82 Comments
  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Rocospi

it's so sad that EA has a gun pointed at the back of Tim Schafer's head... 
 
God help you, Mr. Schafer

Posted by RedHerb
man i love this game.
Posted by VibratingDonkey
@Branthog: I only read about half of that enormous post, but I agree. Brutal Legend is a bit of a misfire in that regard. I remember seeing this video on I think 1UP where Tim was explaining how singleplayer was basically a training ground for this RTS-y multiplayer and...that's not really what I expected or wanted out of this game at all. I was legitimately surprised to hear that. The marketing prior to the game's release was kind of extremely poor at communicating things like this. Luckily the game does have a really solid single player component to it which I enjoyed greatly. But I don't think I'm ever going to even try multiplayer out. Sorry. 
 
This DLC was probably halfway done at the time of release. But at this point it just feels like this Trojan horse they're trying to forcibly shove through the gates.
Posted by MAST

Hopefully this will make people more interested in multiplayer. It really is a more in-depth experience then people think. The controls are fine once you get familiar with them. They really do work well. The game has a lot of strategy to it. It's good fun!

Posted by Akeldama
@Phoenix87 said:
" Tim Burton + Quentin Tarantino = Tim Schafer "
=O
Posted by Kenzo287

I will gladly donate money to Double Fine because I dream that they will make a Psychonauts 2 one day

Posted by jakob187

Why haven't I played this game yet?  I really need to get a copy and check it out so I can see if everyone is whining solely because their expectations were that it would be mostly an open-world action game or if the RTS gameplay really is under par.  =  /

Posted by Media_Master

Game still looks like fun in multiplayer.

Posted by Xeiphyer
@MAST said:
" Hopefully this will make people more interested in multiplayer. It really is a more in-depth experience then people think. The controls are fine once you get familiar with them. They really do work well. The game has a lot of strategy to it. It's good fun! "
I agree, I think everyone just didn't give it a chance because brutal legend was a trick, the singleplayer wasn't long and it was just the multiplayers tutorial really, even though it was pretty good. 
 
I've played around with the multiplayer a little bit to try the teams and stuff, and speaking as an avid RTS fan, its really quite good, especially on a console game, they ad the right mix of RTS and action to take advantage of the consoles strengths.
Posted by Mgsfreak

Awesome video, I need to pick this up and try it.

Posted by Arjuna
 You're right that I shouldn't compare it to first-person shooters.  But I do think Brutal Legend is an original game.  Not "super" original.  But original.  It is certainly an original IP. 
 
 Everyone echoes Ryan's review.  The major real 'specific' problem that Ryan refers to in his review is his problem juggling the many tasks you must perform in this RTS.  But that's exactly what an RTS is!  "Task management".  He also mentions that the game doesn't tell you that you can use the stage as a weapon.  Well, if you fly up to it, the button-prompt will appear.  Considering how the game masterfully acclimates you into the game-play, not realizing the spotlight is a small issue.  The game might appear complicated if you take it at face value, but I found it does a great job of slowly introducing you to each gameply element.  Finally he mentions the length of the campaign.  I can't imagine beating this game in 4 hours, unless you are manically speedrunning through it.  The game is not long, but I definitely spent a good 6 hours playing through the campaign and side-quests.  The side-quests are the biggest problem for me, and Ryan is correct in pointing out their flaws.
 
I found Ryan's 3 out of 5 review unwarranted.  I think it is largely based on his dislike of the RTS elements, which is fine and could be argued.  But the pedigree of style and performance in this game is too high for me to think it deserves less than a four-star review.  This is 'not' a 5 star game, in my opinion; more of a 4. 
 
@Branthog said
:   Way too many people have been trashing FPS's in defense of this game.  They're trying to treat Brutal Legend as it's some piece of super original, amazing, high-brow game.  It's not. 
" @cstrang
Posted by Arjuna
 You're right that I shouldn't compare it to first-person shooters.  But I do think Brutal Legend is an original game.  Not "super" original.  But original.  It is certainly an original IP. 
 
 Everyone echoes Ryan's review.  The major real 'specific' problem that Ryan refers to in his review is his problem juggling the many tasks you must perform in this RTS.  But that's exactly what an RTS is!  "Task management".  He also mentions that the game doesn't tell you that you can use the stage as a weapon.  Well, if you fly up to it, the button-prompt will appear.  Considering how the game masterfully acclimates you into the game-play, not realizing the spotlight is a small issue.  The game might appear complicated if you take it at face value, but I found it does a great job of slowly introducing you to each gameply element.  Finally he mentions the length of the campaign.  I can't imagine beating this game in 4 hours, unless you are manically speedrunning through it.  The game is not long, but I definitely spent a good 6 hours playing through the campaign and side-quests.  The side-quests are the biggest problem for me, and Ryan is correct in pointing out their flaws.
 
I found Ryan's 3 out of 5 review unwarranted.  I think it is largely based on his dislike of the RTS elements, which is fine and could be argued.  But the pedigree of style and performance in this game is too high for me to think it deserves less than a four-star review.  This is 'not' a 5 star game, in my opinion; more of a 4. 
 
@Branthog said
:   Way too many people have been trashing FPS's in defense of this game.  They're trying to treat Brutal Legend as it's some piece of super original, amazing, high-brow game.  It's not. 
" @cstrang
Posted by Geno

Tim Schafer reminds me of Quentin Tarantino. 

Posted by FuzzYLemoN

Ouch, people are being brutal in the comments (Pun intended). I seem to be one of the few who actually thinks the multiplayer looks awesome! Perhaps it's because of the deep love for RTS I've had since I was a wee lad. Expecting new singleplayer stuff for such an already tight story driven game is a little out there, if you ask me. Multiplayer is a lot easier to work with. Great video; it's gotten me interested again in a game I thought had passed me by in this hectic release season.

Posted by th0a

I really enjoy the multiplayer in brutal legend, i find it a little clunky but i have total respect for shafer trying something new, he could have just made another character action game with an awesome story but instead he chose to do something else, something unexpected and i applaud that. 
Its a really good consol RTS and way more interesting to play than something like HaloWars (which really is so dull when not with friends) 
I paobably won't be buying the DLC though as I never seem to buy DLC for any game, and dragon age is out on friday and i NEED to play that uninteruptted
Posted by Ghostiet
@Arjuna said:
" He also mentions that the game doesn't tell you that you can use the stage as a weapon.  Well, if you fly up to it, the button-prompt will appear. "

It's kinda hinted at points - especially when you enter the Dry Ice Quarry and Eddie voices his thought that the fog could be used as a defensive system for their megastage.

The problem with BL's gameplay is more with the approach - Schafer is right, don't fly all the time and don't expect that without you your lads will managed, with those perfectly set formations and tactical prowess. Bullshit, they won't, the emphasis is clearly put on kicking shit alongside your units, with using the individual orders to set traps and send roadies to fuck up stages.

Posted by Roughmar
@crusnchill said:
" If he'd of created a better game without the RTS element, he wouldn't of had to do that. "
WHY? 
 
Why do you write should of \ would of? 
 
ARGH!
Posted by RedHerb
@Branthog said:
" @Arjuna said:
"  You're right that I shouldn't compare it to first-person shooters.  But I do think Brutal Legend is an original game.  Not "super" original.  But original.  It is certainly an original IP. 
 
 Everyone echoes Ryan's review.  The major real 'specific' problem that Ryan refers to in his review is his problem juggling the many tasks you must perform in this RTS.  But that's exactly what an RTS is!  "Task management".  He also mentions that the game doesn't tell you that you can use the stage as a weapon.  Well, if you fly up to it, the button-prompt will appear.  Considering how the game masterfully acclimates you into the game-play, not realizing the spotlight is a small issue.  The game might appear complicated if you take it at face value, but I found it does a great job of slowly introducing you to each gameply element.  Finally he mentions the length of the campaign.  I can't imagine beating this game in 4 hours, unless you are manically speedrunning through it.  The game is not long, but I definitely spent a good 6 hours playing through the campaign and side-quests.  The side-quests are the biggest problem for me, and Ryan is correct in pointing out their flaws.
 
I found Ryan's 3 out of 5 review unwarranted.  I think it is largely based on his dislike of the RTS elements, which is fine and could be argued.  But the pedigree of style and performance in this game is too high for me to think it deserves less than a four-star review.  This is 'not' a 5 star game, in my opinion; more of a 4. 
 
@Branthog said
:   Way too many people have been trashing FPS's in defense of this game.  They're trying to treat Brutal Legend as it's some piece of super original, amazing, high-brow game.  It's not. 
" @cstrang
"
That was actually the other guy that said the comment about trashing FPSes. :)
 
Once I got the hang of things, I actually didn't feel like I was "juggling too many things". I just felt that it was an unwanted element. Fine on its own, but disruptive in the context of the rest of the game. I can see how someone could feel a bit "out of control", though -- because you are limited to controlling things that are within range of your character, so it's like playing an RTS with a really slow mouse... But then you figure out how to maneuver things and what is valuable for certain needs. But then, it makes everything kind of cookie cutter after that because every win (in my experience, at least) follows a very simple bum-rush formula (or a build up to an eventual bum-rush).  I'd call it about a 4/5, but I can definitely see how it comes across as a 3/5 if you really hate RTS games and you thought you were getting a traditional Tim Schaffer adventure fest (which is what we all expected to get). In fact, I think Ryan had even said something about "if we had approached it knowing it was going to be an RTS, it might have been scored differently, but it's like they snuck it in on us deceptively". "
True words, dude. 
 
I have been play this game a bit and i think the strategies to win in a mulitplayer game are much more involving than the single player which is a walk in the park compared to even the AI battles. 
 
I remember when i first finished up the single player, found it a reasonable challenge. Jump into the multiplayer though i'd do a practice battle and set the AI to normal cause that seemed about right... 
 
Then proceded to get murdered.  what the hell?
 
So i tried easier difficulties and the other factions, each having unique double team attacks and solo. I realised then that i only learnt to use iron head, that i had only learnt to use the basic strategies, that i hadn't even tapped the potiential of the stage battles that were introduced in the single player.
 
The stage battles in single are "my first RTS" and this game is about rushing, the average game normal takes between 7 and 15 minutes. The idea is build an army and attack! which units, the amount of resources you can take and the micro-ing is where the complexity of your strategies arise. This is one developers take on a console RTS and for me it works just fine.
Posted by ObsideonDarman

Tim Schafer is such a Legend, and 3 Inches of Blood - Destroy the Orcs is Awesome

Edited by crusnchill
@Arjuna: That's the thing with reviews. He objectively looked at everything he could see in the game and made a summary explanation based on his experience of the game. ie: a review. 
 
Anyway, you already knew what a review is, so don't feel like I'm knocking your intelligence. I'm just saying that after all the work that goes into a review. It still all comes down to the reviewers oppinion. 
Ryan dosn't like RTS's. Which might mean that people who like Heavy Metal AND RTS's will probably be right at home with Brutal Legend. 
Either way Ryan tells the truth of his oppinion of the game, he isn't wrong when he expresses it simply of a different mind. 
He's only wrong in your oppinion. And you tell the truth when it comes to YOUR oppinion. The same way that he does his. So what I'm trying to say is: Nobody is wrong. And people who say that othe people ARE wrong just end up looking kinda silly. No offense. :-)
Posted by mikehaar

He's so great, I'd take him over Peter Molyneux any day.

Posted by cstrang
"I think Ryan had even said something about 'if we had approached it knowing it was going to be an RTS, it might have been scored differently, but it's like they snuck it in on us deceptively'." 
 
This.  You can't fault people for complaining about the RTS elements, even if though they don't like RTS in general, because Brutal Legend just kinda "Oh, by the way"s it in on you.  Everything the GB crew said on the podcast is absolutely correct.  The commercials portrayed the game as open-world hack-and-slash action, not RTS.  My jaw dropped when the game turned into an RTS. 
 
I, too, would have given the game a 4/5, but I definitely see where Ryan is coming from, and I don't think anything he said in his review was untrue (except maybe the length).
Posted by Ghostiet
@cstrang said:
" Everything the GB crew said on the podcast is absolutely correct.  The commercials portrayed the game as open-world hack-and-slash action, not RTS.  My jaw dropped when the game turned into an RTS. "

But there where videos and trailers about the stage battles. And the TV commercial was actually an anti-seller for the game - so lame.

Still, I can say that Double Fine could have released a MP demo - one map, Ironheade vs the Coil (as Drowning Doom is a bit spoilerish) and it could build a community and make people be more wary before purchasing.

Posted by Agent47CSim2

Nice suit.
Posted by mcdrew77

This game looks very interesting

Posted by Charleslegrand

Man, I understood NOTHING about the game I was watching but it look insanely fun!!

Posted by DevWil

this video made me way more interested in playing the game.

Posted by NarcolepticBat
@DevWil said:
" this video made me way more interested in playing the game. "
New video series; Tim Schafer in a tux.
Posted by Cristoflanga

I don't get why a lot of people seem to not dig into this game. I've simply loved it, loved how it transitioned from a fun action-adventure experience in to an RTS mantaining the core hack n' slash stuff. I think if you can't see it's differences from normal RTS you must be kind of blind or crazy, mainly because of the action stuff and the double team. There's not nearly as much strategy in this game as in a normal RTS, it's a much more action oriented experience. I tried to play it like an RTS and kept getting frustrated and slaughtered. If you can digest a new kind of gameplay, this is a lot of fun! I'm very sad people aren't playing this a lot more online, because I'm almost every afternoon waiting for a game and it's hard to find people! There's some lag, but I usually have a blast. Of course the game could be more polished, but I'm really happy about this DLC and that it will be free the first weeks from PSN. Looking forward for the next Double Fine games! (And more comentated matches. A strategy guide from Schafer will be great too!)

Posted by Cult_of_Cthulhu

  wow that was pretty dull... damn that is a shame. I wasn't going to buy this game anyway but I had hopes this might be as exciting as the recent starcraft II multiplayer views. I played the demo and loved it but knowing that the game includes this stuff.. meh.  
 
IT would be like MWII having a gardening section like viva pinata ( I like viva pinata, deal with it)  good games but no match, same here, this should never have had any RTS stuff in it. 
 
Hmmm on a different tangent I will buy bioshock II and never play multiplayer in that either. I guess it's sad that every developer feels the need to multiplayer it up at the expense of the single player experience. Reality is that some games should have accepted their place in the single player world.    

Posted by day2daze
@kagekage said:
" i would rather get more single-player DLC considering the story is the stronger point of the game. "
im not interested in paying for scenery