82 Comments
  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Computerplayer1

I'd rather hear about what he has to say about this game failing to live up to his amazing games from the past. Still, can't not love the Schafer!

Posted by Jeffsekai

No thank you, I would rather have more story stuff.

Posted by Griddler

Shame, if it were single-player DLC I might consider picking the game up. 
 
6-8 hours just doesn't cut it for me.

Posted by zityz

Little annoying to hear someone commentating on what your doing while the other guy can hear you lol. 
 
Looks like the one dude is getting a tad annoyed
Posted by ahoodedfigure

Looked pretty close :)
 
I can see why Herzog Zwei was an inspiration.
 
What was that music at the end from?

Posted by C0V3RT

Wow...I'm sure this has been in the works since before reviews came out - but I'm shocked that they didn't give the masses what they want in more single player.
Posted by MetalGearSunny
@Computerplayer1 said:
" I'd rather hear about what he has to say about this game failing to live up to his amazing games from the past. Still, can't not love the Schafer! "
He isn't gonna say anything like that anytime soon. That would most likely mess with the sales for the game.
Posted by Death_Burnout

Oh....multi...player...stuff....hey....great...
 
*sigh*

Posted by sixpin

$5 on Xbox Live. Or free on PS3. I bought it for Xbox 360. Price points were not announced until last week. Sorry, Tim, but I'll be passing on this. 
 
Also, the game isn't that good.
Posted by cstrang

Yeah, I spent like 3 hours playing multiplayer and that was more than enough.  If it added more story or fixed some of the other stuff, I might consider dropping the cash, but, right now, I'm keeping the money for DLC for Borderlands.

Posted by TooWalrus

Probably won't pick up the multiplayer maps, but I did play it for a solid week, and I love it.

Posted by Delta_Ass

So they're gonna charge 5 bucks for more content of the most criticized aspect of Brutal Legend? Good luck with that, Tim.

Posted by Arjuna

Brutal Legend is great fun, with great variety, and great personality.
 
It hurts to hear people hate on this game and then go and play one of the plethora of games where you heartlessly place a cross-hair over a person and pull the right trigger.  It was cool when Doom came out but....  it's gotten old...  The multiplayer has many facets and depth to it...  You'll be required to think, and not just rely on a twitch reflex in your finger.

Edited by crusnchill

I bet activision are haveing crazy bum sex with each other now that Brutal Legend is getting less than favourable reviews from customers. Ass holes. (activision that is.)
 
No matter what anybody say's. You can't deny that the rock theme was a truly unique direction. Up until I heard that there's an RTS side to the game. :-(
 
Oh well... I haven't bought this game and I didn't really plan to do so, so this has no bearing on me. :-) 
 
NOTE: Did anybody notice how much Tim Schaffer was explaining the game mechanics. If he'd of created a better game without the RTS element, he wouldn't of had to do that.
Posted by Dryker

I own the game, but haven't played the multiplayer yet. This video makes it look pretty intense, though it appears to have a rather steep learning curve. With all the great multiplayer games coming out, whose gonna have the time?

Posted by FLStyle

Is the RTS multi-player that bad? That video makes it look like something I could really get into.

Posted by ToxicFruit

looks like it is pretty fun if you know how to play it

Edited by Branthog

Sorry, Tim. I'm a little Brutal Legend out. Even if this DLC was pure single player experience and there was no RTS element in it, I think I'm kind of done. I played through the game. I put it back on the shelf. It's going to look pretty up there next to all the other games for the next few decades. And that's about all it's going to do. I just can't bring myself to want any more of this, but I truly look forward to your next venture.
 
I really dig Schaffer and I had a great time with Brutal Legend, but I have little interest in the multiplayer and found the in-game RTS elements to be tedious and take up too much of the game. Honestly, if you wanted to make an RTS game, that's what you should have done (and nearly have).
 
There's nothing original about RTS and certainly nothing original about this RTS except the characters in it. It's the same old recipe. Each player has a base and gathers resources to create units to defend that base while attacking other people's bases. Rinse. Repeat.
 
The only original thing done here is to use those elements in-between story telling elements and other methods of game play, which actually isn't all that original of a concept, either.
 
Does Schaffer really think people are going to buy Brutal Legend, run through the single player "tutorial" and hop right into Multiplayer and keep that spinning in their console for weeks or months to come? He does realize there are other RTS games out there, right? And that they have been done far better (usually because they're exclusively RTS titles)? I suspect most people who played Brutal Legend are going to be like me -- they'll finish it and put it down and say "well, that was an awesome story with awesome characters and I had a complete blast, but I sure wish there was less RTS and a little more story and game". Then after a few hours or days, they'll jump in for some multiplayer. Probably just enough to get a few achievements. Then after a handful of matches, they'll put it back in the case, stick in another game and never look back.
 
I love RTS. That isn't why I played this game. In fact, the RTS is what will make me never play this game again. It's more annoying than interesting or challenging. I would have gladly traded that whole unused portion of the game for a few more hours of story and adventure game play.
 
I know what some people will and have said. That something about this is very original and clever and that you should be playing this. After all, once you take the game out and stop playing it, you're probably just going back to another RTS or FPS or open world game. And you know what? That's right. We all will.  But the point is, nobody spends countless days playing Haze or Fracture. They spend countless days playing great games that are great versions of established concepts. Brutal Legend is not great at any one game concept and doesn't invent anything new. The story is fantastic. The non RTS game play is fantastic. But other than that, I can get better versions of what it's trying to do in other games. So it's a great game that does okay versions of established concepts.
 
The RTS and multiplayer elements of Brutal Legend are, to me, a lot like those other "also ran" games. Haze is a shooter. Fracture is a terrain deforming shooter and Prison Tycoon game is another management sim. But I wouldn't want to play those very much past the end (if that), because I could be playing other games that are the real deal and do that genre in a compelling and entertaining and fun way, rather than in a "we're a game, too! we totally made a game! see?!" way. (Not that Brutal Legend is that kind of desperate generic knock-off -- it's a one of a kind game --- but certain elements that make up most of the game play mechanics are not compelling enough outside of the story to give a damn).

It just seems like a weird mish-mash of someone who couldn't decide what kind of game they wanted to make and tried to satisfy both what people expected of them and what they really had a secret passion for. I would have been far more open to what this game is if it had always been marketed as "a multiplayer RTS". Sure, we all knew that is how the game originated behind the scenes. They've said as much many times. Then they said they scrapped that and simply re-used the same assets for an actual single player game... and later, they said that they did still have a multiplayer RTS mode.
 
What they never seemed to tell us was "oh, the game IS AN RTS... with a tutorial couched into a single player campaign to lead you into the multiplayer".
 
Seems like a lot of effort and energy wasted on the multiplayer and RTS portions that could have been better spent elsewhere. Even most normal games have very little online game player after, say, six months (unless they're a power house title, of course). Who actually expects that there will be much of an online presence for this game in three or six months? Is this going to really have some staying power? Am I going to hop on in six months after some sort of change of heart and find a lively and competitive "Brutal Legend RTS Multiplayer Community" thriving? I strongly doubt it.

Posted by borgmaster
@Branthog: Wall-of-Text-of-Doom!
Posted by Yummylee

Sweet Tux.
Posted by Deusoma
@Branthog: 
I'm not bashing your opinion or anything, dude, but that really should have been a blog post, not a video comment.
Edited by Trevahhh

 @ Branthog
 
MY EYES!! MY EEEEEEEEEEEYEEEEEES!!!

Posted by Branthog
@FLStyle said:
" Is the RTS multi-player that bad? That video makes it look like something I could really get into. "
The RTS isn't awful, for a console. But is it really so unique that you'd drop $60 on this game just for playing the same RTS game you've played a thousand times before and probably have better versions around that you could actively play already on your system?
 
More, are you interested in a typical Tim Schaffer awesome-story-fest where you play through as a character in his lovingly crafted world with wonderful characters and stories . . . only to have it constantly broken up by "we now interrupt your game to bring you another hour of RTS where you defend your stage while gathering resources to build up an army to attack the other guy's stage, just so you can earn more story"?
 
I love a good RTS game, but a solid 50% of Brutal Legend was RTS and while the units were amusing and the ability to do guitar solos was amusing, I was not at all compelled by the RTS mechanics. I spent the last half of the game trudging through a type of game play I wasn't really expecting or wanting, just so I could get to the next part of the story.
 
It was kind of like sitting down on a cold winter day in front of the fire to sip on a nice hot cup of cocoa . . . and half way through, it turns into a margarita. Sure, margaritas are good at certain times and places and when you're intentionally drinking one... but not when you thought you were drinking a nice hot chocolate.
 
This may be less of an issue if you know all this going in -- and if you're buying the game today, you obviously know. But the first wave of us to play it had no idea we were getting a full fledged RTS game, because that fact seemed to largely be hidden in all commercials, behind the scenes, interviews, trailers, etc. It was really kind of a bait and switch. If Tim just wanted to try his hand at traditional RTS, he should have just gone for it balls to the wall and gotten everyone excited for it from the get-go. Who knows, we might have bought into it!
Posted by Trevahhh

And look at 4:09. LOL Tim Schafer clone!

Posted by Branthog
@Metal_Gear_Sunny said:
" @Computerplayer1 said:
" I'd rather hear about what he has to say about this game failing to live up to his amazing games from the past. Still, can't not love the Schafer! "
He isn't gonna say anything like that anytime soon. That would most likely mess with the sales for the game. "
Agreed. For that matter, I'm fine with having spent $60 on a game where 50% of it really annoyed me and let me down. My money went to a guy that I want to keep developing great games, even if he kind of missed the mark on this one. And who knows, maybe this will turn out to be a massive hit? The first wave of players, like myself, didn't know what we were getting into because the true nature of the game was somewhat hidden until after launch. We probably would have largely reacted differently if we knew on launch day what everyone else knows today. We would approach it differently.
 
 I hope it does well for him. He's game development's Robert Downy Jr. He just seems to keep stepping in it, but you can't help but be in his corner and cheer for him with each accomplishment. And I can tell you, there aren't many other people I can think of that I would be fine paying $60 to for a game that I kind of felt awfully "meh" about in some regards...
Edited by Siris
@Branthog: jesus, that was long and painful
 
Brutal Legend was an awesome game for the way it attempted to combine three very successful genres. It balanced them pretty well I thought, and warrants at least a play through the story. Roooock oooonn!
Posted by Branthog
@Deusoma said:
" @Branthog: 
I'm not bashing your opinion or anything, dude, but that really should have been a blog post, not a video comment. "
Because it wasn't three sentences long and sprinkled with homophobic and racist comments and a gib about someone's mom? Seems moving on to the next message is pretty simple to do if you don't want to read a wall of text (well, not really a wall of text, since it's actually formatted).
Posted by HypoXenophobia

Was I the only one that noticed what looked like to be a SNES and a N64 under the tv on the right?
Posted by JoelTGM

that looked cool

Edited by MajorToms

So this really only announced multiplayer map pack? They did kind of leave the end of the game open for a bit of expansion, or so it seems, but it doesn't sound like they are aiming on following up on that.
to be honest, I wasn't impressed with the in game RTS to want to play it in multiplayer.  
 
The lack of a persistent HUD during the RTS really messed with me. I feel there should have been some kind of small status bar that informed me with numbers. I just felt like I wasn't receiving the information I should have been receiving while in RTS. I had to manually check up on my troops by calling up the build menu, or fly back to them. And when I checked on them they were half dead.

Posted by FLStyle
@Branthog: Thanks for your input, looks like I'll just be renting it for a week then.
Posted by Branthog
@Siris said:
" @Branthog: jesus, that was long and painful  Brutal Legend was an awesome game for the way it attempted to combine three very successful genres. It balanced them pretty well I thought, and warrants at least a play through the story. Roooock oooonn! "
That's what she said.
 
Anyway, I agree -- you've gotta play through this at some point. The RTS gets in the way of a great story, but it's still a great story. The advice I've given to people who have asked is "if you truly want a multiplayer RTS game and this appeals to you, drop the cash and play it now - otherwise, find it for $30 in a couple months and experience the story".
 
What's unfortunate is that I know a number of people who really don't have the patience for RTS nor any interest at all in it, but would have otherwise totally been sold on the concept of Brutal Legend. I think that's the major risk you take when you try to combine different genres of games in this manner, where each genre is very distinct and separated from the other, mechanically. In this case, for example, you've lost everyone right off the bat if they're not into RTS.
 
That's why I find it so odd that Schaffer took this road on this game, when he had to know it would clearly limit the appeal of a game that he desperately needed to appeal to a wide audience.
Posted by cstrang
@Arjuna: It really irks me that people have been saying this so much.  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.  The story is great, yes.  It got me through the game twice.  But the gameplay is an undirected mish-mash of things that other games did better.  God of War did hack-n-slash character-based gameplay better.  Grand Theft Auto did open world driving better.  Command and Conquer did RTS better.  Brutal Legend is NOT original in the gameplay department.
 
And then people trash first person shooters, 'cause all they apparently do is indulge "twitchy" people with "itchy trigger fingers", saying that Brutal Legend "really makes you think".  I've got news, bud, if the person isn't playing a game like Painkiller or Dreamkiller or Serious Sam, they're probably thinking just as much as you are while you try to maneuver that rally flag in Brutal Legend multiplayer.   
 
 The RTS element of the game is poorly executed.  That's it.  And considering that makes up half of the single-player game and all of the multiplayer, that's a pretty big deal.  The game has charm, great story, good characters, but, at the end of the day, it was just done too poorly to have long-run staying power.
 
@Branthog:  Awesome.  +1.  I agree completely.
Posted by Branthog
@MajorToms said:
" So this really only announced multiplayer map pack? They did kind of leave the end of the game open for a bit of expansion, or so it seems, but it doesn't sound like they are aiming on following up on that. to be honest, I wasn't impressed with the in game RTS to want to play it in multiplayer.    The lack of a persistent HUD during the RTS really messed with me. I feel there should have been some kind of small status bar that informed me with numbers. I just felt like I wasn't receiving the information I should have been receiving while in RTS. I had to manually check up on my troops by calling up the build menu, or fly back to them. And when I checked on them they were half dead. "
I didn't play a lot of multi-player at all, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the experience I had. I'm usually slow to get around to playing online when it comes to RTS games, because I know I'll get my ass handed to me. Perhaps things would change after a few dozen games, but every single multiplayer game I played was won within a few minutes by using some fog, taking a second resource point, pumping out a handful of units, rushing them to the other guy's stage, using the stonehenge solo (that prevents the other guy from building troops for awhile) and then assisting my attackers with some solos for about twenty seconds while we obliterate their stage.
 
I'd be curious if that's the experience others have had or if it gets more competitive later on.
Posted by TzarStefan

Wow he has a high pitched voice hahaha

Posted by RobotHamster

Tim Schafer can really pull off that tux! 

Online
Posted by Branthog
@cstrang said:
" @Arjuna: It really irks me that people have been saying this so much.  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.  The story is great, yes.  It got me through the game twice.  But the gameplay is an undirected mish-mash of things that other games did better.  God of War did hack-n-slash character-based gameplay better.  Grand Theft Auto did open world driving better.  Command and Conquer did RTS better.  Brutal Legend is NOT original in the gameplay department.
 
And then people trash first person shooters, 'cause all they apparently do is indulge "twitchy" people with "itchy trigger fingers", saying that Brutal Legend "really makes you think".  I've got news, bud, if the person isn't playing a game like Painkiller or Dreamkiller or Serious Sam, they're probably thinking just as much as you are while you try to maneuver that rally flag in Brutal Legend multiplayer.   
 
 The RTS element of the game is poorly executed.  That's it.  And considering that makes up half of the single-player game and all of the multiplayer, that's a pretty big deal.  The game has charm, great story, good characters, but, at the end of the day, it was just done too poorly to have long-run staying power.
 
@Branthog:  Awesome.  +1.  I agree completely. "
 
Too bad they felt the need to do both. I suspect the RTS could have been a superior experience if that is all the game was or the story based play could have been even more incredible if that's all they focused on. Instead, they come out with a good experience all around, but nothing (outside of a GREAT story and world) to write home about.  Either element on its own is competent, but not perfect while combined one gets in the way of the other and takes it down a couple notches.
 
Some day Tim will probably confess the whole story to the world and when he does, I'll want to know "was it really your idea to go from RTS multiplayer only and turn it into a single player game with RTS multiplayer sort of tacked on or did someone force that on you, because the money-men said there was no way the Tim Schaffer name would pitch strategy games?"
 
I also wonder how much the great voice acting from a lot of big names carried the story along, too. If these were a bunch of union voice actor generics, would the story be attributed for largely compensating for a  lackluster RTS element?
Posted by Deusoma
@Branthog: 
No, actually I meant it should have been a blog post because now it's going to get pushed down to the bottom of a long list of comments on an advertising video no one is going to watch after about four months have passed, and that means your carefully crafted, well thought-out commentary, which you obviously worked hard on and has some really good points in it, is going to be lost and forgotten.  
 
At what point exactly did my words merit a childish comeback?
Posted by ectoplasma

I don't know what you guys have. This looks pretty sweet to me.

Posted by stinky

man this video really killed my enthusiasm to give  the game a try. 

Posted by Brackynews
@Branthog said:

"Agreed. For that matter, I'm fine with having spent $60 on a game where 50% of it really annoyed me and let me down. 

But are you.... DOUBLE Fine with it?  Eh?  Ehh?  >_>

And I can tell you, there aren't many other people I can think of that I would be fine paying $60 to for a game that I kind of felt awfully "meh" about in some regards... "

Yes it seems you are.  Jolly good.  I'm not, but I'll pick it up later around the $45 mark and get at least $30 of fun out of it.  I like to be at least two-thirds fine with my purchases.
 
@crusnchill said:
NOTE: Did anybody notice how much Tim Schaffer was explaining the game mechanics. If he'd of created a better game without the RTS element, he wouldn't of had to do that. "
No, but I noticed how he was explaining the game's completely crazy rock metaphors.  If he would have created a more boring game without the music element, he would not have had to do that.  I also noticed that he was dressed up as a colour commentator, officiating a match, in order to hype a product's advertisement to people that might not be familiar with the genre-bending gameplay.  Guess you missed that part.  Or were you expecting a C&C Battlecast?  Now Jack Black and Joe Kucan is a team match I would spectate.
Posted by kagekage

i would rather get more single-player DLC considering the story is the stronger point of the game.

Posted by Gregomasta

I'm interested in some unique rts gameplay, but my money is still spent by dragon age.

Posted by AURON570

So are they playing online? I think it would've been better if they recorded it splitscreen on one TV then just have the audio edited over. Seems like a good party game, but then again almost any game is fun when playing with friends.

Posted by Lydian_Sel

Maybe if Schafer narrated every single match this game would be more fun but this still just looks like a crappy console RTS.

Posted by ITSSEXYTIME

I still think this game looks solid, it's just not what people were expecting.



Mechanically I could see myself getting into the multiplayer it will just all depend on how the controls work. (from the demo, they seemed pretty good but the game does seem incredibly complex)



Posted by Phoenix87

Tim Burton + Quentin Tarantino = Tim Schafer

Posted by LiquidSwords

Let down of 2009
Posted by ArbitraryWater

I spy a Genesis, SNES and N64 under the center TV...
 
Oh, and if anything, the RTS gameplay of Brutal Legend is a major turn-off for me. Never was good at them...

Edited by MeatSim

This game would be a lot better if it came with Tim Schafer in tux narrating the game.

  • 82 results
  • 1
  • 2