Quick Look: Carrier Command: Gaea Mission

@Vagner36: I wonder if there are people with the same sentiments in the VJ sport quick looks.

@BlackLantern: But HD is available for non-subscribers.

A new battlezone would be much better than this, I loved that game

@BlackLantern: You should check out more original videos to see how the duders roll. Also, "quick" looks are all about 30 minutes long, sometimes longer. And dont forget that GB is a video game database and has a pretty awesome community.

Thanks Drew for playing this game. I asked for it and you provided.

@BlackLantern 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.

I agree. Although i've been here three years and held a premium account.

The quick look length is no concern to me, you can turn it off at any time - i won't complain for extra.

But yeh the business plan is a little bit weird, i would like to look at it as the paid option being more of a smallish bonus to the free plan - as opposed to missing anything really important? But yeh the nagging isn't cool. The lack of content on the weekends is a huge letdown for me most of the time (especially given my time difference being a day ahead.) I wouldn't mind seeing an inbetween plan for people who don't want site functionality restriction but do wan't the shop deals or whatever the fuck.

Really the quick looks are probably one of the biggest draw still bringing me to the site, given the reviews are few and far between, lacking for PC - or late to the party in general. The occasional write up from patrick is mildly interesting if not sometimes naive, retreaded ground.

Other than that i just like vinny. Which is seem to see less and less of.

Brad was absolutely the wrong staff member to quicklook this game for anyone who actually has any interest in it or strategy games in general. This game has Dave written all over it.

I can't speak for the game since i haven't played it yet, thought the strategy game mode seems suprisingly faithful to the original game. Accessibility wasn't exactly the biggest feature of the original game either, although it's from a time when no-one gave a flying fuck about a game being accessible and enjoyed the process of learning what the freaking hell was going on, which was way less simple in a time when tooltips didn't exist and graphics were wireframes.

Not to be a stodgy old "those were the good old days" type, the original was way ahead of it's time and hugely enjoyable, working out what was going on WAS the game and that's what made it exciting, the barrier for entry was patience. Something that no longer exists in the quick-time event console gamers that have been fostered over the last 10 years.

@Rowr said:

Brad was absolutely the wrong staff member to quicklook this game for anyone who actually has any interest in it or strategy games in general. This game has Dave written all over it.

I totally agree. Brad is terrible at this game. He didn't show any of the fighting because he was "unprepared". He didn't understand how to play because he didn't finish the tutorial. Why is he even doing this? Short of a comment on path-finding this video doesn't show anything about the game at all.

@knightlyknave: I do find it fascinating at the contrast of this kind of reaction compared to VJ sport quick looks, though I guess people on this forums care less about sport games? Brad seems at least interested in this game initially.

@BlackLantern: When the site first got started the quick looks were only a half dozen minutes long, but the name stuck as they looked at games like DC Universe Online where trying to show it off in 5-10 minutes really wouldn't go into the game enough to see it. That being said some quick looks are a little less entertaining depending on how familiar they are with the game going in, try something like the one for You Don't Know Jack, Again or Darkest of Days for the videos that are more amusing to the staff & probably the audience.

Apart from the HD viewing option, the staff have been doing more where they will show off more behind the scenes, last PC game saves/retrospectives & random shenanigans for the premium content. They still should fix the Thursday Night Throwdown footage (where they get together with the community to play some or several games) as on the site it's marked as premium content but was originally streamed & archived on justin.tv. Also when the site got bought up by Gamespot/CBS, there was a lot of talk about the future of the site as well as what happened in the past to better explain it all better than anyone can in a little text box like this.

@Rowr said:

@BlackLantern 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.

I agree. Although i've been here three years and held a premium account.

The quick look length is no concern to me, you can turn it off at any time - i won't complain for extra.

But yeh the business plan is a little bit weird, i would like to look at it as the paid option being more of a smallish bonus to the free plan - as opposed to missing anything really important? But yeh the nagging isn't cool. The lack of content on the weekends is a huge letdown for me most of the time (especially given my time difference being a day ahead.) I wouldn't mind seeing an inbetween plan for people who don't want site functionality restriction but do wan't the shop deals or whatever the fuck.

Really the quick looks are probably one of the biggest draw still bringing me to the site, given the reviews are few and far between, lacking for PC - or late to the party in general. The occasional write up from patrick is mildly interesting if not sometimes naive, retreaded ground.

Other than that i just like vinny. Which is seem to see less and less of.

People (Read I) come here for the personalities. Not for "by the rulebook" coverage of games (regarding videos). The quirk and the weirdness that those two things combine make it a very pleasant, entertaining and relaxed way of showing games.

For me, a honest quick look is better than a by the rulebook review for deciding if a game is attention-worthy. But then again, I come here for the personalities. I get that from videos and the way things are written.

I guess that you kinda have to stick with it for a couple of weeks, come back a few times and see for yourself, if you like the guys, then you will come back. Otherwise, try some of the back catalog (this is mostly a reply to @BlackLantern but I was lazy)

@BlackLantern 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.

Exactly why did you feel that you had share this with the rest of us? Those of us who already are premium members, know why we are here, and I'm sure the rest of the people here can make up their own mind of this site.

Wow, it's too bad that this game sucks so hard.

I just watched it again and I have to say that this quicklook is probably one of the worst ones yet. It didn't send the signal that the game was bad or that I should avoid it. It sent the signal that the player thought it was bad but couldn't really show or articulate why the game was bad. If anything, I'm more inclined to get this game just to get an idea of what it's actually like, because the QL did not show that.
 
The only things presented could have been gleamed by having literally ANY experience with the developer's previous games: The AI/pathfinding sucks and the interface is overly dense and layered resulting in many functions being hidden. Again, anybody whose played Arma knows to expect those two faults.

If you only showed me the FPS portion of this game I would not believe someone released this in 2012.

@BlackLantern 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.

I'm new to Taco Bell. Here's my first impression of their product:

I don't like Pepsi products and that is all they serve, therefore it must be a bad establishment. They gave me a $15 coupon for free nachos but all I like is chalupas, that coupon sucks.

@BlackLantern said:

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.

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.

a) Yup, you're missing the point of a QL here.

b) I get it that you might not see the appeal, but saying you don't get the hype after watching one video, the content of which you dismiss on the basis of being too long is frankly stupid. It's like going to a restaurant, taking one bite of smoked salmon which you don't like because it's not heavily smoked and dismissing the entire place as dogshit.

"Also playing this game is kinda poopy". Probably my favorite criticism uttered on the site.

Loved this game on the Atari ST - probably second only to Dungeon Master. The pathing problems in the new one are unfortunate. If they get it fixed, I'll buy it.

Another inept Brad quick look, unfortunately. He really does not seem to pick up on new game mechanics/UI unless they're explicit.

Anyone have a link the pic of the size comparisons of all the carriers in the world Brad was talking about? Sounds pretty interesting...

@Narosp said:

@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.

I've been waiting for a long time to figure out how to put my feelings about Brad. You just did it. Thanks.

@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.

To be fair to Giant Bomb, the original intent of Quick Looks a long time ago was to play games with no preconceived notions or ideas on how to play them.

This attempts to emulate the experience that a viewer would encounter had they purchased the game themselves. It removes the shackles that Game reviewers encounter when reviewing games so that they can share the game with others without being tied down to formalities.

Basically, they want to show you the game as how anyone picking it up would experience it.

However there is a bit of a difference here that I do believe they have come to understand, which is why they started actually looking into the games they are Quick Looking now.

Many gamers will do their own research into a game before they go out and spend $60 dollars on a game. Regular Gamers are not given Games for free like Video Game Reviewers are. Because regular gamers have to spend their own money on the games they buy, they are going to be much more knowledgeable about a game than a Gamer Reviewer picking it up and just playing it.

However because you spent your own money on a game, you are going to be far more biased to defend it even if it is bad. Having Game Reviewers play games they are given for free removes that so you should theoretically get a unbiased opinion about the game. But then they face publisher and developer backlash if they call the game trash which ends up in losing out on Free Games. Game Reviewers are less likely to review games they weren't given for free, which is also why they are sent games for free in the first place.

boy o boy do i detest that NASL ad

It's a bit similar to the Battleship game that came out earlier this year. In this case, it had a lot of cool ideas but could've used some work.

@PoisonJam7: A quick google for "Aircraft Carriers Size Comparison Worldwide" gave me this: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?144822-Large-aircraft-carriers-compared at which point my brain exploded, and I went back to playing RE4 instead of looking up aircraft carrier size comparisons.

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.

Given how wonky this game looks at the moment, I don't think the future bodes too well for ArmA III.

I flicked through this video and didn't see any shooting or anything. Is there shooting or any pulling of virtual triggers?

Fuck yes Battlezone 2!!

@TehPickle said:

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

Hooray for more Drew though. He is rather sexy.

Isn't he though? Sexiest bombadier for sure.

Really sad how poorly this seems to have turned out. Loved the original Carrier Command back in the 90's, and given how the creator of the game died just last week it maybe would've been a fitting homage to him to have a good sequel/remake released.

Somewhat interesting how similar this seems to Battleship released earlier this year though, especially in how they handled the single player campaign, and, well, quality wise. Battleship was a game that received positive buzz because it was a movie tie-in that was only mediocre, not terrible. This, on the other hand, is a sequel to one early attempt at a first person strategy game, which was fantastic for it's time, and it's pretty sad that it too turned out mediocre.

@zoltan2357 said:

Loved this game on the Atari ST - probably second only to Dungeon Master. The pathing problems in the new one are unfortunate. If they get it fixed, I'll buy it.

Yeah, I'll keep watch for patches, used to play the DOS version a lot, and really hoped this would turn out well. The dumb FPS campaign can be overlooked if they make the pathfinding work better for the strategy stuff.

Man, I don't know half the games being mentioned in this Quick Look and the comments, but the one game this makes me want a now or next-gen version of would be Freedom Force only with this type of system set up, but obviously better actual systems throughout.
 
Say something like Warhawk/Starhawk flying and shooting. Either Uncharted/Gears of War like 3rd person shooting and cover mechanics or like COD/Battlefield FPS mechanics. Then you throw in deep RTS like strategy mechanics where you could potentially play the entire game from the RTS top down map view. Then throw in a deep RPG upgrade and levelling system. And then you have the squad command stuff from Freedom Force as well when you're in the action. To consider a multiplayer option as well, maybe put in a tower defence system too so that you can have vs battles to try and take over islands or defend them.
 
And keep this same aircraft carrier/island takeover type mechanic.
 
Then balance all that out so that every part of the game plays equally as well!
 
So yeah, about 3 or 4 types of games crashing into one another would take forever to make, but that would be an unbelievably awesome game.