I have another one to chalk up to the "weird" list:
Pentium 4 3.0 GHz single core
1 GB of RAM
Radeon X800 XT AGP card
Windows XP
I run the demo at all medium with some features on high if I get greedy, and I never drop below 24 FPS. I can't even RUN other games that have come out lately due to my lack of Smart Shaders 3.0. If they can optimize the low end (low still looks better than most freaking games out right now) I'm sure they can optimize the high. I recommend everyone stop freaking out.
[QUOTE="_KwispY"]out of curiousity, how is not exactly like far cry?Store24
Destructible enviroments which if you have played the demo for enough time really add to the game and possible ways you can go about a situation, Nano suit leads to many possibilites depending on which play style you want to choose. You can go stealthy and not be seen by your enemies or you can go str and punch everyone to death running and gunning. Weapons customization allows yout modify your weapons to how you see fit or what situation you are going into. Physics, you can do some amazing things thanks to it. It isn't a far cry clone, it is far better.
I guarantee you that the GS review as well as every other game site and magazine will all mention how it is so similar to FarCry you fell like you have returned to the very same island! It seems silly that they didn't just make this the sequel to it.
...Halo 3 got a 9.5, and it's the same game as its predacessor(s) except...less fun. I think Crysis will do fine in the reviews.
The game is good, it's just not the end-all-be-all-savior-of-all-RPGs-with-hyphens-included. It's mediocre. run of the mill.
It's not the atrocity that some make it out to be, but it's also not god in a box. The game tried to be Diablo 2 with a twist, which it is. It plays like Diablo 2, its graphics are gorgeous, it captures the "evil" feel (perhaps a little too much, environments are pretty drab.) But, it tries so hard to be Diablo 2 that it just fails in many areas. NPCs are something that stands out. You click on a guard, and if you're a guy, he's gruff and stereotypical, if you're a girl, he asks you to rub oil all over yourself. There's some intense in-depth dialog there. Totally immersed.
The diablo crowd was mostly attracted because it was simple, fun, and casual. Hellgate London is simple, and fun. A hazy area of this game lies in the "casual" field, mostly regarding fees. It's true, you can play this game online without paying a monthly fee, that's great. But it penalizes you.
If you play online without paying a fee, you become quite literally a second-cla-ss citizen. You can't start guilds, you can't become an officer of a guild, you get reduced storage space, other disadvantages to game play, as well as being restricted from obtaining content updates.
The EA influence of this game rings out true and clear with its in-game ads. My vision of an apocalyptic world is not riddled with the likes of nVidia ads, but someone's wallet at EA Games disagrees with that vision. It's pretty annoying to know that even in the game you paid big money for, you're still not safe from ridiculous advertising, especially when its spiritual predecessor did not require you to pay a monthly fee to be worthy of playing the game to its maximum capacity, and the strength of Diablo II was in its multiplayer aspect.
The FPS aspect feels tacked on, but honestly, that's a technological problem as well as a design flaw. Bringing first-person into the game attempts to attract that type of gamer, but that gamer will be sorely dissatisfied. The recoil of your gun amounts to the expansion of your crosshairs, with no other visual aid whatsoever. Not even a slight rise of the barrel of your weapon. It brutally sucks the intensity out of first person play when your character has been firing a fully automatic weapon for 15 seconds and still recycles the same shooting animation and sound. Overall the first-person plays a lot like Planetside, it's passable, but there's no "umph" to it, and no satisfaction, either. I actually found third person a lot more satisfying, because at least you don't have to look at your stupid weapon. (lack of a better adjective.)
The game is also invasive regarding your system and you as a gamer. Accepting the game's EULA means you submit to the collection of 'technical and related information that identifies your computer, including without limitation your Internet Protocol address, operating system, application software and peripheral hardware'." Not a big deal to some, but it adds to my list of "why-nots" for this game.
The animations and gameplay variability is pretty weak, but those flaws will probably be fixed with the patches that you have to pay for. The game is definitely still in WIP (work in progress) form, and I think they alienate a lot of their target audience with failed attempts in multiple areas. The most blatant of which being the stupid online system, ads, tacked on gameplay aspects, and the lack of LAN capability. I played the demo and the beta, and remain unimpressed. At best, Hellgate London will serve as both inspiration and a caution to aspiring developers. I think they should've taken more time developing it to perfection, especially if they expect you to pay for it.
Log in to comment