Follow TV Tropes
Comparing the change of adding the dogfighting system to Halo/Call of Duty changing into a golf simulator is completely off-base and undercuts your argument. Or rather, adding a new flight mechanic =/= completely altering the premise of the game. Personally, I like the new dogfighting system solely because it gives me a cinematic look at the ass-whuppin' I just put on the enemy pilot. Or the ground targets, as a few of those popped up in the helicopter mission. It may have something to do with the fact that I handle explosives on a daily basis, but I like seeing things gratuitously explode as a result of what I've done to them. Pre-scripted flight corridors don't bother me; I'd prefer not to smack into the side of a building while I'm focused on burning the other guy out of the sky, and that seat-of-the-pants, crawl up the enemy's ass and chew his engines off with 20mm HEI is the sort of thing I wish AC 6 had.
But hey, it's cool and all if you don't want to kill something and have it die in an awesomely-cinematic way. I mean, if all you're going to do is complain, I'm sure there's other games you want to play.
Imagine if Battlefield 3 has a sniping section turned into a rhythm minigame. Instead of having to actually aim at the enemies, compensating for the wind and distance, you just match buttons. IT'S A SNIPING SECTION, LET ME DO THE FUCKING AIMING!
Well, CRA is like that. Instead of chasing the enemy, you just control the gun. Also, seeing an enemy plane explode may be awesome the first time, but it's like swearing: doing it once makes it stand out, doing it 500 times makes it boring.
edited 15th Sep '11 3:59:37 AM by orimarc
Very very much agreed. Aiming with my inertia reticle and hear the 'pew pew pew' on enemy planes is more satisfying, while I did it all on my own kind of way. Much more satisfying
I'm still doing it in Ace Combat Zero. I'm flying X-02
I understand that the two levels offered in the demo are both probably tutorial missions, but both of them baby-sit you waaaay too much. I thought Thorn was exaggerating when he said it's mostly on-rails, but from the looks of things you actually ARE flying a bunch of scripted paths and contextual moments, which is nothing like what HAWX or Ace Combat offered.
And then there's the fact the dogfighting is now all up-and-in-your-face style... while it definately does look cool at first, I'm actually beginning to miss the more realistic long distances that were present in the previous games. Cause seriously, the odds of the enemy ace actually hitting you after ejecting are pretty much non-existent, period.
That stage was a dream sequence, so dreams tend to not make sense but it hammers in the point that our hero is scared on how a dog fight between him and "The Shark" would end up.
The bottom line is still the bottom line: Don't like it, don't play it.
Will do. But I think I'm allowed to have an opinion of the future of one of my most favorite video game franchises.
Why is it that The Complainer Is Always Wrong ?
And it DOES completely change the way the gameplay works. If you could still take down enemies the normal way, and the CRS was completely optional I'd be FINE.
BUT THE GAME FORCES YOU TO USE THEIR STUPID MICHAEL BAY "TAKE CONTROL AWAY FROM THE PLAYER" BULLSHIT.
I played the demo twice and to no surprise, every single TGT Lead went through the same exact scripted path, no matter how much I tried.
I knew where the second TGT Lead would go and I lead him halfway across the map and the game still took me there.
It being a dream doesn't justify lousy gaming mechanics.
edited 15th Sep '11 2:13:36 PM by Thorn14
Well, when the complainer is carrying on like it's the end of the world...
Did I scream at the top of my lungs in all caps? I could have said ACE COMBAT IS Ruined FOREVER or something of the sort.
But I wrote out what I felt was a reasonable opinion of the demo. Did I get emotional at times? Yes. But it is a very possibility, knowing Namco, that if this game does not sell well, thats it for Ace Combat.
And this is becoming a sore spot because so many of my favorite franchises are being rebooted/retooled in ways to appeal to a larger market that alienates original fans like me.
This, Devil May Cry, XCOM, Splinter Cell, Hitman, Max Payne, and a few more I can't think of right now.
edited 15th Sep '11 2:17:19 PM by Thorn14
There does seem to be a bit of an obsession with reboots and major changes lately. You know, just maybe, the people who bought the previous games and liked them will still buy the new game if you don't add quicktime events or drastically change the series feel.
Alright, got a chance to play the demo.
Overall, I liked it. The jet stage was pretty much on rails, but given that it's a tutorial explaining the entire franchise to Ace Combat newbies and the Close Range Assault system to returning players (while showcasing lots of awesome to set the stage in general), that's not too surprising. It wasn't amazing, but I don't think it's a good reflection of the game as a whole.
The helicopter stage was an interesting switch up. I struggled a bit with the controls at first (I kept accidentally launching missiles instead of/while doing counter maneuvers, for example); at one point I actually failed the mission because of it when I blew up the guy I was supposed to be escorting. Whoops. Switching away from the default control scheme fixed those issues, however; the alternate scheme is more like the standard Ace Combat setup; A for guns, B for missiles (triggers are up/down instead of throttle/brake). That works much better, at least for me. I did notice the regenerating health in the helicopter mission (I didn't in the jet), and I agree that it's pretty ridiculous, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
On the subject of Close Range Assault, I don't see the big deal. Yes, it's a change to the formula, but I think it's a good one. It basically acts like a second level of lock-on. I didn't find it to be "pathetically easy" — being in dogfighting mode doesn't mean you don't have to aim, and jamming the accelerator to be right on the guy's tailpipe makes it harder to anticipate a sudden change in direction by the enemy (which will break you out of dogfighting mode unless you react to it) or even the enemy using counter maneuvers on you. I was gratified to see that the AI plays by the same rules you do (barring enemy aces and their no-long-range-missiles-for-you, at least).
Some specific replies to stuff that's been said in the thread.
Regarding gun kills: they're difficult outside CRA, yeah, but they were difficult at long ranges in other Ace Combat games too. On the subject of leading shots: the reason why you can't see your lead anymore is that the camera centers on the targeting reticle rather than the nose of your plane (you can see the icon indicating your nose drifting off if you're trying to gunkill someone while doing any sort of violent maneuver, but the targeting reticle stays dead in the center of your screen). Ironically, this makes it harder to get gunkills rather than easier (at least for me), since it makes it more difficult to stick with your enemy while you're getting them lined up for a shot. Going for gunkills in dogfighting mode is much more familiar, and about the same as it was in previous Ace Combats.
Regarding "zomg QTE in MY Ace Combat?!": I don't really think that's a fair way to characterize it. All Close Range Assault really does is give you in-game indications of stuff you were already doing. Pulling loops to get behind an enemy in a dogfight or Top Gunning were already parts of the game; Assault Horizon just adds it to your HUD.
Regarding dogfighting mode vs normal flying: I'd be surprised if you have to use dogfighting mode as often in the majority of the game as much as you do in the tutorial. It seems to me that it's basically "use this against enemy aces, plus mooks if you feel like it". The tutorial was showing it off, so you run into like six aces in a row, but I doubt the main game will do that. (If they do, I'll admit to being disappointed — I think dogfighting mode makes for a nice change of pace, but shouldn't comprise the majority of the gameplay).
Anyway, I'm curious to see how the doorgunner sections of the game will work. The demo has a control scheme for "doorgunner/gunship" (which is separate from "helicopter", so I think it's talking about stuff like the AC-130 rather than helicopter gunships), but nothing playable. Given that we've been told that the helicopter mission from the demo is level 3, and the jet mission is level 1, my guess is that a gunship mission is level 2 (based on some of the footage from the trailers and comments made about the giant explosion at the end of the helicopter demo mission). I'm a little leery, but I'm willing to give it a shot instead of yelling "Rail Shooter in my Ace Combat? Ruined Forever!!"
One thing from Ace Combat 6 that I miss (and it doesn't look like it's coming back) is the allied support and sub-mission system. It was really fun being able to call in swarms of missile-y death from all over the map when you wanted to.
edited 15th Sep '11 5:30:19 PM by NativeJovian
(In class so can't respond completley yet) In my defense I said ALL caps, that was SOME caps
@Thorn 14 :You were making a gameplay complaint to the story mode? Where's the logic in that? And am I the only one more interested in the story? I tried the demo and I know I can't play it well but I want to see how the story turns out.
edited 15th Sep '11 9:29:02 PM by mega-dark
Here's hoping that the story doesn't suck as much as AC6's did, at least. Seriously, the whole thing was a Shoot the Shaggy Dog story with They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot thrown in to salt the wound. The quality of Ace Combat's story has been steadily decreasing since AC04, but I'm hoping a break from Strangereal will be enough to turn it around (or at least stop the decent).
edited 16th Sep '11 5:18:42 PM by NativeJovian
AC Zero's storyline was better than 4, what are you talking about?
Anyways, the 3DS game is set in Strangereal, apparently a remake of Ace Combat 2, and it proves that they're not ready to abandon Strangereal just yet.
ACZ was silly. It's a mess of bizarre Arthurian references combined with a WWII rehash, then switches to being about a nonsensical anarchist terrorist group with nukes.
I dont understand what you are saying? Just because its singleplayer mode that I can't complain about gameplay? What?
I was running a YKTTW for dog fights, anyone willing to contribute.
Sorry, I should of worded that better. And I will as soon as I can of how to word it better.
Edit:In the mean time, this trailer shows multiplayer and some familar call signs...
edited 17th Sep '11 6:00:06 AM by mega-dark
Don't we already have Old-School Dogfighting?
edit — Wow, that's only about dogfighting in space. Should probably be swapped with its redirect... in the meantime, link us to your YKTTW?
edited 17th Sep '11 10:58:56 AM by NativeJovian
I don't think I'll play this game.
I hated HAWX and Assault Horizon appears to be attempting to out-HAWX HAWX.
The move to the real world just means that either A. We don't get to choose our planes in each mission, or B. It will make no fucking sense for me to use a Sukhoi.
It looks pretty as hell, I'll admit. But it also looks scripted six ways to Sunday. The enemy flying in formation? What was that about? I don't have access to the demo, but that gameplay trailer really didn't inspire confidence.
I bought the special edition of Ace Combat 6. I got the utterly useless faceplate, and more importantly, the Ace Edge. That's a full on joystick and throttle combo.
It looks to me like I can't use a controller that was custom designed for playing Ace Combat games to play an Ace Combat game. It that isn't abandoning the fanbase, I don't know what is.
If 3D gets a North American release though, Nintendo may be a couple hundred dollars richer.
If I had to give a hard difference between Old-School Dogfighting and plain old dog fights, it would be that Old-School Dogfighting is dogfighting IN SPACE! with some kind of cannon weapon and possibly using Space Is A Fluid.
x7 I don't get what you mean about the Arthurian references being silly since ALL A Cs have had random mythological references, and in this case it sorta melded with the "Knights of the sky" aesthetic they were going for.
The plot of ACZ is probably the most morally ambiguous of all the A Cs outside of AC 3 JP. The war began as a completely justified defense against Belka (though they had been jew'd pretty heavily by the Osean Federation in the past by being conned out of their territory). But later on once the Allies begin their counteroffensive, the war becomes a land and resource grab primarily by Osea but also by it allies. That and the lengths to which the Belkan military went to give the Allies nothing disillusioned many allied and Belkan soldiers, which gave the conditions from which AWWNB was able to form.
Except that ACZ's mythological references were just random Theme Naming. The thing about the Ghosts/Demons of Razgriz in AC5 was done well — it mirrored the plot nicely and helped get the theme of the game across to the player. ACZ had none of that; it was just a battlefield called the Round Table, a superweapon called Excalibur, a plane called Morgan. If you strip all of AC5 mythological references away, you don't have much of a plot left. If you strip all of ACZ's Arthurian references away, you just have to come up with new names for some stuff.
....What about Stonehenge, Scinfaxi, Hrimfaxi, Grabcr, and Ofnir? Even Razgriz is a corruption of a Valkyrie 'Rathgrith' which has nothing to do with demons or anything. The Round Table is where the Knight of the Sky were made. I don't see how the Arthurian stuff is THAT out of place. If you merge it with the similarly themed legends of Siegfried, you can easily chalk it up to being a Belkan myth.
And if you think The Belkan War was a WWII rehash, what the hell do you call AC 04 then? The Erusians hung their flags on the fucking Arche De Triumphe in San Salvacion!
edited 19th Sep '11 6:15:57 PM by Scherzo09
Community Showcase More