I think I'll wait for a Steam holiday sale before buying this...4-6 hours is way too short for $27
another review...gives it a 7/10
http://deltagamer.com/15748/review-hard-reset
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Hard Reset - PC Exclusive FPS
- Thread starter randomhero58
- Start date
I think I'll wait for a Steam holiday sale before buying this...4-6 hours is way too short for $27
another review...gives it a 7/10
http://deltagamer.com/15748/review-hard-reset
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,556
Yep, with short games increase the difficulty.
I'm playing 40K now on hard first run through, heard it was a bit short so I maxed the difficulty out.
Not always, but sometimes the highest difficulty is playing the game as intended.
Basically what it boils down to for me although "not being a piece of crap" helps, too.
This definitely isn't a piece of crap.
Here's my review on Hard Reset
http://exophase.com/24666/hard-reset-review-slick-presentation-meets-old-school-gameplay/
Minor faults aside, I was pretty impressed with it. I think the length is very respectable for this type of game. There's also an EX/New Game+ mode which adds replayability.
http://exophase.com/24666/hard-reset-review-slick-presentation-meets-old-school-gameplay/
Minor faults aside, I was pretty impressed with it. I think the length is very respectable for this type of game. There's also an EX/New Game+ mode which adds replayability.
What settings and what AA mode?
Perhaps they left the story UN-finished on purpose in case they want to make a sequel someday. Either way I enjoy certain types of games and this game seems like one of them, but the reviewers are weak-sauce playing the game on Easy. I think I'll definitely have to go play through on Insane just so because I can.
Right.
And I'm sure the game isn't that long but we all need to remember something: These reviewers have to blaze through these games as fast as they can to meet their deadlines so I really wouldn't get too hung up on it.
Especially at only $27.
Also this is a small developer's game. Big studios like Activision and EA would have us pay $60 for a 4 hour game. Though to be fair they include multiplayer, but I see Hard Reset as having more replayability than CoD's single player campaigns do.
LOL, exactly.
Ben should take his own advice and quit the f*cking whining that it's not perfect. I play to shoot things and have fun. That is what an FPS is.
The thing I hate about certain fps shooters and a deep story s having to read some long boring email and or scientist's 4 page of notes to find out what to do or get a security code to open something. I don't want a f*cking RPG game as that is not what I bought. Get me to more bad guys so I can blow them away asap....
Lets' see, good graphics, unique ways to kill robots and fun game play sounds like a buy to me...If you think the price is high or it's too short just wait for a sale....jeeezzz.
The thing I hate about certain fps shooters and a deep story s having to read some long boring email and or scientist's 4 page of notes to find out what to do or get a security code to open something. I don't want a f*cking RPG game as that is not what I bought. Get me to more bad guys so I can blow them away asap....
Lets' see, good graphics, unique ways to kill robots and fun game play sounds like a buy to me...If you think the price is high or it's too short just wait for a sale....jeeezzz.
tuksonrider
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 814
The problem with that analogy is that some people do want what you hate. I WANT to read boring emails and quests and missions that propel me through a game. I don't want repeatable actions scenes that look the same level after level. Why get past the first level if it's identical to the second level?
Second, why charge $27, why not $67 or $127? When does a game become too high in price before it's acceptable to start to bitch about it? "Wait for it when it's on sale" is not an excuse.
Reviews, whether it's from a paid reviewer or a consumer review is all subjective. I get that. There are a lot of games that got rave reviews that I simply hated, and vice-versa. Games I loved that got horrible reviews. Yet, to berate the reviewer because they don't have the same view as your own instead of giving your own review does absolutely nothing.
If great graphics, the entire gameplay is just to "blow shit up", and is around 4-6 hours long to justify $27, then good on you.
I'm not saying Hard Reset is a bad game at all. Personally, I'm going to wait for some real consumer reviews before I pull the trigger on it. Once I get a consensus on how the game is, I'll make a decision. That's me. Some people get the hype and buy day 1. That's good because then I get to hear about it.
I agree with you that every player might like different things in an fps and my intention was not meant to claim that's all an fps should be, but Hard Reset is exactly that and was never meant to have a big storyline.
As far as berating the reviewer goes read his previous article on "gamers and whining" (just recently) and you will see just how hypocritical he is.
Most of the time I agree but I really do like some more simple action games every once in a while. For instance I bought Space Siege day 1 when it came out. Some people said it was shit but I loved it enough to beat it twice. So some games I really like above and beyond other types. I've tried other games like Two Worlds and Saints Row II and those games bored the shit out of me.
tuksonrider
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 814
I like mindless games once in awhile too. Borderlands is one of my favorite. The story or plot was inconsequential. It was barely a reason to just go into a certain part of the map to blow shit up. Missions just opened certain parts of the map.The main reason to travel was, it's fun to blow shit up in that game.
Borderlands was extremely fun so I can't fault you there but it was also a pretty long game. I'm thinking about playing it again sometime since I haven't beat the Claptrap DLC nor have I ever gotten past level 61 since it was the max back a year or so ago when I was playing it.
From what I have read, nobody seems to be complaining about the gameplay. In fact, it's quite the opposite - most seem to love the gameplay.
The sticking point seems to be that the game sets up this story with lots of potential, somehow ends it in a super lame way, doesn't really leave room for continuation in a sequel, but nothing really awesome ever happens. I guess I could see that as an annoyance, especially if you get midway through the game and really feel like "this one is going to be different," but it must have been REALLY bad for Ars to give it a skip.
Then again, it is a FPS, and probably 80% of gamers don't really care about the story anyway. I fall into that category more times than not...
The sticking point seems to be that the game sets up this story with lots of potential, somehow ends it in a super lame way, doesn't really leave room for continuation in a sequel, but nothing really awesome ever happens. I guess I could see that as an annoyance, especially if you get midway through the game and really feel like "this one is going to be different," but it must have been REALLY bad for Ars to give it a skip.
Then again, it is a FPS, and probably 80% of gamers don't really care about the story anyway. I fall into that category more times than not...
Well I think story lines in first person shooters are a good thing, but unfortunately I think most fans of the genre know that a good story in the genre is damned near impossible to find. You have to step outside the traditional shooter to get that. Deus Ex, Oblivion and the like are examples of this. I'd wager there are far more examples of first person RPG crossover titles with good story lines than examples of pure action oriented FPS games with good story lines. Even when the story is decent, it's usually nothing to write home about and the game play is a more compelling reason to finish the game than the story tends to be. Many games come on strong in the beginning but have weak endings. This seems to the hallmark of what counts for a good story in an FPS game. Bad story lines tend to get ignored outright and you simply play because the game play is good.
It's like needing to buy a car while living in China and all your choices amount to being shitty Chinese cars or a new model Buick. It isn't that Buick is really all that great but rather it's the best you've got to choose from if you want to take something other than public transportation or ride a bicycle or even a moped.
I don't care about story lines in first person shooters because I enjoy the game type and these types of games never deliver on plot.
Examples:
Take Star Wars Republic Commando for example. The story line is simple. It's the Clone Wars and you know what you really have to do. However the story, as lame as it is has good presentation which gives the illusion of having a somewhat decent story. Additional polish with regard to personality given to the Commandos makes it better and makes you give a shit about rescuing Sev at the end. The game never resolves that story line as it ends abruptly. So despite the good presentation and passable story, the ending was weak. This is what passes for a good example of story line in FPS games.
An example of bad with good presentation is probably any Call of Duty game. The stories presented in them these days is weaksauce if I've ever seen it. Yet the story lines, cut scenes and scripted in game events are actually masterfully crafted. You just can't give a shit because it's not engrossing at all.
Then there is bad. Quake IV is an example of bad story line coupled with bad presentation. The Strogg are a cheap primitive looking version of the Borg from Star Trek. Cinematics aren't very good and the story is almost intrusive about how annoying it is. The characters aren't interesting or memorable in the slightest. Unreal Tournament III's story line has to be the biggest embarrassment to first person shooters I've ever seen.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
So guys, demo is out, game is out very soon, what's the verdict here, skip or pass? I'm contemplating us doing a small performance/IQ article with it. Would this be worth it to anyone?
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Based on the demo I'll be getting it for sure, the game looks nice and runs well and most of all it's a PC exclusive so we get the honours of having stuff like 1:1 mouse input and decent FOV for once, the fact that more or less no other games do that now a days means it's a sort of diamond in the rough.
It's also a very good price to launch with, £20 in the UK, that's literally half the price of CoDMW3 on steam.
*edit*
In fact I've just this second pre-ordered, everything about this game is what I stand for in gaming, PC exclusive, a reasonable price, no consolization, I can't see how you can go wrong to be honest.
I asked myself the same question and downloaded the demo....very fun, excellent visuals/performance/physics, cool weapons. If it were around $18 price I
wouldn't hesitate, but having bought RO2 and Dead Island this month I may just wait for a sale.
Well the game at least supports AA and NVIDIA's MLAA technology, plus it has all the required PC features. So that's all a plus. On the other hand I don't think it's very demanding resource wise.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
It is a DX9 game, which I didn't think was being done for performance reviews anymore? Would really much rather have seen something like The Witcher 2 done, although that is probably too late now.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I just played the demo, darn that was short. I hear its only really got about 6 hours of gameplay to the full version?
On a 6970 at 2560x1600 MLAA and Ultra settings I was getting crazy high FPS, lowest I saw was 40FPS. To be honest, not seeing much of a value considering it plays so well, and really doesn't offer any unique graphics features. It's cheap, it's PC exclusive, its a fun romp, but I dunno.
On a 6970 at 2560x1600 MLAA and Ultra settings I was getting crazy high FPS, lowest I saw was 40FPS. To be honest, not seeing much of a value considering it plays so well, and really doesn't offer any unique graphics features. It's cheap, it's PC exclusive, its a fun romp, but I dunno.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Similar experience with my 5970, very nice at 2560x1600. Demo was short, I've no idea about the full game, I think 6 hours is alright, MW2 was only 5-6 hours and that's twice the price.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 4,587
Played the demo, got avg 45fps on 3x1 eyefinity with the rig in my sig... booked the pre-order for sure.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,556
The engine was designed to run well on PC, instead of releasing a game that would alienate mid to low end users.
It's not a triple-A title but an Indie title, so I wouldn't judge it on such a high scale. $30 low budget vs $60 big budget game.
http://www.vg247.com/2011/07/30/hard-reset-gets-a-new-video-explanation-for-pc-exclusivity/
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
I feel people are really being clouded by this "PC only" marketing. I'm not saying this is a bad game, but people seem to really be caught on this. If you actually look at the game it would really be able to port completely over to consoles with the only change being some minor UI tweaks (the crosshair would be hard to see for instance). The performance even scales enough already. The way the weapon works system actually as a side effect would be adaptable to consoles more so than the traditional 1-0 method (I wouldn't be surprised if some future game people complain about multiplatform actually also experiments with this approach, like always the PC is the innovator).
We can do some comparisons for instance. RO2 is being released the same week, and it is effectively cheaper at the moment, being not seemingly a Steam exclusive. It actually would not effectively port over to consoles intact nor would the game play have much appeal there. Are they really both "PC games" in the same sense?
The value comparison to $60 titles is also a bit misleading. BF3 for instance is a $60 title, but it has 2 game components, single and multi (and also apparently a separate coop campaign?). If you look at holistically like that, the value proposition also gets iffy here. What about Series Sam BFE as well as a comparison? It isn't a full $60 game, but will also have a single and multiplayer component.
I'm not saying it is a bad game. But I don't think it is the almost "must buy" that seem people think it is just because of the PC only moniker tied to it.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Yeah but you don't get it though.
That's a nice idea in THEORY, but the moment you consider doing both platforms the whole idea of building one game to suit both platforms creeps in and suddenly we have a whole bunch of stuff we don't want on the PC version.
The simple fact is that pretty much no developer in the last 6+ years has managed to actually pull this off, with a tiny number of possible exceptions.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,556
Well it's not being touted as a must buy for "any" PC gamer, like BF3 is being marketed. People played the demo, they like it so they bought it. Much different from feeding into some hype machine.
I think the formula is really that simple, play demo, like it then buy it. It's been a while since I launched a game and everything automatically set and felt natural. I saw value in that alone.
Console really gummed up the works. Devs think they need a $50M budget, lavish headquarters, advertising on billboards and buses etc. It doesn't take nearly as much resources to launch a PC exclusive.
Just make a fun game, provide a demo or Beta and watch the cash flow in. There's too much excess and not enough quality.
Last edited:
I fixed that for you.
JustinSane
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,425
Really wish this had multiplayer .
.Really wish this had multiplayer
MP could be pretty fun with this.
Heh, maybe we'll see it added down the road or something. You never know.
I think if this game does well enough multiplayer will be one of the first things we might see. I dunno, I'm excited to give it a quick romp when it comes out. Should keep my urge to buy any other games at bay until Skyrim comes out.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
Well yes, it leads to missing dedicated servers and stuff like that, but it also leads to stuff like mouse acceleration which dicks up the control system.
Yeah, that's one complaint I have about Dead Island. The mouse acceleration is horrible.