Official Infamous Second Son Thread

[5n0man]

i think the gta 5 story suffered because they tried to have 3 different protagonist appeal to every demographic. but it could be argued that it was because of the MP

and i applaud suckerpunch for making such a great game w/80 peoples. still, the campaign is short and it needs a MP component. i know people here will disagree, but i think MOST games need one if it's under 12 hours.

I loved the three character deal in gta5 and I loved playing with all of them. But it felt short and rushed. I believe it's cause they were working on the mp.


And I do disagree with mp for infamous, if the game is to short, make it longer. Don't tack on something that you Never planned on adding in the first place.

If it wasn't in the vision or plans from the start then leave that shyt out.

 

[marcuz]

"When your DualShock 4′s battery drains out, Delsin Rowe will keep running out of the danger area and hide himself behind cover.

He recounts his experience as follows: “While I was in the middle of a pretty heated fight my controller’s battery died and disconnected. Delsin kept running on the screen and I was convinced he was going to just keep running straight and cause me to leave the fighting area. But, instead he ran out of the danger area and hid behind cover. I know it’s simple, but what an amazingly convenient feature.”


Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/infamous-seco...hock-4s-battery-drain-out#v87gTxep4Lijp4Tu.99

i guess while beta testing the game, they also had a problem with the damn ds4 dying every 6 hours

 

[Rekkapryde]

i guess while beta testing the game, they also had a problem with the damn ds4 dying every 6 hours

 

[marcuz]

. Don't tack on something that you Never planned on adding in the first place.

If it wasn't in the vision or plans from the start then leave that shyt out.

you guys keep saying tack on like that's the only option.



guy says it himself, they ORIGINALLY started working on an infamous multiplayer, but they didn't feel like they could do it justice at the time. which, hey, i could buy that. they probably spent most of their time working on graphics and lighting, judging from how short the game is.

 

[5n0man]

i've never played ryse, so i couldn't tell ya. but the meelee combat and platforming are exactly the same in infamous and uncharted games.

Uncharted has set pieces in which you have limited platforming, so limited that u can only go where the game wants u to, almost like it's on rails. As for melee, they both use the simple press the punch button to beat up bad guy mechanics, countless games have this exact same way of melee combat. These games are nothing alike, you sounding silly

 

[The G.O.D II]

maybe if you're going to 100% and play it again as evil -- which by the way, i think is a corny way to extend gameplay. the whole morality meter is retarded




w/o all the wings and bells, infamous platforming is just like drakes. the fighting is the same as well. prove me wrong

Ok breh please stop saying that dumb shyt. The platforming in Infamous and Uncharted are miles apart

 

[marcuz]

Uncharted has set pieces in which you have limited platforming, so limited that u can only go where the game wants u to, almost like it's on rails. As for melee, they both use the simple press the punch button to beat up bad guy mechanics, countless games have this exact same way of melee combat. These games are nothing alike, you sounding silly

i got my ps3 late in the game and purchased uncharted 1 and infamous at the same time. yes it's true that uncharted has linear design, but i was able to pick up infamous immediately since it had the same basic controls for combat and platforming as uncharted -- whether it be set pieces or open world, it doesn't matter.

Ok breh please stop saying that dumb shyt. The platforming in Infamous and Uncharted are miles apart

it's only different now because of the new spells that allow you to zip up buildings, fly, and levitate. :heh

 

[5n0man]

you guys keep saying tack on like that's the only option.



guy says it himself, they ORIGINALLY started working on an infamous multiplayer, but they didn't feel like they could do it justice at the time. which, hey, i could buy that. they probably spent most of their time working on graphics and lighting, judging from how short the game is.

I agree that the game is too short. But I don't agree with the need for multiplayer.

They probably started having ideas and couldn't figure out how to incorporate mp in a way that it didn't feel like tacked on trash. If they did we would probably have a 6-8 hour singleplayer and a horrible mp mode.

Plenty of developers have created way shorter games with way worse graphics with way bigger development teams. I don't see how your trying to knock them for the game looking good

 

[chemicalsword]

maybe if you're going to 100% and play it again as evil -- which by the way, i think is a corny way to extend gameplay. the whole morality meter is retarded

trying not to kill innocents and subduing the bad guys causes you to play completely different than if you run around killing everybody in sight and hitting down on the d-pad every chance you get. implementing and rewarding those completely different play styles is retarded??

 

[5n0man]

i got my ps3 late in the game and purchased uncharted 1 and infamous at the same time. yes it's true that uncharted has linear design, but i was able to pick up infamous immediately since it had the same basic controls for combat and platforming as uncharted -- whether it be set pieces or open world, it doesn't matter.



it's only different now because of the new spells that allow you to zip up buildings, fly, and levitate. :heh

Someone up that meech thread.

These games are literally nothing alike.

 

[marcuz]

Plenty of developers have created way shorter games with way worse graphics with way bigger development teams. I don't see how your trying to knock them for the game looking good

where am i knocking them for the game looking good, i'm knocking them for the game being short and lacking a MP

 

[marcuz]

trying not to kill innocents and subduing the bad guys causes you to play completely different than if you run around killing everybody in sight and hitting down on the d-pad every chance you get. implementing and rewarding those completely different play styles is retarded??

well i play as a paragon so your point is useless.

 

[marcuz]

Someone up that meech thread.

These games are literally nothing alike.

breh, one is a very linear game and the other is a open world sandbox, i understand they're different. im talking strictly about controls/platforming/and combat, prove to me they aren't similar mechanics. i've played the hell out of both series and if you know how to play 1, you're probably going to know how to play the other.

 

[chemicalsword]

well i play as a paragon so your point is useless.

not trying to make a point. my opinion is that its not retarded... wanted to hear you expand on your opinion that it is retarded....

 

[marcuz]

not trying to make a point. my opinion is that its not retarded... wanted to hear you expand on your opinion that it is retarded....

it's retarded because they give you two choices, good or evil. you have to stick with one from the beginning of the game or else you'll lose out on max spells. i made this mistake in infamous 1, choosing both evil and good paths, only to end up with gimped at the end. they might as well remove the options and give you 1 initial choice in the beginning, good or evil.

but it's really just a way for you to play twice, and extend the gameplay hours