Quick Look: Carrier Command: Gaea Mission

@MrKlorox said:

I was curious about this game, being from Bohemia Interactive, since I recently became a fan of the Arma series. Seems about as dense as I expected, which maybe makes it a poor game for Brad to demo.

So how does this run on PC? Arma2 ran like shit when it came out, even on brand new top of the line systems. But since this is also on 360, surely it can't be that demanding. edit: Too bad we didn't get to see any actual combat. Just charging into the unknown and dying for lack of preparation. But the AI is as poor as I would have expected from a Bohemia Interactive game.

There's a demo on Steam, it ran pretty well on my PC.

It's kinda crazy to think the ArmA developers made this.

Why quicklook the Xbox version? I would assume the PC version would run/look much better.

Last time I played Carrier Command it was on my cousins Atari ST, lets see if this plays any better.

@Nikral said:

Why quicklook the Xbox version? I would assume the PC version would run/look much better.

This game has much worse problems than performance issues. Is the AI any less terrible on PC? I suppose not...

@MEZwaan: Weird, I have Hostile Waters on GOG. I guess it got removed at some point. http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/gog_team_where_is_hostile_waters/post7

@BobJustBob said:

@MEZwaan: Weird, I have Hostile Waters on GOG. I guess it got removed at some point. http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/gog_team_where_is_hostile_waters/post7

You got me all excited, then I realised what you were saying. Giant Bomb should play Hostile Waters as a Random PC game, because it's like this Carrier Command, but decent.

Love how lively Drew is in this one.

So yup, as a person who played Hostile Waters, that immediately came to my mind as well. Funny thing about Hostile Waters, I must have played through that game at least 3 times, yet I don't think it's particularly good at what it set out to do.

The AI there was pretty terrible as well. At some point I eventually get in the habit of creating AI controlled units only so I can order them to go somewhere safe (yet close to the action) to essentially serve as backup lives for me. The game just becomes a vehicle shooter and not a strategy game. That said, at least by the standards of the day, I thought the vehicle shooty bits were pretty fun, which likely accounts for why I played it so much.

Wow, i played this on the Amiga back in the day. Didn't have a clue at that age tho.

Literally.

Good to have a Sunday QL though. Much appreciated.

The Final Countdown is a masterpiece and I will not hear you speak otherwise, Drew!

I'm not sure how I feel about this game. I am totally interested in the idea of large scale combat, but at the same time it looks like the jankiness might be too much.

Drew likes battlezone, too? He has astounding taste.

Ergh this game is far too dense to be interesting to watch.

Hooray for more Drew though. He is rather sexy.

Oh well, one of these days at least any single one of these hybrids has got to succeed in a big way, rigt? Right? Because if that actually happens it is going to be pure gaming pornography - at least to me. It's just so fucking unlikely to get all the parts in such a complex construct right I suppose. Either way, I've still got my fingers crossed.

Looks very disappointing. I had been keeping an eye on this game.

1) Complaining about a BI game controls on a console seems a bit redundant. Surprised a console version even exists.

2) Battlezone needs a remake sooooooo bad.

I'm not sure why Brad does strategy quick looks. Aside from Starcraft, I haven't seen much evidence he's a fan of the genre.

drew's team member randomly dying during a cutscene is the funniest thing. I wish it actually happened in the capture, would have been an all-time great QL moment.

my theory is that this game is the battleship the movie the game they made in universe 0(the real original universe) and the one we got was alternate, a so so kinda ok game. someone traveled to our universe to sell it here thinking our universe is super backwards land we would appreciate bad things.... i guess we do appreciate bad things but i mean unironically.

Drew did a great job on this QL!

@EveretteScott said:

"Early xbox 1 game". So is that a negative or positive because I played an early 'xbox 1' game called Halo and I think that did pretty well. I could be wrong though.

This might have done pretty well too, if it was released back then.

Weekend Quick Looks are awesome.

Thanks! And anytime you want to do this again feel free.

I love how Brad doesn't even know how to play the game and yet he talks mad shit about it regardless.

Keep mumbling.

@EveretteScott: That's also pretty much the only early Xbox 1 game that did well. So, no, that's probably not a compliment.

@EveretteScott said:

"Early xbox 1 game". So is that a negative or positive because I played an early 'xbox 1' game called Halo and I think that did pretty well. I could be wrong though.

Oh come now, let's not be obtuse. If it were ten years ago, that might make sense. Let's say you go out and buy Halo 4 when it comes out, only to bring it home, pop it in, and discover it looks exactly like Halo 1, with all the same conceits of shooters of that era. How would you consider that description, positive or negative?

Remember, this game is a full-priced title released in 2012.

Walrus?

"God DAMMIT, didn't I tell you to stop makin' up animals!"

@drewbert love seeing quicklooks with you in it. You and Dave seem to be the only guys who acknowledge the PC as a real gaming platform, along with having played lots of games on it. Loved hearing you bring up Battlezone. Truly one of the best games I'd played back in the day. Hope to see more quicklooks with you in it! Peace!

So vehicle controls are up/down = forward/back and left/right = turn. How's that wrong? How else do you control a vehicle? The horribly stupid Borderlands method where the vehicle always turns with the camera so you can't aim the turret independently of your vehicle and can only drive straight at whatever is shooting you?

Why dose Brad quick look all the game i want to see and dose not know how to play anything, its your fucking job to know how to play come on man.

This game clearly has problems but why does it seem like Brad goes out of his way to find faults in games he is playing.

When you move command an entire squad of units into a heavily fortified position, I am not exactly sure what you expected to happen. If you move command units in Starcraft 2 into your opponent, things don't go well there either.

That said, regardless of how brash Brad can be, his overall opinions are something everyone comes to agree with. I am sure this game is trash just like he says it is, but it still makes me feel bad for the game. Although, I would rather have brutal honesty than fluff. It saves people wasting money on games that people clearly are not going to enjoy.

Oh no... The AI/pathing issues is REALLY worrying with ArmA III in the works... Hopefully they just used the ArmA II AI and didn't do anything with it, because that looks exactly like the ArmA II AI.

Oh shit, I remember The Final Countdown. That movie was great!!

@Vagner36: Actually, his job is to play, review, and talk about games. He doesn't have to be good at games. I agree with your sentiment though. I think that it would be incredibly beneficial to everyone in the Giant Bomb crew if they tried at least a little bit to have a better understanding of the games they choose to do Quick Looks of.

I get that the spirit of the Quick Look is to jump in blind and play it for a bit to give a snapshot of what the game is really like, "warts and all" as they say, but perhaps they need to rethink this just a bit. Playing games poorly on camera doesn't do anyone any favors. More often than not it only serves to misrepresent the game, which benefits no one. Not the game, not the developers, the publishers, Giant Bomb's audience, or the Bombcrew themselves.

This game has some neat ideas, shame about the interface, pathing and AI.

@Vagner36 said:

Why dose Brad quick look all the game i want to see and dose not know how to play anything, its your fucking job to know how to play come on man.

Brad brings the concept of Murphy's Law to the videogame sector. He would be a QA department's wet dream. If anything can go wrong it will go wrong in Brad's case. Fortunately, I find this to be a good thing. He is predisposed to encounter problems that a sub-set of people will come across while gaming. I think it's one of the reasons the Breaking Brad segment is so damn good.

We shouldn't fault Brad for being who he is. We should embrace him as the error-prone buffoon that we have come to know from our time spent on this site.

I salute you Brad Shoemaker. May you fuck up where no man has fucked up before. Godspeed.

This is weeeeeeiiirrrddddd.

Well, they've manged to make carriers not only uncool, but inconceivably lame. That is a feat.

Although the idea of this game is pretty cool, holy hell there are too many menus and sub-menus, almost to the point where it's just not necessary.

Look, I'm all for in-depth stuff and not streamlined casual, but come on, you gotta draw the line somewhere.

Also, holy shit this game looks janky.

@Soapy86 said:

@Vagner36: Actually, his job is to play, review, and talk about games. He doesn't have to be good at games. I agree with your sentiment though. I think that it would be incredibly beneficial to everyone in the Giant Bomb crew if they tried at least a little bit to have a better understanding of the games they choose to do Quick Looks of.

I get that the spirit of the Quick Look is to jump in blind and play it for a bit to give a snapshot of what the game is really like, "warts and all" as they say, but perhaps they need to rethink this just a bit. Playing games poorly on camera doesn't do anyone any favors. More often than not it only serves to misrepresent the game, which benefits no one. Not the game, not the developers, the publishers, Giant Bomb's audience, or the Bombcrew themselves.

Hmm. Personally, I'm a longtime fan familiar with their style, and I know the difference between a game that really sucks and a game they aren't showing properly. This game is a little of column a and a little of column b. Brad played poorly and brainlessly, but the AI also was no good. I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power.

Anyway, I support GB continuing to play games they barely understand on camera. This is probably selfish of me because I'm so familiar with these personalities I can understand the truth of it regardless of what happens.

If you are going to do a quick-look, please at least learn how to play the game

@aceofspudz said:

@Soapy86 said:

@Vagner36: Actually, his job is to play, review, and talk about games. He doesn't have to be good at games. I agree with your sentiment though. I think that it would be incredibly beneficial to everyone in the Giant Bomb crew if they tried at least a little bit to have a better understanding of the games they choose to do Quick Looks of.

I get that the spirit of the Quick Look is to jump in blind and play it for a bit to give a snapshot of what the game is really like, "warts and all" as they say, but perhaps they need to rethink this just a bit. Playing games poorly on camera doesn't do anyone any favors. More often than not it only serves to misrepresent the game, which benefits no one. Not the game, not the developers, the publishers, Giant Bomb's audience, or the Bombcrew themselves.

Hmm. Personally, I'm a longtime fan familiar with their style, and I know the difference between a game that really sucks and a game they aren't showing properly. This game is a little of column a and a little of column b. Brad played poorly and brainlessly, but the AI also was no good. I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power.

Anyway, I support GB continuing to play games they barely understand on camera. This is probably selfish of me because I'm so familiar with these personalities I can understand the truth of it regardless of what happens.

You should also remember that a Quick Look isn't an official review either. If you ask me, the Quick Look did exactly the job it was meant to do.

@heatDrive88 said:

@aceofspudz said:

@Soapy86 said:

@Vagner36: Actually, his job is to play, review, and talk about games. He doesn't have to be good at games. I agree with your sentiment though. I think that it would be incredibly beneficial to everyone in the Giant Bomb crew if they tried at least a little bit to have a better understanding of the games they choose to do Quick Looks of.

I get that the spirit of the Quick Look is to jump in blind and play it for a bit to give a snapshot of what the game is really like, "warts and all" as they say, but perhaps they need to rethink this just a bit. Playing games poorly on camera doesn't do anyone any favors. More often than not it only serves to misrepresent the game, which benefits no one. Not the game, not the developers, the publishers, Giant Bomb's audience, or the Bombcrew themselves.

Hmm. Personally, I'm a longtime fan familiar with their style, and I know the difference between a game that really sucks and a game they aren't showing properly. This game is a little of column a and a little of column b. Brad played poorly and brainlessly, but the AI also was no good. I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power.

Anyway, I support GB continuing to play games they barely understand on camera. This is probably selfish of me because I'm so familiar with these personalities I can understand the truth of it regardless of what happens.

You should also remember that a Quick Look isn't an official review either. If you ask me, the Quick Look did exactly the job it was meant to do.

"I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power."

LoL, "superior processing power" has nothing to do with A.I. Navigation Routines... O_o

@m16mojo2 said:

"I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power."

LoL, "superior processing power" has nothing to do with A.I. Navigation Routines... O_o

AI routines require significant processing power. Games frequently feature hobbled graphical elements to fit on a console GPU, so if AI is poorly optimized they would hobble that as well to appear on a console CPU. Or maybe they don't perform the optimization and it's simply broken. If this game is essentially ported to consoles, which seems logical, we may be seeing a second-string version here.

@aceofspudz said:

@m16mojo2 said:

"I'm still kind of interested in it, especially if the AI is better on the PC due to superior processing power."

LoL, "superior processing power" has nothing to do with A.I. Navigation Routines... O_o

AI routines require significant processing power. Games frequently feature hobbled graphical elements to fit on a console GPU, so if AI is poorly optimized they would hobble that as well to appear on a console CPU. Or maybe they don't perform the optimization and it's simply broken. If this game is essentially ported to consoles, which seems logical, we may be seeing a second-string version here.

I've bought this on steam, and tried to play it. The game is a PoS either way. I had really high hopes, but the execution is horrible. As I stated earlier in a forum thread, how this got past testing is beyond me...

@m16mojo2 said:

I've bought this on steam, and tried to play it. The game is a PoS either way. I had really high hopes, but the execution is horrible. As I stated earlier in a forum thread, how this got past testing is beyond me...

Then let's just go back to hoping someone makes another Battlezone. At least we'll be in good company.

@aceofspudz said:

@m16mojo2 said:

I've bought this on steam, and tried to play it. The game is a PoS either way. I had really high hopes, but the execution is horrible. As I stated earlier in a forum thread, how this got past testing is beyond me...

Then let's just go back to hoping someone makes another Battlezone. At least we'll be in good company.

Well said.

I'm new to Giant Bomb. Here's my first impression of the videos and website (I know the fanboys are going to flip shit, but I'm sure the site creators appreciate honesty):

This video is entirely too long. How is 35 minutes anywhere near a quick look? We could decide in 20 minutes of playing a demo if I like the game or not. I found my brain screaming for you guys to get to the point, and show me some actual gameplay footage.

Furthermore, upon signing up for a username, I've already been asked three times to upgrade my membership to premium, without giving any reason as to why I should do so. There was even a frowney face emoticon to guilt me into it. $15 credit? To What? An online store you offer, I assume, but what is offered? Games? Then, upon returning to the video, I learn that only premium members have access to HD, which YouTube offers free of charge. So far, this site has all the charm of a Free-To-Play social game, like Farmville. I'm sure I have the entire point of the website wrong, but this was my experience... And I really don't see what all the hype is about. I understand the creators left Gamespot or some other big review website, due (at least, in part) to paid advertisers getting favorable reviews, which is great. I applaud your integrity on that matter. Yet, somehow, your new, "better" website is headed down another slimey business model path.