There's a reason why they emphasized epic citadel as a tech demo and infinity blade as a sword fighting game. But People seem to ignore these "little" things. :3 like you said, it is what it is. We've known about this "downside" since early November. So what is there to be disappointed about? I for one am excited. This could mean that we might get another big games company investing and making games on the AppStore that's gonna be in it for the long run.
Am I the only one who thinks this game looks absolutely amazing? I mean, sure there was a misunderstanding about what kind of game it was and of course I would like a full rpg like aralon but I think this game looks fun and addictive. I think people need to stop judging this game based off what they want and decide based off of what it is.
Wait, Epic/Chair is to blame for your assumptions?! You post that "people" came up with the link between the two, not Epic. They released a tech demo, never made any correlation between it and a game they were producing yet you think they are to blame that you imagined some type of tenous link? I think logic fails you my man!
Not to understate your post, Epic Citadel was a tech demo. It was really, a marketing pitch to gamers and developers alike. It was meant to say "look at what Can be done with Unreal 3." Never once did Epic state, that Epic Citadel would be a game. Now that we know much about Infinity Blade, I'm jazzed for the pains they've taken to create a game tailored to gamers, and the nature of the AppStore. It will be a rewarding (unlockables, sword fighting and even more coming down the pipes later for free: areas, multiplayer, bosses, more gear) experience. Look at Epic Citadel as a starting point, to show people like Gameloft (Nova, Modern Combat 2) what could be done with an FPS perspective with the tech. It's now time for Gameloft, to utilize their massive profits and bring the WOW factor, visually. I'd pay 15-20 dollars for an iPad version of let's say Modern Combat 3, using UE3. Any royalty they'd have to pay on the engine, could be leveraged by a little higher price to offset the cost. For visuals like Infinity Blade and Epic Citadel, in more iOS games, I'd be willing to pay for that. For those who wouldn't then why did you buy a PS3 or XBox 360? It was for the tech and graphics that power the hd era consoles. I'm certain (Yes, it was the games too...) But had the visuals or a leap in graphics not changed from last gen to this gen, would you have even found a justifiable reason to need a newer console generation? So, (for me) if I'm willing to pay 59.99 for Call of Duty, I'd be willing to pay 19.99 for an UE3 powered clone from Gameloft on iOS, that would look almost as good. Gameloft and EA just need to get their butts in gear. Especially EA, since they already license the UE3. I'd love for the tech to power a facsimile of the console version of Mirrors Edge (EA game, using UE3) on iOS. Or Mass Effect 2 (EA game using UE3.) The possibilities are really endless. But iOS gamers have grown accustomed to wanting everything, but not shelling out a little bit more, for the benefits. Be the change you wish to see. Demand it, but back it up with your wallet. To the haters of Infinity Blade, you will never see deeper experiences with your beloved Epic Citadel control perspectives, if you aren't willing to pay the price monetarily. You will end up with Rages and Infinity Blades, if you won't up the ante of what those experiences cost. The more you refuse, the less probability of better gamer games showing up, using the better tech. It's just that simple. The cost will be higher, but the benefits more rewarding. Just my 2 cents. Anyhow...
I think it looks cool, could be a load of fun. Obviously developers don't see the controls of the iphone through the rose colored glasses a lot of users do. As much as I liked NOVA, and MC2's MP to a point they weren't exactly flawless control wise, in fact they were often a struggle. As much as Rage sucked, Doom didn't. Though yes I can't wait for NOVA 2 but I also can't wait for this game, hopefully the fighting mechanic turns out well.
i completely agree. i hate playing online on MC2 and you miss the aim button before you start shooting causing you to shoot off the hip and most likely get killed.
battle system looks awesome....but moving looks terrible. fail win situation...but still this will be fun enough to win and play against friends.
I don't mind the moving as much as I thought I would. The battles look a lot more fun and innovative than I originally thought. I was expecting spamming your finger across the screen would suffice. Glad to see there's a lot more elements to the game than just "slashing". I think Fruit Ninja on steroids is a misleading and inaccurate summary of this game. Aside from the slicing mechanic, this game seems to be a lot deeper than others are willing to see. TONS of content if you like unlocking powerful weapons/armors/spells. Not to mention added content in the future with multiplayer? You can't beat that.
I don't know why they decided to have any movement at all if all you do is watch a cinematic of your guy walking. I think I'd rather it was just purely a fighting game with different fights/scenarios that you click on from the main menu. Maybe if that was the case, it wouldn't be so misleading.
The battle system, I think, will be stellar for multiplayer. Earning great gear, or spells...being able to parry, dodge and the like will make for some neat battles agains real humans...
Yeah, and that's part of the problem. If they announced how the movement would work, straight off the bat, then maybe people wouldn't feel so mislead/disappointed. But, no, they choose to make it appear as an open world RPG when really it's a fighting game.
