Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

I think he snapped. Whatch out for flying chairs!

 

[kaching]

Doom, tell me the first thing that comes to mind when you see this picture.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

You mean the, Red Faction has destructible environments, ergo Warhawk that also has destructible environments is an upgraded port of a PS2 game line of logic?

Yeah, if it wasn't so hilarious of a comment, you'd probably be banned on the grounds of sheer idiocy.

I shouldn't have bought up Red Faction, my bad. But I still like that game though

 

[BlueTsunami]

Screw all of you seriously. I don't see what you guys see in Warhawk. It is not a huge leap over RS, Yager or Crimson Skies. It doesn't have any next gen fx like motion blur, depth of field, or any post processing effects. The physics suck, the geometry is mostly static with the exception of a few buildings and radio towers and even those are accompanied by PS2 like firecracker explosions. The on foot segment is also pathetic.

Incognito sucks at graphics. THE END

Doom_Bringer has a knack for wearing "Can't see shit" goggles. It amazes me how he can filter out the good aspects of certain games and totally up play everything that it doesn't have.

Since Metal Gear Solid 4 has destructible environments, I guess it is, also, a upgraded port of Red Faction :lol

 

[Chiggs]

What are the chances of this game being shown at TGS? I'm fully willing to eat crow if some impressive new media surfaces.

Just for the record, I don't think the game looks bad, it just looks...average. Nothing stands out.

Spoiler

It does look better than Crackdown.

Screw all of you seriously. I don't see what you guys see in Warhawk. It is not a huge leap over RS, Yager or Crimson Skies. It doesn't have any next gen fx like motion blur, depth of field, or any post processing effects. The physics suck, the geometry is mostly static with the exception of a few buildings and radio towers and even those are accompanied by PS2 like firecracker explosions. The on foot segment is also pathetic.

Incognito sucks at graphics. THE END

Calm down there, buddy. I don't think it's all that great, either. Remember, whatever weird Warhawk fetish that certain GAF'ers here may have, doesn't necessarily translate to everyone else.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Screw all of you seriously. I don't see what you guys see in Warhawk. It is not a huge leap over RS, Yager or Crimson Skies. It doesn't have any next gen fx like motion blur, depth of field, or any post processing effects. The physics suck, the geometry is mostly static with the exception of a few buildings and radio towers and even those are accompanied by PS2 like firecracker explosions. The on foot segment is also pathetic.

Incognito sucks at graphics. THE END

 

[Bad_Boy]

What are the chances of this game being shown at TGS? I'm fully willing to eat crow if some impressive new media surfaces.

Just for the record, I don't think the game looks bad, it just looks...average. Nothing stands out.

Spoiler

It does look better than Crackdown.

which game are we talking about here? gundam or warhawk? :lol

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Doom_Bringer has a knack for wearing "Can't see shit" goggles. It amazes me how he can filter out the good aspects of certain games and totally up play everything that it doesn't have.

Seriosuly how many arcade flying games have you played buddy?? Don't talk about about a subject you are unfamiliar with....

 

[Funky Papa]

Don't talk about about a subject you are unfamiliar with....

Holy ****

 

[Amir0x]

now we're getting into irony territory

i dub this the best thread of August so far

 

[Wollan]

:lol

 

[Bad_Boy]

oh shit.. :lol

 

[Kabuki Quantum Lover]

Archive material here...

:lol

 

[BlueTsunami]

Seriosuly how many arcade flying games have you played buddy?? Don't talk about about a subject you are unfamiliar with....

:lol:lol:lol

omfg

Someone give him a tag that says...

Has a degree in Arcade Flying Games

 

[wonderfuldays]

 

[ralexand]

Are people trying to argue that those on foot missions in Warhawk look good?

They don't. It's as simple as that. What are people seeing?

 

[kaching]

It doesn't have any next gen fx like motion blur, depth of field, or any post processing effects.

None of these are "next gen fx" since they've been used in current gen games and none should be considered mandatory for a game since what they're typically used for is to simulate the deficiencies of camera vision rather than approximate real human vision.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

:lol:lol:lol

omfg

Someone give him a tag that says...

Has a degree in Arcade Flying Games

hahahaa very funny @%@%^

Serious list em

This gen I have played
Ace Combat 4
Ace Combat 5
Ace Combat Zero
Both Rouge Squadron GC games
Yager
Crimson Skies
Blazing Angels
Fireblade
ThurderHawk
and a bunch of other Lethal Skies games

 

[meltpotato]

Are people trying to argue that those on foot missions in Warhawk look good?

They don't. It's as simple as that. What are people seeing?

Spoiler

this should now be an all magic cards thread

 

[Chiggs]

Are people trying to argue that those on foot missions in Warhawk look good?

They don't. It's as simple as that. What are people seeing?

I have no idea what they're seeing, either. Doom_Bringer just lost it, and they're using his descent into madness as evidence that Warhawk looks amazing.

 

[Wollan]

Are people trying to argue that those on foot missions in Warhawk look good?

You got to consider the context. It doesn't look like Gears of War because... that's right... it's an awesomely big world with a ton of stuff happening(in 60fps, 4x AA..etc...etc).

 

[Amir0x]

No actually Doom just is nuts, there's the comedy.

Warhawk looks good considering its scale and what's going on, much better than any comparable scale next-gen game and nowhere near PS2/GC/Xbox titles. And that's the only thing we can go by.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

None of these are "next gen fx" since they've been used in current gen games and none should be considered mandatory for a game since what they're typically used for is to simulate the deficiencies of camera vision rather than approximate real human vision.

um Blazing Angels has some really nice post processing effects, you should go play it...

No actually Doom just is nuts, there's the comedy.

Warhawk looks good considering its scale and what's going on, much better than any comparable scale next-gen game and nowhere near PS2/GC/Xbox titles. And that's the only thing we can go by.

You haven't even played the game man!! How do you know the scale? Its just a bunch of barren and static environment. Friggin Yager looks better

 

[kaching]

Are people trying to argue that those on foot missions in Warhawk look good?

Not particularly, but there's no clear evidence that the soldier models have been downgraded at all from what was shown in the E3 2005 trailer, which is where Doom_Bringer's rant tries to go based on tiny screencaps taken from the more recent but blurry vids.

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Not particularly, but there's no clear evidence that the soldier models have been downgraded at all from what was shown in the E3 2005 trailer, which is where Doom_Bringer's rant tries to go based on tiny screencaps taken from the more recent but blurry vids.

The video wasn't blury it was HD quality. Goto the Sony warhawk site and see for yourself. It looks like shit

 

[Amir0x]

You haven't even played the game man!! How do you know the scale? Its just a bunch of barren and static environment. Friggin Yager looks better

Uh, Warhawk is a fully seamless world hundreds of square miles large where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundreds of enemies on screen at once on both land AND ground. This has all been confirmed over and over by the devs, and they even have it listed at the feature site since before E3 2005. Catch up. They ALSO confirm we've only seen one small island off the coast of the main continent.

Listen, if you don't know shit about the game just stop talking about. It's cool man, you cannot possibly look any more "out-there" than you already do in this thread.

 

[wiiboxstation]

my question concerning warhawk. When we are flying over the buildings there is no sign of life on the streets and when the screen showed on foot action there seemed to be no realtime action in the skies. so my question is that is the large scale actually seperated between onfoot action then the game loads into flying action? with the procedurally developed water which is iterated at a certain distance, what is there besides the island and the water and the clouds above surrounded by what ive counted as a dozen ships in a level

 

[Bojangles]

D_B you can't win against the SDF.

How come nobody is talking about the awesome innovative rumble-free tilt controller being fully taken advantage of by Warhawk?

 

[Doom_Bringer]

Uh, Warhawk is a fully seamless world hundreds of square miles large where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundreds of enemies on screen at once on both land AND ground.

Listen, if you don't know shit about the game just stop talking about. It's cool man, you cannot possibly look any more "out-there" than you already do in this thread.

yes hunderds of square miles of large barren environment where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundereds of low polly insect like enemies on screen at once both oi land and ground....

btw I know everything about warhawk

 

[kaching]

um Blazing Angels has some really nice post processing effects

So? Where does that make post-processing effects mandatory for all next-gen games, like it's the only way to prove it's next-gen? And how do you even know whether Warhawk is using any "post-processing effects" since the very term is so general it can apply to a wide range of both very subtle and very obvious effects?

 

[Amir0x]

yes hunderds of squre miles of large barren environment where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundereds of low polly insect like enemies on screen at once both oin land and ground....

btw I know everything about warhawk

ok you're just trolling then thanks for the confirmation

 

[BlueTsunami]

Listen, if you don't know shit about the game just stop talking about. It's cool man, you cannot possibly look any more "out-there" than you already do in this thread.

See thats the thing Amir0x. Doom HAS played this game, in his mind. He HAS experienced Warhawks on foot levels, in his mind. Doom HAS experienced everything Warhawk has to offer.....in his mind.

Lets all clap and agree with Doom, it might distact him, 1,2,3 GO!

*claps

YAaaaAAaaaaY!!1

 

[Chiggs]

btw I know everything about warhawk

What the ****? :lol :lol :lol

 

[Wollan]

What's the term? Sinked, hooked and lined?

 

[Bad_Boy]

btw I know everything about warhawk

PUT THIS UNDER HIS NAME !!! :lol :lol

 

[Amir0x]

What's the term? Sinked, hooked and lined?

hook, line and sinker

 

[BlueTsunami]

Remember people, this is the same person that wanted Burnout level sparks in Assassins Creed when swords collide and argued for like 3 pages about it. The dude is batshit insane

 

[meltpotato]

Uh, Warhawk is a fully seamless world hundreds of square miles large where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundreds of enemies on screen at once on both land AND ground.

Listen, if you don't know shit about the game just stop talking about. It's cool man, you cannot possibly look any more "out-there" than you already do in this thread.

oh come on Ami. I'll agree that DB is getting agro as hell and stretching a bit, but i gotta agree with him on this one point.

we haven't seen this stuff yet. The game is going to launch in about 3-4 months and, aside from the video from about a year ago that didnt show in game, we haven't seen these "hundrerds of enemies. quality destructible environments. some of the stuff that has been said sounds pretty good but we haven't seen all this tons of shit going on that would deliver a lower bar for graphics. after some of the bullshots and ridiculous claims we have gotten in the past few years, i'll believe it once i have it in my hands.

that said i hope they deliver all the things they have promised as it sounds pretty awesome.

 

[Bad_Boy]

Remember people, this is the same person that wanted Burnout level sparks in Assassins Creed when swords collide and argued for like 3 pages about it. The dude is batshit insane

are you serious, lol same guy? that explains everything
:lol

 

[kaching]

my question concerning warhawk. When we are flying over the buildings there is no sign of life on the streets and when the screen showed on foot action there seemed to be no realtime action in the skies. so my question is that is the large scale actually seperated between onfoot action then the game loads into flying action? with the procedurally developed water which is iterated at a certain distance, what is there besides the island and the water and the clouds above surrounded by what ive counted as a dozen ships in a level

The demos that have been provided of Warhawk so far haven't really been meant to simulate a full-scale gameplay situation but rather have been designed to focus on certain elements of the game engine. At E3, the demo was geared towards simply giving people time to try out the motion-sensing aspects of the new controller for example.

 

[Chiggs]

Remember people, this is the same person that wanted Burnout level sparks in Assassins Creed when swords collide and argued for like 3 pages about it. The dude is batshit insane

Wow...

Spoiler

Xbox or PS2 sparks?

 

[dark10x]

yes hunderds of square miles of large barren environment where you can go anywhere at anytime with literally hundereds of low polly insect like enemies on screen at once both oi land and ground....

btw I know everything about warhawk

Ha ha, barren terrain.

The ONE island we've seen is filled with all sorts of things and is the complete opposite of barren. The only other thing we've seen is the ocean...which is going to look pretty barren no matter what you do.

We also know (and you can see it in some screenshots) that the enemy craft contain a suprisingly decent amount of geometry. If you look, you can see that they are as detailed as the main aircraft in certain older games. Suggesting that they are extremely low poly is simply incorrect.

You are making broad assumptions based on something you know nothing about. Why? What's the point? You don't think it looks good, fine, but don't make sh*t up.

 

[PhatSaqs]

thread title :lol :lol :lol

 

[BlueTsunami]

Wow...

Spoiler

Xbox or PS2 sparks?

:lol

The more sparks the better, I believe were his words

 

[Amir0x]

oh come on Ami. I'll agree that DB is getting agro as hell and stretching a bit, but i gotta agree with him on this one point.

we haven't seen this stuff yet. The game is going to launch in about 3-4 months and, aside from the video from about a year ago that didnt show in game, we haven't seen these "hundrerds of enemies. quality destructible environments. some of the stuff that has been said sounds pretty good but we haven't seen all this tons of shit going on that would deliver a lower bar for graphics. after some of the bullshots and ridiculous claims we have gotten in the past few years, i'll believe it once i have it in my hands.

that said i hope they deliver all the things they have promised as it sounds pretty awesome.

We've seen destructable environments, we've seen screens with over 60 enemies on screen at once, and we got confirmation of the size of the world and its seamlessness from the developers - unless you're suggesting they're lying.

I agree with you that you'll see it once you have your hands on it, but Warhawk was already playable and looked at this level with just less intense battles because you're not at the largest most epic parts of the game in the demo... that would be silly.

There are videos you know!

 

[Nozi]

Having played Warhawk at e3, I'd say it was just average. Not as bad as some of the posters in this thread are making out, nor as amazing as others are. It's really an unremarkable title in many ways and doesn't deserve all this attention.

 

[Wollan]

Here's the video I posted earlier for those who missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIZ_rjmhni8&search=warhawk

And with that I say good night. Need to wake up again in 5.

 

[dark10x]

Having played Warhawk at e3, I'd say it was just average. Not as bad as some of the posters in this thread are making out, nor as amazing as others are. It's really an unremarkable title in many ways and doesn't deserve all this attention.

It isn't amazing, I agree, but it does look very solid in the way that Incog's previous games have. I'm also going to give it a chance based on the fact that I've enjoyed many of their previous games (especially TMB).

That's only natural, right?

 

[<nu>faust]

1st annual Gaf arcade flying games screenshot crapshoot showdown

current gen:

ace combat 5

rogue leader

crimson skies 3

next gen:

warhwak

blazing angels

Round 1 Figgght !!!!!

 

[Amir0x]

Hm, Oni looks better