Log in or sign up to comment
126 Comments
Posted by End_Boss

This just looks like the PVP from Warhammer Online put into a context that might actually be profitable, with "might" being the keyword.

Posted by zyn

Slow day at the office if Jeff had to play a free-to-play game.

Edited by Brodehouse

@Mercanis said:

In the grim darkness of the far... oh, wait.

In the grim darkness of the far past, there was only war.

"(Losing) tends to happen to people who have other things to do other than play the game in their lives. People with responsibilities."

Is the insinuation there that no one else who plays video games in the world has responsibilities? It's impossible to be good at any game and have a job, or a family, or other hobbies? If you're better at a game than someone else, I guess you're just a loser with no life. Take that, stupid nerds/our audience.

God, and that after, after that SMNC night to where people were giving advice out in the chat and Brad and Ryan were shitting all over them for daring to help. Nope, it's "I'm going to play this however I want" and then "oh, I guess I'm just bad at this game and will never get better". I wonder if Brad just turned on Starcraft 2, decided how he was going to play and ignored any and all advice.

Posted by AssInAss

@paulunga said:

How come the "consoles hold games back graphically" crowd doesn't come out of the woodworks for games like this? This is about on par with a very popular MMO from 2004.

Probably because MMOs are designed for mass appeal, which means they're targeting low spec rigs that most people have.

Posted by tourgen

@AssInAss said:

@paulunga said:

How come the "consoles hold games back graphically" crowd doesn't come out of the woodworks for games like this? This is about on par with a very popular MMO from 2004.

Probably because MMOs are designed for mass appeal, which means they're targeting low spec rigs that most people have.

and those low spec machines are still viable and the baseline targets because of ... console ports.

Posted by lockwoodx
@MosaicM80 said:

Looks interesting, but EA/Origin? No thanks! Even if you don't have to use Origin, I want nothing to do with EA.

This ^
Posted by prestonhedges

@BabyChooChoo said:

@paulunga said:

How come the "consoles hold games back graphically" crowd doesn't come out of the woodworks for games like this? This is about on par with a very popular MMO from 2004.

Because this would prove that they can actually be wrong and there's nothing fanboys, elitists, and fucktards hate more than being wrong.

You guys are right, because clearly this game is the pinnacle of PC gaming.

Posted by roguehallow

Patrick Klepek is the April O'Neil of Giant Bomb.

Posted by SonicBoyster

@Brodehouse: Way to go totally nuts over an off-hand comment grounded in reality and directed at no-one specifically. If that's all it takes to set you off you had better get a refund for that membership now before things go really downhill.

Posted by MyNiceIceLife

@Jeff the only reason anyone plays the beginning stuff in WoW anymore is because you can't do any dungeons at those levels. Once you get to the point you can do dungeons everyone just uses the dungeon finder and just runs them to level up leaving everything that Blizzard did to update the 20-60 levels pretty pointless.

Posted by beef_melody

I half-thought this was WoW when I clicked on it, even the fonts are similar.

Posted by ToTheNines

I don't mean to be that guy, but if it's Warhammer fantasy and not 40k. it should be "when orks were orcs", cause in 40k it's with a k.. get it?

Posted by dropabombonit

Not interested in this game at all but I enjoyed the QL

Posted by RedRavN

This game looks like crap, like the PVP ripped from a 5 year old free to play MMORPG. I don't see the appeal of running around and pressing 1-5. I guess there is strategy that can come from an organized team but I am just not interested in this game. If you really want PVP you can just play AION which is free to play now.

Posted by sandwich_adjustment

RIP Warhammer online...now only to be tore apart and reused in F2P shit

Posted by Ares42

I don't really see how this style of gameplay will keep your interest over time when you only have 5 abilities. I can think of more categories of skills that every char should have than that (and for a good experience you probably want more than just one option for everything). At best they at least managed to hit attack, mobility, snare/root, burst and cleave, but even then with just one option for each of them it would get boring fast.

Posted by BallsDeep

@Ares42: You only have 4 skills in League of Legends and that game is a blast.

Posted by Scotto

Brad's offhand comment about how "people with things to do" tend to become bad at games like this, was kind of ironic, coming from a guy who has been in StarCraft 2's Diamond bracket more than once for long stretches, and by his own admission has spent more than a few minutes watching SC2 live streams.

I like Brad, but y'know - stones, and glass houses and all of that jazz.

Posted by monkeystick

Looks neat but without any sort of persistent leveling I'm not sure how compelled I'll be to keep playing it.

Edited by Scotto

This game just seems like a heavily simplified version of the jankiest part of MMOs - the PvP combat. Meh.

There are better 3rd person action games out there with persistent tracking/upgrade systems.

Posted by Scotto

@SonicBoyster said:

@Brodehouse: Way to go totally nuts over an off-hand comment grounded in reality and directed at no-one specifically. If that's all it takes to set you off you had better get a refund for that membership now before things go really downhill.

He didn't "go nuts". He made a fair point. With the exception of Vinny, the GB guys can occasionally be weirdly derisive towards their audience, with remarks like those. Not all the time, but on occasion.

Posted by Ares42

@BallsDeep: And you can only shoot in CoD, but they are completely different games. There's more to LoL outside the pure character action to spice things up. This game is just character action and nothing more.

Posted by paulunga

@gladspooky said:

@BabyChooChoo said:

@paulunga said:

How come the "consoles hold games back graphically" crowd doesn't come out of the woodworks for games like this? This is about on par with a very popular MMO from 2004.

Because this would prove that they can actually be wrong and there's nothing fanboys, elitists, and fucktards hate more than being wrong.

You guys are right, because clearly this game is the pinnacle of PC gaming.

No, graphically that'd be The Witcher 2. Now also available on consoles.

Posted by captainanderson

@roguehallow said:

Patrick Klepek is the April O'Neil of Giant Bomb.

Patrick is a porn star?

Posted by Scotto

@paulunga said:

@gladspooky said:

@BabyChooChoo said:

@paulunga said:

How come the "consoles hold games back graphically" crowd doesn't come out of the woodworks for games like this? This is about on par with a very popular MMO from 2004.

Because this would prove that they can actually be wrong and there's nothing fanboys, elitists, and fucktards hate more than being wrong.

You guys are right, because clearly this game is the pinnacle of PC gaming.

No, graphically that'd be The Witcher 2. Now also available on consoles.

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Posted by Spitznock

@Vorbis said:

20 games for roughly 2000 gold.

60,000 gold for a healer.

600 games for a class vital to winning.

This is not how to do F2P, if you're going to use LoL's business model then learn that there must always be a support character on rotation, teams without support will always get dominated.

I had a lot of fun playing this in closed beta but since it went live it has become a mess, holding back characters and making others almost impossible to obtain without paying cash has broken the games balance, which revolved around picking counters to other teams.

This is exactly what turned me off to this game once it hit open beta. Back in closed when everyone basically had access to any character it was fine, but the idea of having to pay money in order to get a healer in a mmo-esque pvp game is ridiculous.

The game also (currently) has no single player queue system, so if you don't have a ton of buddies to bop around with you're going to queue and get pit against premade warbands pretty nonstop which just about always results in a match your team can't win from the onset, simply because one of the other teams is communicating, working together and playing a winning team composition (usually including aforementioned healer). It kills the fun a bit when not every team is on even footing.

Posted by Mumrik

@Scotto said:

Brad's offhand comment about how "people with things to do" tend to become bad at games like this, was kind of ironic, coming from a guy who has been in StarCraft 2's Diamond bracket more than once for long stretches, and by his own admission has spent more than a few minutes watching SC2 live streams.

I like Brad, but y'know - stones, and glass houses and all of that jazz.

This.

And they always say it with a bit of pity and disgust. You're on of them - own it.

Posted by Aevar

This doesn't look particularly fun, but I'll give it a try.

Online
Posted by CitizenJP

Played WoH for a bit myself. It was kinda cool. Really intense and confused me at first with all the people running around lol. Honestly though, I really miss Age of Reckoning sometimes. That's all I thought about most of the time I played this. :P

Posted by huser

As far as I know on the matter there is no direct relationship between Warhammer and 40K. 40K is NOT their future and probably more like Azeroth's place in say Starcraft's greater universe (ie possibly a single world somewhere in the galaxy that may or may not be a minor cameo).

Posted by Troispoint

@Mumrik: Exactly, Brad is full of it. And lacks total self-awareness.

Online
Posted by AxleBro

i heard this game was bad! but it was from a random asshole on the internet

Posted by Tsuchikage

This seems more like a third-person action game with MMO-style combat than a true MMO.

Posted by CharAznable

Yeah, this is not the game for me.

Posted by Romination

@monkeystick said:

Looks neat but without any sort of persistent leveling I'm not sure how compelled I'll be to keep playing it.

Are we at that point? Can we no longer play games unless they have some consistent bar or number that always exists?

Posted by Beaudacious

Looks bad, what else can you say?

Online
Posted by daedelus

Why do the graphics look 10 years old?

Posted by d715

@huser:

Kinda its weird

It used to be Warhammer FB world took place in the center of the Eye of Terror, as a result many 40k stuff was in FB in early editions.

However later they changed it to be two alternet universes connected by the warp. If you go into the northern waste near the poles you'll see warhammer 40k planets and things.

Posted by Rongaryen

@Romination: No...we can't. It's not like it was in the days of UT and Quake.

Posted by paulunga

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

Edited by Tennmuerti
@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically".
There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game.
 
There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc"
 
Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway.  That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass).  As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11.
(it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects)
 
Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm.
 
There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.
Posted by Ghostiet
@captainanderson said:

@roguehallow said:

Patrick Klepek is the April O'Neil of Giant Bomb.

Patrick is a porn star?

April O'Neil is an instant hit in my opinion.

If desperate, Klepek would be in consideration after that Guitar Hero video.

Edited by paulunga

@Tennmuerti: My reasoning there was that CD Project tried to push the graphics as far as they could for their primary platform, the PC, and chose to scale it back for the consoles. They haven't been held back by the aging console generation at all. I don't feel like, say, Batman or Mass Effect 3 were held back either. If anything Bioware would've been hardpressed to bring out this sequel as soon as they did if they went for better graphics (not that I'd mind leaving it in development for another year).

I do feel like GPUs have been roughly doubling in power every cycle for at least the last 6 or so years though. The things that push them in newer games are just AA, AF, tesselation etc. instead of higher res textures and with all of those on PC versions still look markedly better than their console counterparts.

I am also not all that hugely invested in this topic. Sure, a new generation would be nice, if only so I could get all my games at a rock-solid 1080p, but on the other hand I'm fine with where we are right now, graphically. What I would want from future games is more accurate physics models, better AI and more choices and free will in story-heavy games. Issues that are far more challenging than just throwing more power at them (well, except for physics).

Posted by algertman

Jeff: "I was a super badass at this game."

Of course you were, just like NFL Blitz.

Posted by raiz265

Way too much grinding involved if you want to really play it for free and the fact that it's 6vs6vs6 makes it pretty retarded to begin with.

Edited by Trilogy

Getting your ass kicked in a competitive game? Blame it on the the other team for not having a life. Classy.

Posted by DCam

Reminds me a lot of Savage. I played it a lot while the humans were free to play. (Some kind of beta, I think?)

http://www.giantbomb.com/savage-the-battle-for-newerth/61-4548/

Posted by Scotto

@Tennmuerti said:

@paulunga said:

@Scotto said:

Which, while a good port, looks like the PC version run through a video compressor. A decent troll attempt, though.

Consoles do hold back the bleeding edge of graphical fidelity, but that doesn't mean PC games like these, which are designed to run on as many different computers as possible, aren't going to exist.

Don't strawman that shit. The best-looking game out there is both out on PC and consoles. That's a fact. No pure PC exclusive looks better. THAT was my point, not how good the console version looks (which is irrelevant). Do you want me to put "A decent troll attempt" here, too?

You kind of just made the argument FOR the people that say "consoles hold games back graphically". There are almost no PC exclusives left, most everyone is developing for multiple systems hence there is less insentive to push the envelope, because the envelope is bound to the console market quite tightly. And this also hurts PC exclusives, because of more limited budgets generally then they would have had otherwise with a multiplatform game. There is no strawman here, Witcher 2 has been PC exclusive for almost a year and is the best (arguably) looking game to date on the PC. It's console countepart looks like something running on medium settings (of PC settings tool) at 720p, without AA, AF nor any complex shadows, it's graphically way way less impressive, a 5 year old PC rig could run it at those settings at this point, if not older. Thus making it really a meaningless sentiment: "best lookign game is on both platforms, etc" Not that graphical comparisons like these actually have anything to do with the "consoles hold games back graphically" argument anyway. That's not the basis for it. It centres around the hugely extended console lifecycle of this generation, and the subsequent slowdown of GPU advancement during the same period, there being less reason for developers to try to go for amazing things on the PC with large funding. (partially after the Crysis bit the devs in the ass). As well as developers optimising more around DX9 rather then DX11. (it is however not quite fair to hold consoles fully responsible, they are but one part of a larger tapestry of reason, causes and effects) Do note that I'm not personally even against the slowdown of graphical advancements, the lower pace has made PCs much more affordable for a lot of people as this console generation has stretched on, as well as allowing a lot of developers to improve on the artistic side of games more rather then chase after pure technical goodness. And has made a lot of developers far more efficient with using limited resources rather then relying on brute hardware power. At this point I would argue that the holding back has done more good then harm. There will always be shit looking games on all platforms, not everyone is aiming to develop graphical masterpieces. Pointing out that some game doesn't look so hot is irrelevant.

My point exactly.

Posted by Recall

Looks like a decent little f2p game. Something to just play on here and there between everything else

Posted by f0ulre3k

No MAC love...lame