For GREAT GRAPHICS, FUN, more than one level and 1-2$ why are you b'tchin'? So what if you don't move the character. You do everything else. Go play an original NES game (all there was when I was a kid in the 80's) and see if you complain about this. The gamers who came from my era and see games as they are now, appreciate far more....
Because rail shooters remove half the gameplay. Besides that, id creates this incredible, gorgeous, spectacular 3D engine and then don't let you explore it properly? It's idiotic. I don't care if it's a buck or two. I'm not throwing any amount of money at a game with hobbled gameplay. Pretty graphics only go so far. If the gameplay stinks, it's not worth any amount of money.
I agree. People have said that you don't need control of your movement because the levels are designed in a way that you are just moving down corridors in a linear fashion. But even if that is the case, I like to have full control over my (bowel) movement, or else it just doesn't feel right. I don't understand why they made it on-rails, I guess they just got lazy and used the Doom Ressurection codebase. All of the other major FPS games (Modern Combat, Archetype, COD: Zombies etc) have full movement and the controls work fine, so there's no real excuse for this to be on-rails.
Yet you ignored this last bit: Go play an original NES game (all there was when I was a kid in the 80's) and see if you complain about this. The gamers who came from my era and see games as they are now, appreciate far more.... ------- The control scheme is what Id implemented for this game. According to the preview, it's fun and frantic. I still don't get it. Final Fantasy XIII may have well been on rails, it was THAT linear. It was also a great game. What does it matter whether you control the movement or not? If there's nowhere to go it shouldn't be an issue. And answer to the above part, too.
That's a silly argument. The levels are designed as linear corridors because the game was designed to be on rails, not the other way around. If they hadn't designed it to be on rails they could have opened it up and made it more FPS-like. It's already been shown to be eminently possible by countless games now. There's really no reason or excuse for rail shooters unless you're crap at designing control mechanisms and do it to hide this fact. It matters plenty. I've been around since the 2600 days, never mind NES, so you needn't school me about "the way it used to be." I am the old school. There were tons of linear games. There were tons of open games. There were tons of random games, scripted games, and every other kind of games. With the exception of laserdisc games (which were only marginally interactive anyway), None of them were on rails. Linearity != rails.
Well I didn't quite remember it correctly. To quote hoddap: I disagree with what he says here. Not all modern FPS games are "cleverly designed corridors", many of them offer at least a bit of exploration/free roaming. And even if they are just plain, linear corridors, I still want full control.
Indeed -- my feelings exactly. "How I move exactly" shouldn't be up to the game. I move how I move, and I like to explore, take in the sights. I like to fight enemies in my own way -- dodge, strafe, run, jump, foxtrot, whatever. Rail shooters take all of these things away.
The point of mutant bash tv is not exploration. The point is action. Tightly scripted action. (People can't control movies and those plots are laid out, yet people want movie like story sequences, which become to mean less freedom in games because the plot has to hit certain points to carry the story.) ... I dropped endless quarters on time crisis and house of the dead in the arcades decades ago. Those were rail shooters and fun! He'll, I even bought house of the dead for the Dreamcast... Anyhow, I too played the Atari (centipede or pong, anyone?) - but after they ruined the games market with ET, the NES was where it was at. I think the point is, people have become so enthralled with a new way to play games (PS1 and N64) that they can only see games as they are, now. They feel that the conventions have changed, so why should they step back in evolution of the medium... Look I get it. Prime examples would be: Mass Effect and Bioware now make the most desirable rpg or wrpgs (popular) games around, but does that mean that there is no room for the jrpgs from Namco or Square Enix? There are always different interpretations or genres. Just because this game is in first person and you hold a gun doesn't necessarily mean you get to lump it in with every game, that's first person and you hold a gun. It's on rails and 2 bucks. I'll buy it and have a blast. You can opt to not buy it and complain that the game wasn't how you deemed it should be. And sit on the sidelines. Here's an idea, write to Id. Ask the tough questions. Or, make a game. Make one better than this and let's have the forum rate it and rant in it. Let's see you do better.
"Then make it better"... this is a stupid argument. Really. If you are happy with an on-rails experience, so be it. But there are many, who were hoping for something else, YOU TOO would jump around like a happy hippo, if this game would be a free roam FPS with this kind of production quality. But the devs are simply lazy here... my opinion, too. If they would be a bit more brave and adventurous, THEN they could lift this device onto new levels.
Well this game lets us aim with the accelerometer (+gyroscope), which can be fun. Some of you prefer to glue your fingers on the screen for moving around, this is a different kind of game. Why all this negativity and trash talking on a game that you haven't even played? If you are looking for a CoD game, go play that instead... or wait for one with better graphics. It's like you guys are wishing for nothing but FPS clones. Please stop calling the devs being lazy. It's probably a lot easier to design a free roam game than a on rails experience (you'll have to actually script in the scenes and camera!) On-Rails is a lot more work from a developer perspective.
Calling developers lazy for not making THEIR game how YOU want it, is an extremely shallow point of view. That's not to say developers shouldn't be making games that appeal to both themselves and their audiences, but there's a large difference between making a game that will appeal to an audience and trying to make one that will appeal to the widest audience possible. Game developers have a duty to their fans to make a game that is fun and exciting (or relaxing, or realistic, or whatever else they're aiming for), but also a duty to their company / themselves to develop a game at a cost that they can actually profit at. Yes, the game business is a business, and while it's a fun business, we still have to turn a profit if you want people to keep making games. Does id have the money to release a huge FPS for iOS devices? Sure they do, they're id! But do they have enough faith in this market, the very same that complains that $1.99 games are too expensive and will wait for the sales, will allow them to spend that money and reliably turn a profit? Probably not... So instead you get a really advanced technically rail shooter. That will probably be rather fun. And if you are looking for a fun game this might be it. And if you're focused on oh I want to do whatever I want then this isn't the game for you.
Word! I really appreciate your mentality. This is a first take. Maybe they'll make a closer to the full Rage experience next year if they get positive sales and user demand. You guys whom are especially negative toward this title, forget what the AppStore consisted of a mere 2 years ago when it went live. Look at the AppStore then. Look at the AppStore now. This and Infinity Blade are fpgroundbreaking titles, in a differing way than Nova was. Give some support and time. Especially if you'd like to see these particular development houses utilize future resources, committment and involvement with iOS devices. If all you do is complain, and the titles don't do as well...then count out Epic and Id as future players on the AppStore.
Personally, guys, the turret sections of MC2:BP were among my favorite parts of the game (along with stealth). This way it's straight-up aiming and mowing down enemies. If I'm just destroying everything in sight anyways, might as well not have to worry about movement. That's my take, anyways.
Let's just be honest... No one here prefers on-rail shooters. Lol. Well, maybe 3 people might. But most people don't. Some of us can tolerate on-rail gameplay (key word being "tolerate"), but when given a choice between that and a free roaming FPS like Modern Combat 2, most of us would side with free roaming. With that being said, am I still going to get Mutant Bash TV? Of course. It'll likely be one of the best $1.99 games in the app store. But would I have preferred to spend an extra $7 for an FPS? Yes...
And if all you do is praise, you will get the same games, just more beautiful, in 3 years I guess, both sides are needed. This will be a huge hit anyways, the price will make it sell like there is nothing else, I'm absolutely sure.
I don't see what so hard to understand. If you don't like the game don't post in this thread. As the other people said its the Devs choice and either way it is still going to be a great app.
Another strange argument. Imagine all threads in the world would be just filled with yes-sayers? A forum is existing for a thing called discussion, which resolves from pro and contra opinions
But that is when the actual game is released. There is no need to downgrade an app before it comes out, who knows you might like it.
