even that is dependant on the developer at the time. Guns, setting, perks, killstreaks, mini games...all pretty different. Even CoD MW and MW2 are drastically different (hence the complaints). Those fimiliar with the series can agree that each game feels completley different.InFamous 2 looks like InFamous 1, but more polished and a couple of tweaks. I don't see this as a bad thing at all for a sequel, but like GoW series, it can become boring (to me at least) very quickly if they choose to refine instead of expand. But...it worked really well for Uncharted 2, so maybe InFamous 2 can get away with it.
But you can drastically change a sequel without changing the core of the game. MGS series has done this with every new release, so has CoD andRE. Some for the better, some for the worse, but at least it keeps you interested.
Granted, I don't have a lot of room to speak since there isn't a lot of information about InFamous 2 (and I'll look for that article btw, thanks), I still have high expectations. One thing is for sure, I've got my eye on it and some money already set aside.
Sepewrath
RE has also changed from the horror game (RE 1 & 2) the multiplayer (Outbreak) and the action (RE 4)and co-op (RE5) among others. I think you are scoping in on just 2 of the many games RE has had, but there have been big changes every sequel.
MGS not having drastic changes every sequel is like saying Mario hasn't changed in 20 years. Just the camo and stealth gameplay alone has changed, not including graphics, story, combat, weapons, setting, characters, and many others. I hope I either missread your comment or you are being sarcastic.
At first look, InFamous 2 looks more polished than the first...but I don't see a big difference yet. InFamous isn't known for its great story, it was known as doing something fresh and new. I just think its kinda dissapointing to see that the sequel isn't taking things to a new level, but has instead decided to refine what they did the first time. There's nothing wrong with that though.Assasins Creed did great, so did Uncharted, so can InFamous. I am just fine with InFamous, but I don't strive to play mediocre or good games. I want to see the envelope pushed like they did the first time.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment