I don't see how it's better on 360 than PC. The graphics ARE better on the PC and the controller arguement doesn't count as it can easily be used with PC (I have one but actually are prefering the mouse & keyboard for this)
It's great for the first few hours until you realise it's not really introducing anything new.
Meh.
Lol @ RPG's being compared to FPS. What are people expecting, it's an FPS.
Killzone 3 + Move + Sharpshooter Rifle + 50" 3D Plasma = Win
Lol @ RPG's being compared to FPS. What are people expecting, it's an FPS.
Killzone 3 + Move + Sharpshooter Rifle + 50" 3D Plasma = Win
Thanks. I got the impression from something I'd read/seen, that the nanosuit modes were only selectable as key maps. Glad to see it still works like the first game in that regard.
the game itself does direct you to use keys for everything, but it can still be done using the mouse in exactly the same way.
What astounds me is the continuing comments about the original game being linear and boring. They clearly suffered from the well know 'the game lets you play it badly' problem, which I have read Crysis 2 is also guilty of. Played properly, fully explored and using the nanosuit to full advantage, it was the most diverse shooter I've ever played. That and Far Cry 2 are probably the most non-linear FPS on the market. I do fully expect the sequel to be linear, but all shooters are really. I don't understand why people buy them and then complain about it. I rarely hear the same criticism levelled at CoD, which is possibly the most linear and scripted shooter experience ever designed.
I'll be in a better position to form a proper opinion when I've played it, but from everything I'm reading so far (outside of neverpleasedsport.net) it delivers, as a shooter, which is what it is. PMSL at the comparison to Fallout. Fallout is TERRIBLE at being a shooter, because it really isn't one.
LOL. No.
I'm just shocked it so linear. And dull.
What astounds me is the continuing comments about the original game being linear and boring. They clearly suffered from the well know 'the game lets you play it badly' problem, which I have read Crysis 2 is also guilty of. Played properly, fully explored and using the nanosuit to full advantage, it was the most diverse shooter I've ever played. That and Far Cry 2 are probably the most non-linear FPS on the market. I do fully expect the sequel to be linear, but all shooters are really. I don't understand why people buy them and then complain about it. I rarely hear the same criticism levelled at CoD, which is possibly the most linear and scripted shooter experience ever designed.
I'll be in a better position to form a proper opinion when I've played it, but from everything I'm reading so far (outside of neverpleasedsport.net) it delivers, as a shooter, which is what it is. PMSL at the comparison to Fallout. Fallout is TERRIBLE at being a shooter, because it really isn't one.
It's an FPS.
It's an FPS.
I think I will love this, but also be disappointed at the same time. It's obviously not as good as the original in scope, or as technically challenging, but so long as the shooting mechanics are awesome, and it's great fun, it will please me. Not really sure what else people expect when they buy a shooter. There are only two I can think of that could genuinely make any half realistic claims at being non-linear. Shooters are not free roaming. If they were, they wouldn't work.