God Of War III?

[Jason]

Is anyone looking forward to this? It's being hyped a lot by the media, despite a relative lack of promotion from Sony (especially compared to the likes of Dante's Inferno). Initial estimates are that the game is of a far grander scale than the previous games, and some corners are even boasting that the game features graphics to rival the current graphics king of the console hill - Uncharted 2.

In addition to the game itself, there's a rumoured 3+ hours of bonus footage, not to mention a possible demo of Gran Turismo 5, just to increase the interest even further.

I have to say, I've never really been all that into the series. I rented the first two and played them for a while but they never really grabbed me. I may give this one a chance too, but I'm not expecting to be blown away.

[Konrad]

I played God of War on PSP, that's the extent of my familiarity with the series. The game was really good compared to most other titles on the system, but it's not something I was ever a fan of.

[Jason]

In quasi-related news, here is quite possibly the most extreme PC case modding ever, seen at a LAN party in Brazil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rVLj0ibNWA

[nilihanth]

Yes, I'm excited. I missed GoW:II and CoO (PSP) but I very much enjoyed the first. If you're not sure about it, play the demo. I know you can at least get the demo from the retail Blu-ray of District 9 if it's not already on the PSN

[MyNameDidntFit]

I am. God yes. The first two were awesome and the second one left off with... well... a bloody cliff-hanger (sort of thing).

[Jason]

I like the mythology and the story behind the games - Greek mythology has been screaming out for a decent game for years, but I just found that the gameplay never really grabbed a hold of me.

[cmb12000]

I guess I need to play the first 2 now that they are on the PS3. I heard they are pretty good.

[Jason]

The official website has been updated to reflect the new game: http://www.godofwar.com/ - there's quite a bit of info on there, it's well worth a look if you're looking forward to the game.

[Rob]

Ohhhh you have to check out this video in HD of GoWIII. It's making me interested in picking this game up or atleast renting it via Gamefly whenever its available.

GoWIII HD @ Gametrailers (http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/gametrailers-tv/85?ch=1&sd=0)

[Rob]

The reviews are rolling in for GoWIII and the praise is unanimous. I have yet to see anyone give an overall negative review. #1 on my Gamefly right now.

[Jason]

I have to say, I played the demo last night and was tremendously underwhelmed. The graphics were gorgeous, the sound was stunning and the gameplay was... derivative. It's basically a prettier version of Devil May Cry with a dose of Greek Mythology. Perhaps the full game is better, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be disagreeing with a LOT of reviews on this one.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Did you play the first two?

[Jason]

I played the... second one, I think. I rented it and found my opinion to be similar - looks nice, but not that interesting to play. I don't know why I expected this one to be different - perhaps it's the unholy amount of hype the game seems to be getting.

[MyNameDidntFit]

I don't know what you're expecting from a hack 'n' slash... :/

They're damn fun games when you take them as "brutally slaughter the living hell out of countless numbers of minions, mythical crap and gods and do it in the most painful and messy way you can imagine for the lols".

[Konrad]

Never got these games. It kind of makes me sad that this is getting such raving reviews, while tons of "better" or at least more sophisticated games get left behind.

Mindless button mashing on high resolution backdrops is not my idea of A+ game design.

Apparently tons of people find it appealing though so oh well, I say.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Mindlessly button mash and you will die; this I guarantee. There's a lot more finesse required than that if you want to beat the game on the harder difficulties.

[Rob]

The developers of GoWIII have made a point of increasing the depth of combo's and tried to decrease the "button mashing" of the past. I have not got my hands on the game yet but why would they lie sales to me about this? I'll go check out some reviews while I wait.

Somewhere in this video is what you want to hear...
GoWIII HD @ Gametrailers (http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/gametrailers-tv/85?ch=1&sd=0)

[Jason]

I found that in the demo I played, I think it was L1+Square did some cool 360° spinning attack, and that should I have desired it, this would be all I'd have needed to defeat the majority of the enemies in the demo.

I'm with Grandmaster K here, in that I don't necessarily hate the game, but it irks me to see a game like this getting 90+ scores across the board for a game Capcom made years ago. (Devil May Cry in case you were wondering), whereas games like Heavy Rain that actually try to do something original (and do it pretty damn well!) are derided (only in some corners, mind) for being unnecessarily 'pretentious'. Is this what the games industry is turning into? Where we'd rather have our games 'pretty and dumb' sequels of previous years' games than something that tries to do something new?

Because if that's where we're headed, then I fear for the future of the industry.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Wow. Overreacting much? (rhetorical; it's clear that you are)

If God of War being a button-masher that a lot of people find to be fun is going to destroy the gaming industry, then the year-by-year remaking of sports games and the countless carbon-copy fight/racing/etc games are going to destroy the world (and, as I recall, you quite like games like Fight Night -- despite Street Fighter having already done that whole fighting business).

[Jason]

Yeah, it was an over-reaction, but it's still worth considering that it's a sad day for gaming when games are applauded solely for the amount of hype they generate rather than the gameplay they contain - let's be honest, putting personal views to one side, from what little I've played of the game and its predecessors (so I acknowledged I may not be as qualified as you to make this statement), God of War III is not by many means particularly innovative, either in its own self-contained series or in the wider 'Hack 'n' Slash' genre.
So bearing in mind a lack of originality and innovation, why does it receive such high marks from reviewers if not for hype alone?

I've perhaps diverted from the topic at hand here, and am unfairly picking on God of War alone, because as you point out, there are many more games/series that are far more guilty of this than God Of War - let's take a look at all the First Person Shooter games - it's been a while since we saw any original ideas coming out of that particular genre - Call of Duty, I'm looking at you... Perhaps my issue is more with the reviews industry rather than the developers of God of War.

One thing though - your sports analogy is a completely false one. By definition, those games are simulations - designed to reflect the real thing - unless the rules markedly change, there are only so many changes a game can make in a yearly update, and generally those features - whilst 'token' in nature - improve on the gameplay from the year before. Yes, while I don't particularly like the idea of a whole new game every year and would rather see a roster/squad update for a smaller fee after the first year, then a new game for every second year, it's not going to happen, because the fans are still lapping it up.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Well, personally, I've never considered reviewers' ratings to be anything other than a pretty number thrown in for people that want to TL;DR the review -- and I rarely consider actual reviews to be any good as, after all, they're simply one person's opinion.

Why is it getting high marks? Because the reviewers like it, I guess. If I were to review games, I wouldn't be basing my review on whether a game is better than another game or has something another doesn't, I'd base it on whether I enjoy the game, whether the game is fun and such. Going on GoWIII being similar to the previous two (as I've not played it, yet) it's not innovative, no. It's not original, either. But it's fun.

Because, to me, that's the thing. Modern Warfare 2 is basically Modern Warfare 1 in regards to innovation, and yet I thoroughly enjoyed both of these games and would gladly play another one because of that. I judge games on their merits as a game, not on the merits of games around them; sure, I compare games, but what is important to me is simply whether I enjoy the game. To illustrate my point I'll pull out Battlefield BC2: it's a game that I find to be f***ing amazing beyond all logical bounds of amazingness... but is it particularly innovative? Is it original? No and no.

For the record: my sports analogy is, by no means, false. The first person shooter is a simulation, too. Modern Warfare and other such tactical shooters do an amazing job of coming as close to realism as you'd really want to get with warfare... but they aren't allowed to be similar to each other when sports simulators are allowed to be nigh on exactly the same? Marvellous. Really: marvellous.

[Jason]

Wait, did you just call Modern Warfare realistic?

[Rob]

Jason, MW2 is as real as it gets. You spawn/die/spawn/sprint/shoot/die/spawn/sprint/die by ac130/spawn/die. MW2 is a mistake and I shouldn't have bought it. It didn't deserve anywhere near the amount of praise it received from me or the gaming press. Within it's own genre it didn't take the visuals and make them amazing in comparison to MW1. The presentation wasn't that great either. Good marketing campaign though. I got completely excited and caught up in the buzz until a month ago when I realized it was a boring and small game. :(

GoWIII is probably getting rated so high because it is the best in it's genre. Nothing else looks as good or plays as fluidly as GoWIII. The presentation level has really been amped up to cinema quality. After watching the first few minutes of gameplay all I need to know is that the game keeps up that pace throughout the entire game. From what I hear it just keeps getting better.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Wait, did you just call Modern Warfare realistic?
Yes. Did you just use that as your response to my post?

There are more realistic games out there (the more recent Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six titles for example), but MW[2] is quite realistic as far as gameplay mechanics go -- so long as you're not playing on God-mode (anything less than Veteran).

[Konrad]

but MW[2] is quite realistic as far as gameplay mechanics go

No. Just no sir... MW2 is Arcade Shooter of the year. Being realistic in anything but visuals was pretty much the lowest priority for IW. By that logic, HL2 could also be called realistic if you play it with 10hp.

[MyNameDidntFit]

No. Half-Life 2's gunplay involves naught but a crosshair and shooting while you sprint around jumping. It's as close to realism as Quake.

What is it that you would say is unrealistic about MW2? Other than the premise of a single soldier killing so many of the enemy, as that is essential for the game to be fun.

[Jason]

No. Half-Life 2's gunplay involves naught but a crosshair and shooting while you sprint around jumping.

Played much MW2 online? :p

(I am going to respond in a more thorough manner later today, just getting round to it).

[Jason]

Right, because it would take me several days to shoot down each one of your points individually, I'll go with your most ludicrous point, which is that Modern Warfare 2 is a realistic game.

Where do I go first, the snowmobile chase, the helicopter 'extraction' from the exploding gulag, the one-man charge through a terrorist-infested Favela? Hardly pinancles of realistic gameplay. Fun? Hell yes, but not realistic.

Or the fact that interaction with your squadmates is impossible. You can't get them to move where you want to - they have set places to move, take cover, and so on - if you're pinned down, you can forget about getting any suppressing fire from your teammates - they might get lucky and hit the guy, but that's more down to pot luck than anything else.
Less health does not = realistic. Goldeneye deathmatches on the N64 were great fun with one-hit kills, but that sure as hell didn't mean they were any more realistic.

Now, I can't comment with 100% accuracy on what does or doesn't make a game 'accurate' with regards to military simulations, because I've never been in combat. Hell, I'm far too much of a wimp for that kind of thing - (I prefer my deaths followed with a bout of cursing and a quick respawn rather than existential uncertainty), but I'm pretty sure that if I ever were to find myself in the middle of a combat situation, it wouldn't be anything like Modern Warfare 2 - I would imagine it being far closer to something like the original Operation Flashpoint - most of the time the first time you know of an enemy attack is when your squadmates fall down riddled with bullets, combat is generally engaged with dots on the horizon, and where you are shot will have a bearing on your ability until a medic is able to reach you - take a bullet in the arm, and your aim is going to suffer. Get one in the legs and you're not going to be sprinting anywhere, no matter how long you spend crouched behind some impenetrable car wreck.

To me, that's what I would consider a realistic combat simulator.
Not that Modern Warfare 2 isn't a well-made game - I think it's a very well-made game that caters to the 'arcade shooter' market brilliantly. It was always going to struggle to match the hype that would inevitably accompany it. It's a fun game, no doubt about it, but I can't by any stretch of the imagination call it a realistic game.

[MyNameDidntFit]

as close to realism as you'd really want to get with warfare...
Ahem. See, now, personally, I'd rather not finish a mission and then have to go to my platoon psychiatrist to treat me for shock. Or to have to engage 'dots on the horizon' because, well, it's not fun.

Less health doesn't equal realistic, no, but less health adds to realism along with realistic weapons and environments that react well to what you're doing. Squad mates? As I recall in MW2 you're never the leader -- what reason do they have to do what you say? Closest you come to being the leader of your squad is being Soap, and even then Price is there to one-up you.

The one man charge through the favela is what I told you not to cite: one man doing more than he realistically would to make it so the game is actually fun. Besides, if you play through it on Veteran you'll be doing it rather more realistically than the word "charge" implies as, well, charging = death.

Gulag extraction? Not gameplay. I couldn't care less what the cut-scenes do.



Certainly, stating MW as my example wasn't exactly my greatest moment, something like Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six (that I mentioned anyway) are far more realistic without going to the point of "oh, I've been shot and now can't move well until a dumb-ass AI medic comes and saves me -- but oh wait, he died in the opening of the combat because that's 'realistic'".

Ooh, and, for the record, MW being realistic has nothing to do with the actual point of the debate. So, if you'd be so kind as to reply to the actual topic that'd be nice ;)

[Rob]

Wouldn't a less extreme exaggeration be that MW2 has realistic gun models that look like their real life counterparts? I'm sure that's what he meant... right guys... right? :) America's Army is pretty close to the real deal from what I hear. ehh back on topic like you said :)

Has anyone here even bought GoWIII yet? I'm still waiting for Gamefly to ship it.

[Jason]

Eh, you're right, we're way off topic. However, there was no way I was letting you get away with saying MW2 was a realistic portrayal of Modern Infantry Combat. :p

I'll tackle the God of War thing later on when I have time.

[Jason]

Right, regards God of War, I guess that therein lies the problem of reviews - they're entirely subjective and usually are inevitably reviewed by people who are fans of the genre - you wouldn't get someone who hated cricket to review a cricket game, just as you wouldn't get me to review the latest Sims game - I don't like the genre enough to be able to fairly reflect on the nuances of it and what makes it superior to others in the genre.
However, that's not so much the case with Hack 'n' Slashes - whilst they're not my first choice of genre, I enjoyed the Devil May Cry series, and Bayonetta and Dante's Inferno are on my LoveFilm list to rent - my issue is that I feel that the hype surrounding God Of War has artificially inflated the scores, as other than shinier graphics, I don't see what's changed since the previous incarnations.

[nilihanth]

My quick thoughts on the game after having beat it just a couple days ago:

I loved it from beginning to end. I'm not a fanboy of the series as I only ever played the original GoW before playing GoW III but I enjoy well-made action games and this one is well-made indeed.

I'm not a massive fan of quick-time events but when I go into a game expecting there to be many of them it's not as detrimental to the flow of the game as throwing one QTE in at the very end of the game (Ahem, Uncharted). Besides, the way GoW:III did the QTE was nice. They put the button icon on the edge of the screen in the same orientation as it is on the controller. If you need to press Triangle, the icon shows up along the top of the screen along with a noticeable, yet not distracting, white bar along the edge. It allows you to do the QTE while being able to see the actions you are doing. All in all, GoW:III's QTE were handled well enough to not be frustrating.

As far as new things they brought to the game I can't be totally sure of since I didn't play GoW2. There are 4 weapons that you can switch to on-the-fly without breaking the flow of your attacks, along with several other items usable in and out of combat. Other than the items/weapons the combat itself seemed more fluid. Other than doing the longer animated special moves, going from one attack to another is easy and you can stop to block at any time other than when doing a special move. One of the weapons even adds a neat summoning ability which I won't spoil the details but it's pretty awesome.

The story was intense and never boring. There was rarely a moment where something wasn't happening that was exciting. Most of the dialogues were interesting and/or exciting and there were many neat cinematic events to help illustrate the story.

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the game from start to finish and highly recommend it to any action-game fan. I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the top 3 or even wins Game of the Year for 2010 easy.

[Jason]

Interesting to hear. I'll be looking forward to having a close look at the game.

[Br1ckt0p]

I have God of War 3. It's on my shelf collecting dust after just an hours gameplay because it's too good. That sounds plain wrong doesn't it? :p

I enjoyed GOW 1 and 2 so much. I didn't play them on PS2, so they were brand new to me when they were released on the Playstation Store, re-mastered in HD for PS3. I platinumed both.

Like a bottle of Glenrothes 1985, you don't open it up just because the lagers have run out. You save it, you savour it, and you tell your grandchildren about it. GOWIII, I'm hoping, is all that. It feels like it should be, so it's getting the chance. From the short time I spent with it, the battle mechanics blew me away (Titan Mode). And I've not played any game that looks this good. Ever. I didn't know my TV could display pictures like this.

So, I'm saving it instead of grinding away with all the interuptions of daily life. It's getting the full treatment. The girls are on a girls weekend (3 days) in early April, and I've already got that time off work. My stash cupboard is already healthy, I've found my elasticated comfy pants, and I'm ready to go. As sad as I probably sound (definitely sound), I'm really looking forward to it.