http://gamingtrend.com
November 26, 2014, 11:24:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers  (Read 736 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9459



View Profile WWW
« on: January 17, 2006, 10:57:01 AM »

I just saw an ad/demo video of the sequel to FSW, called FSW: Ten Hammers and I like what I saw.  The video was part of a side banner, but it was basically one of the developers going through some of the changes they've made to the game in response to all the player feedback.

They've gone back and made it more like the military version of the game, with more fine control over a squad and its elements.  If they actually deliver on these new features, it'll turn what was an interesting military puzzle type game into a more dynamic real time tactical game.

A running list of changes I can remember is:

Dynamic AI, no more scripted enemy placement and reactions.  Enemies will aggressively try to flank you if possible.  Of course they didn't show too much of this in the video since it was a small clip, but if Brothers in Arms could do it, should be easy enough for Pandemic to do it.

Ability to enter buildings, clear them, then fire from windows.  They only showed one particular building that they entered, but it was a short video.  The image was too small to see if other buildings on screen had ways to enter them.  Hopefully they'll make good use of this feature and make almost every building enterable, isntead of just a few arbitrarily placed buildings just to overcome some puzzle-like dilemma.

You can break up the four man elements into 2 man buddy teams for even more area control.  Definitely a much needed feature.  It always seemed silly to waste 4 men to cover a corner then two men could do it just fine.

You can fine tune where individual element members are covering.  Another nice aspect they brought back from the military version.

You can send 1 man ahead to scout for trouble, upon which he'll immediately return upon sighting an enemy.  Also much needed feature, I hated sending and entire element up into blind areas only to have the slaughtered just because I missed one angle.

More orders via a radial menu.

A precision fire mode, to take enemies out without having to flank them or use grenades.

Ability to order other elements while in control of the current element.  No more constant bouncing between elements just to accomplish a simple task.

Adversarial and cooperative online modes.  A big bonus in my eyes since the original was just screaming for an adversarial Vs. mode.  No mention of split screen though.  The coop should be a lot more interesting if they get the AI redone.  The adversarial mode should be great as I've always wanted to play a real-time tactical game where you're controlling an engagment between squads, not entire armies.

Multinational troops.  It's always good to see the fighting men of other nations represented, and not just as enemies.  The video showed some British troops.

More support, including armored vehicles and airstrikes.

Anyway, that's enough hyping of an unreleased game for me, but the changes they've made definitely shows they've listened.  It's up to the full release to see if they've pulled it off.
Logged
mikeg
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2549


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2006, 12:50:47 PM »

I hope it ends up being what I hoped the other would be.  The last bored me to tears because it was basically the same thing corner after corner after corner after corner.  

Fingers crossed on this one.
Logged

I am Xboxalot on Live.
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9459



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2006, 01:23:39 PM »

Yeah, the original was just the same thing.  Round a few corners, spot a lone bad guy in a hard to hit location, find some complex way to kill him.  Repeat.

I figure it'll be the multiplayer that really makes this version.  For all the blandness of the original's single player version, there's nothing like a live human opponent calling the shots to keep you on your toes.

I should also mention that I did see some bigger firefights this time, and I think I saw an actual enemy element of 4 on screen moving together.
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15586


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2006, 01:54:04 PM »

FSW could have been great, but as everyone knows it was mediocre. If they get the sequel right, I'll be in.  But if it's MoTS count me out.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15692


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2006, 02:59:04 PM »

I loved the first one, personally, but you had to get your brain around the fact that it wasn't a FPS.  It was more of a strategy game with decided puzzle-like elements, though it's certainly not a puzzle game.  I really think they created something unique.  Given that, I'm not suprised some people didn't like it or didn't give it a chance.  I just hope the sequel doesn't give all that up for me-too-itis.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9459



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2006, 10:06:11 PM »

The game itself wasn't made to be a puzzle game, but the developers created levels that were basically puzzles using the game's mechanics to force certain outcomes.  This is the reason why people didn't like it.

What they're doing now is changing it from a real-time military puzzle game, into what it was first touted as, a real-time tactical game.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.117 seconds with 35 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.036s, 2q)