Hellblade truly advances the gaming medium in sound design, presentation, and storytelling.
Hellblade sucks, the main character is hideously repulsive. There is no combat, this game is hurting video games rather than anything.
So Kratos, Chief, Drake, and Mario are all sexy to you? Lack of combat simply means the game isn't for you. Hurting.... game is half the price of other 7 hour long games with twice the quality. I find it absurd people agreed with you on any of this...
Chief and Mario are terribly written, and I would like a better character. Kratos, Drake have some personality also they are handsome and attractive. lack of combat means it should not call itself an action game. I also find it absurd that people gave this game more than 6.
^So the fact that you find Kratos and Drake attractive is what makes you enjoy the game? I guess you can't enjoy a racing game unless you're eyeing up the rear pipe? Not judging, just sayin'.
No combat? I coulda swore I killed 25 enemies in the last hour I played. Sounds like you only like pew pew pew nonstop. Yawn.
"There is no combat" You haven't played Hellblade.
Why does every protagonist need to be generically "hot"? Lmao For $30, it's quite the game. Normally you'd be paying $60 for a lesser game. $30 for 7 hours of quality content is a deal to me. Plus it looks great on my newly built PC. Win-win for me.
It's probably the best looking game released. Debuts character model is insanely detailed.
'the main character is hideously repulsive. ' I don't think so but even if it was true WTH? You only play games you find the character attractive? Ridiculous Comment of the day here. 'gamers' these days haha
So why do I have to play with something that looks like a cross between a goblin and a mutated rat? http://i.imgur.com/NI8nLai.... Look at that thing, how is anyone supposed to play as that creature? Am I obligated to play the game if I dont like the game?
What do you mean by repulsive? Looks? Personality? If it's looks, then well....OK, not sure why that makes it a bad game. Personality? Well, that's kind of the point of the game's story isn't it? There is combat. It's just not every step you take where you're bombarded by mobs of enemies. The combat itself is designed well, and functions for what I'd expect from a lower budget game. Because of all this, I'm not sure how it's hurting video games at all. It may not be helping it, but it'd take a much higher profile game to actually hurt video games, and even then, it's usually just the crap business decisions which surround it which are truly hurtful (COD for instance, although that's subjective). Video games will be fine. Stop being so melodramatic.
Both? Senua is a mentally deranged retard, and looks like a filthy goblin, that is not something you want to play as. The combat is so barebones that it is in insulting to players. Can you jump? Change weapons? There is nothing like that.
'how is anyone supposed to play as that creature? ' Too bad if her look bothers you man. It's your right but don't blame others if it's a problem for you. For my part I'm looking forward to playing as Yoda in the next SWBF haha
I think she's hot.. just saying
Can't believe people agreed with your nonsense
A studio deciding to ditch publisher and making a AAA quality game for 30$ and not being laden with dlcs and microyransactions is hurting the industry? Well ok then. Even if you dont like the game you gotta appreciate what theyve accomplished on a technical level here. Hopefully other smaller studios follow the same business model business.model they have, well lrovided it has worked put for Ninja Theory
For me, Hellblade rocks! Senua is hot as hell! There's more than enough combat for me, coz I prioritize story, realistic animation of the human form & immersion over gameplay. This game is of such high quality and low cost that its the right direction for the gaming industry.
It looks just stunning. This is why I love games and still after over 30 years still find it interesting.
Hellblade may be great but don't pretend like reducing gameplay is pushing the medium forward. How backwards and ignorant do you have to be to say something like that? If you want superior storytelling then read a book.
While I appreciate your opinion, there is something unique and dynamic about story telling through video games. Unlike Shock who clearly never played the game due to his comment about no combat. It does have its place to push the industry and medium forward. It's not pushin every aspect of the industry forward but it is paving way for hopefully some larger companies or maybe a sequel to really shine. The game itself isn't about the combat, but even the the combat is very nice, I found myself learning new moves throughout the entire experience. Just last night I saw an animation wen she literally hacked one of the enemies to death, 4 hits one after another before plunging her sword into his heart and ripping it out. (Sword not the heart). It represent psychosis in a way no other medium has really be able to show, sAve Spec ops the line. And honestly I don't think books, or tv or movies can really show it the way an interactive game can. The voices were responding to what I chose to do or not do. That is something that only gaming can achieve and TV movies and books will only dream of. Unless RL STEIN bring back a choose your own adventure book about psychosis
That's different though. Dynamic storytelling where the story actually changes and revolves around your actions will push the medium forward and it can only be done in games. That's revolutionary next level stuff and the only thing that even comes close is the nemesis system in shadows of mordor. It's very rare at this point because it is insanely difficult to do. Let's be honest though, that's not what this is. Having 2 lines of dialogue to play if you do "action a" or "action b" isn't dynamic storytelling. I don't see heavily scripted cinematic storytelling as pushing the medium forward, I see it as pushing the medium into a different medium. I'm fine with cinematic games existing I just find it annoying when people say it's some revolutionary new way to make games, like it's the future. When and if that future comes I will stop playing games.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I think the strength (and the whole purpose) of games is interactivity. Without any interesting interactivity, you'd just be better off making a movie. It would be a better medium for what you are trying to accomplish. So yes, implementing actual fun gameplay should always be a priority. However, Sometimes I play games like Uncharted where there's a great world and great characters, but all those third person cover-shooter segments feel INSANELY dull, repetitive and just straight-up out of place. You've got Drake who is the fun charismatic hero but he's literally genociding his way through the game by killing hundreds of generic soldiers from behind a concrete block. This sort of thing feels unnecessary and it holds the game back. It's just filler. It feels like the devs added that aspect to the game just because they think the HAVE to; not because it's a good idea. Now that doesn't mean that I think Uncharted should become a narrative game like Life Is Strange or something. It's not even an anti-violence statement either. There's all sorts of violence going on in my ideal game concepts. I'm just saying they should rethink about their gameplay a little bit and make it more compelling. Take more risks. Don't just give people/fans what they want; they actually don't know what's best for them most of the time.
Talk about Ludonarrative disonance... Drake killing mercenaries is no different from killing aliens in any other game or even people in CoD, Tomb Raider, GTA, and even killing Goombas in Mario. I don't Understand why this is only an issue with Uncharted to some people... Nowhere the game told you he was saint, but he cracks jokes and is charismatic so if he kills it is wrong? Since the beginning of the game, we have been roleplaying as a treasure hunter in a modern pirate world full with treasure, danger, and mercenaries. I am sure that is an easy concept to grasp. The combat in Uncharted doesn't hold anything back. That is actually the fun part of the game and where the gameplay is at, aside from the platforming and puzzles. And yet, Uncharted GA had a more exploration aproach which I very much enjoyed, but many people missed the combat. Uncharted 4 balanced things out when it came to enemy spawns and some people say it has less combat and set pieces than the last game.
Thing is story through gameplay is a long way away and the ones thinking about it are definitely not the bigger companies/ devs/ publishers, it's the relatively smaller devs who don't have much resources who are having ambition. Watch Ken Levine's GDC 2014 speech, story telling through gameplay means making a huge network system of various AI's that will have different kinds of behaviors, unlike the ones found in modern games. A few developers who really want to pushing gaming as a medium for story telling are Ken levine, Warren Spector etc.... Most other 'story centred' devs just want to make movie games.
Yes, exactly. Levine is easily my favorite game writer it's not even close. That speech you mention "narrative legos" is exactly what I'm talking about. It blew my mind when I watched it. That kind of thinking and ambition is what will push the medium forward. I can't wait for ghost story games first game with the dynamic narrative. Easily my most anticipated unannounced game.
It is better to do a lot of what you do well, than try to do everything and fail to deliver on portions of it. A game that doesn't need certain mechanics should never have those mechanics, because they become a distraction and begin to take attention and value away from what the creators of the game wanted to get across.
If you're trying to make a game based solely on story and you don't want any gameplay mechanics distracting players from the story then that's fine. I'm talking about these people pretending that it's pushing the medium forward because it's obviously not, it's going backwards actually.
I dunno. In this game, the amount of game play(by which I assume you mean fighting) seems to fit in well with what they were trying to achieve. It's a short game too, so obviously less chances for encounters, as they seemed to focus in more on the story aspects of the character, while building that atmosphere to go with it. To me, this is the kind of game you play for the experience, not to just have mindless fun with all sorts of game play elements thrown in with the kitchen sink. It's not trying to redefine game play mechanics, it's trying to deliver an experience. I don't think this game pushes the medium forward due to lack of combat, I think it pushes things forward due to how it's presented. It probably won't push forward game play going forward, but it can be looked at as a good example of how a good story and atmosphere can be used to draw the player into an immersive world. That being said, I don't think the lowered number of combat scenarios holds back gaming in anyways. Overall, I'd say this game is moving things forward more than back, because game play itself isn't a place where a lot of games are lacking nowadays, but story presentation is, and if devs can take inspiration from it, then that can move things forward. Obviously, how that works in an individual game play scenario will be up to each dev.
I wasn't specifically talking about combat or this game. I was talking about gameplay in general. What I got out of this was "less gameplay is pushing the medium forward", it sounds like an oxymoron. Even if you tell a great story in your game that is immersive and all that, are you really pushing the medium forward when you sacrifice gameplay to tell that story? I would have to say no but you can disagree if you want. I don't have a personal opinion on this game in particular as I was just speaking in general about the medium. I bought hellblade 2 days ago but I was waiting for my weed brownies before I jumped into it. I got my headset all charged up and I'm diving in tonight.
Hellblade is great, but if there was no combat it would just be another walking sim... I love the theme and setting, but no way would it be better if they took the combat out.
The ending alone wouldn't have been as impactful had the taken combat out. God I lasted about an hour just on that last fight, so many enemies.
Thank you thats what im saying it is a walking sim with just a bit of puzzle and combat added in.
I've been enjoying it so far. Without combat it would just be another Dear Esther or EGTTR - not knocking these games, EGTTR is a fantastic, emotional experience. The combat does appear to be there for story reasons though and I've interpreted it as Senua fighting her inner demons. Without it, I doubt it would have been a better game.
The combat in Hellblade is pretty simple but it feels really nice and looks great.
I knew from the beginning that some players were going to be displeased with the lack of combat in this game. Ninja theory were very straight forward however if you got a chance to read their game informer interview that this was by design. I'm enjoying it so far but can understand the frustration for those expecting more.
I just completed it last night and i have to say i don't understand all thease 9/10 reviews. Its basically a walking sim with a bit puzzle and combat thrown in. No way in hell is it a 9/10 a 6/10 maybe. Graphis and voice actiong are good i give it that. But i think all the high scores are only because it deals with Mental Health issues, just like the gay issues Gome Home covered to get its high score too.
Speak for yourself, I found it incredibly immersive thanks to the audio and atmosphere, as did most of the reviewers who liked it.. Its not for everyone, but to say it scored high just because it deals with mental health is straight up ignorant.
might be ignorant but also the truth.
no its not
@gamesmaster I didn't knoqnyour real name was Tameen, you know the guy who is the director of this game. Did you do any of the development for this game because if not. There is no truth behind that statement. Only ones perceived truth
I gotta be honest, I wanted this game until I watched it being played. It looks like all you really do is run around solving puzzles with the occasional fight. I could be wrong but I watched close to an hour and that's pretty much what I saw. Looks like it's a good game but just not my cup of tea unfortunately. I like lots of combat in these types of games.
cant we just say its a good game and leave it at that?
There's plenty of combat in the game. It just isn't balanced very well between a few areas.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.