Whoa remind me never to post a comment without reading everything in the thread first. I'm in shock at all the hate this game is getting and people comparing it to other games.

First of all this is the type of crap you get from fanboys who never played a game but diss it because its exclusive to the other consol, not what you expect for a multiplat and secondly the games a differant type of breed to what you get in shooters these days.

Excuse the developer that wants to try something differant in an already overcrowded Carbon copy genre.

Oh I agree that it didn't seem too fun, also I'm not sure you can die in that mode because I swear I saw a missile pass just through the helicopter on one of its sides but that may just be a hit detection thing they have yet to iron out.

Vanquish looks awesome.

@Slimebeast:

Name me one modern shooter more hectic than DooM II. I defy you to do it.

In my opinion some of the ones I listed are. But it doesn't matter much because Doom II is from the other end of the spectrum - a new born baby from a primitive era. So it doesn't count, kinda.

Oh Hell yes it does.

The real old school is about frenetic action with more enemies than you can count filling the air with bullets and missiles and fireballs, honing your reaction time to within split seconds and being able to do stuff that no real person could do if they were actually fighting people with guns.

Tthe only reason it wouldn't count would be if it invalidates your argument - which I think it does. Vanquish appeals to the same sense of camp and frenetic action as the oldest shooters there are.

I don't call this a shooter, this is more of an action game more than anything else and it looks just pure fun!!!! local co op PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEE

I think Slimebeast finds visually frentic shooters unappealing. Doom, as pixelated as it looks, wasn't visually dizzying as some of these newer games. IT was just gunplay tough :)

The whole shake our camera, blood on the screen, slow motion, zoom in zoom out shooters is what slimebeast is talking abou from my understanding...

This would be an allowable argument, except that he's already admitted it "doesn't count", implying that it is frenetic and dizzying in many of the same ways - which is to say it hurts his argument.

Yeah well he should say that not go out his way to bash every modern day shooter. no blur = "thinking man's game" in Slimebeast book

Disolitude put my thoughts into words.

Yes, maybe Doom II hurts my argument a bit but in a way Doom II still doesn't count because it was made like a shootem up basically, just in first person. And as we all know shootemups are allowed to be hectic because it's a core gameplay idea in them, many shootemups were hectic. Gameplay that requires fast reflexes and full concentration to handle an endless wave of baddies.

But then from 1995 and on shooters started to develop into games that also suited the thinking man, with games such as Heretic, Hexen and Half-Life being the pioneers.

I still don't mind shooters to be hectic per se. If they throw waves of enemies at you as long as it feels logical for the setting then I'm fine with it.

So what I am critical of with modern shooters is the eruption of visual effects just to wow you - the Jerry Bruckheimer effect.


EDIT: I might be contradicting myself when Im not counting Doom II but in the next sentence allowing "waves of waves of enemies at you as long as it feels logical for the setting"... hmm, yes I am.  But I kinda want to point my finger on two phenomenons at the same time now that u brought Doom II up:

1. That I hate the Jerry Bruckheimer effect
2. That I prefer slow paced shooters no matter what lol.