Section 8 "wasn't as accessible as it should have been"

GamerZines writes:

In an exclusive interview with GamerZines, TimeGate Studios' president Adel Chaveleh has listed the problems which he believed limited Section 8's success when it was released in 2009 and how Prejudice will be different.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
gamingdroid3795d ago

Accessibility wasn't the problem, it was the lack of fun and overall lack of good feeling controls....

maverick8783795d ago

Yep, was about to comment the same thing. I played this and just thought there we so many similar games doing it better.

WildArmed3795d ago (Edited 3795d ago )

The game was shit horrible. I couldn't bare stand playing it more than 10mins >.<

They have alot of issues to work out for their sequel

theEx1Le3795d ago

I enjoyed section 8 as much as i could, the premise for the game was excellent but very poorly executed. I like that the dev acknowledges that and is trying to make it better.

Fragger2k83795d ago

I don't know what the problem is that people have with the game. I personally thought it was pretty dang good. It may not be great, but it's still fun to play.

I'm looking forward to checking out Section 8 Prejudice. I just hope people will actually play it. =\


problem was it was to accessible, It had literal Auto Aim as a perk which could be used with snipers to 1 hit kill people......they basically had an aimbot as a perk which was just retarded.

Fragger2k83794d ago

That is basically the same exact thing that I said to my brother when I read this title, lol.

It's ridiculous for a game to have a built in aimbot, but I could deal with people using it in this game.. But now, for some reason they want to make the game even more simple for players to get kills.. I'm really sick of developers making their games completely noob friendly anymore.

I'm guessing they're probably wanting to go a more CoD route and aim the game/maps at campers so players can hide everywhere and put in 0 effort to get their kills. *sighs*

Hopefully I'm wrong.