inFamous 2

[J-Clutch1]

Re: inFamous 2

Wow! Looks very good.

[Flawless]

Re: inFamous 2

Same gameplay footage, but direct-feed.

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ha4mUawS_os?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ha4mUawS_os?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>

[DickDalewood]

Re: inFamous 2

Anyone else notice that Cole never had to recharge his powers? I wonder if they did away with that...

Interesting if they did, as I thought it added a bit of strategy to the first game, although I wouldn't really complain if they did either, lol.

In fact, in this video there is nothing on screen at all, so perhaps this was just something they did for demo purposes?

[Eman5805]

Re: inFamous 2

Cole drained a car once during the fight with the Akrid. I mean giant bug.

Why just make this new Cole look a little like the old Cole? Either go back to the old Cole all the way or stay with the new one. Don't toe the middle. It'll only continue to tick off the fans.

[rudyjuly2]

Re: inFamous 2

Why just make this new Cole look a little like the old Cole? Either go back to the old Cole all the way or stay with the new one. Don't toe the middle. It'll only continue to tick off the fans.

I personally don't care what Cole looks like. I can't see anyone altering their decision to buy this game based on what Cole looks or sounds like.

I love the ability to pick up cars and throw them at things. That will be fun.

[Candyman5]

Re: inFamous 2

Idk if im in the Minority here on this or not but I can care less how the character looks as long as I like the gameplay manchanics.

For example: If it was like Barbies Shooting revenge with great shooting manchanics and lots of stuff to do....:wink:

[Blzer]

Re: inFamous 2

I personally don't care what Cole looks like. I can't see anyone altering their decision to buy this game based on what Cole looks or sounds like.

Biggest reason I didn't look further into The Bourne Conspiracy was because he didn't resemble Matt Damon.

[DickDalewood]

Re: inFamous 2

^ Lol, I gotta be honest blzer, if you're willing to miss out on what looks to be an even better experience than an already great game just because the character looks slightly different, I'd say you're taking this all a little too far/seriously.

[CaptainZombie]

Re: inFamous 2

Biggest reason I didn't look further into The Bourne Conspiracy was because he didn't resemble Matt Damon.

^ Lol, I gotta be honest blzer, if you're willing to miss out on what looks to be an even better experience than an already great game just because the character looks slightly different, I'd say you're taking this all a little too far/seriously.

LOL! Yeah, I agree.......

[rudyjuly2]

Re: inFamous 2

Biggest reason I didn't look further into The Bourne Conspiracy was because he didn't resemble Matt Damon.

Blame Matt Damon for that one. He thought the game was too violent. And that was a fun game and you should pick it up really cheap. It's an extremely linear game that pushes you constantly in one direction but you do feel like Bourne. I really enjoyed it.

[Blzer]

Re: inFamous 2

^ Lol, I gotta be honest blzer, if you're willing to miss out on what looks to be an even better experience than an already great game just because the character looks slightly different, I'd say you're taking this all a little too far/seriously.

Oh I played the game (the demo and my friend owns it), but I never wanted to purchase it. Not only because Matt Damon's portrayal wasn't in it, but that was like the "last straw" kind of reason.

And I never said that I was blaming the game developers for not including him, I'm just saying that without him it does not feel the same.



EDIT: I realize this is a late edit, but I want to put what I mean into perspective. Let's say The Beatles: Rock Band comes out, right? I mean it's a fine game in the music genre, as it has many classic Beatles hits which everyone loves and can now play on Rock Band like any of the other titles out there. But where is the valor in this game? I'd say it's in the authentic feel that the game presents.

Let's say that, instead of Lennon, McCartney, Starr, and Harrison you have four random characters:





Now let's say that all venues have zero significance to or tie-ins with the Beatles and/or the 60s. No, let's take it one step further. Let's say that all songs are covers. Not only are they covers, but they aren't even necessarily covers which are to portray the classic songs and they have a more modern rock style to them. They don't necessarily need to, but let's just say what if?

Would you shell out 60 bones for this game? I mean it shouldn't matter, right? After all, you're playing Beatles songs with the intricacies delivered by a very excelling company and franchise name. You're playing Rock Band, what's the big deal? Right? Some people may agree... that this actually would be a sell for them. However others, especially the OS members on here that purchased the game, would more than likely pass on such a title.

Now you may be thinking that I'm hitting some extremes here, because I'm comparing an entire game base to a Matt Damon character appearance and voice-over change. Not only that, but Bourne is originally a novel franchise which was later adapted into a film, and even then it is still all fiction whereas The Beatles are truly existential. But am I really making such a ridiculous comparison? I mean, the whole point of my argument (which I actually had deliberately settled in another thread) is that authenticity often times means more to me than anything else. If their intent and sell for me is based on what I have grown up with or am most accustomed to, that will more than likely be my greatest justification for deciding on a purchase.

Prime example, many people here know that I am a huge fan of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Christopher Nolan is a cinematographic genius and his portrayal of the characters as well as the surrounding environments sway me. But I'll be honest, I was never a fan of any other Batman before that. Not Burton's Batman, not Schumacher's Batman, hell not even Kane's Batman or any other movie, TV show, or comic book iterations/adaptations created in the Batman world. The only Batman I have thus far ever shown any interest in, even after having seen both BB and TDK, is Nolan's Batman. That being said, Batman: Arkham Asylum is a terrific game (gameplay-wise) and follows a unique storyline which is more indicative of a previous Batman iteration that not only am I not accustomed to, but that I am not very fond of. The storyline itself is probably fantastic, the characters are probably well done, and the gameplay like I said is stellar (I played the demo and the final version when my friend bought it). But because of the fact that I don't really ever buy SP games for their little lasting appeal and that Batman and Gotham have an appearance that I would not prefer in terms of authenticity, it was pretty easy for me to pass up on what I am sure was probably the best game of last year.

Many people here probably cannot say the same thing, maybe because you are a huge fan of the classic Batman being revived or what have you, but "authenticity" in a form beknownst to me personally is the single most important thing when I'm playing a game that is based on or adapted from something that I have experienced for myself. In this case, a Bourne game without Matt Damon is just a generic game with a label attached to it. To put things more simply, if the game was just called "Conspiracy" and had no tie-ins to Bourne whatsoever, not only would the gameplay itself not be at all attractive to me (not quite a fan of those games), but I don't think this game would be attractive to most other members here either. I really don't think I'm passing up on a good game in that regard.

Let's have a Family Guy video game without Peter Griffin (and Seth MacFarlane V.O.), let's have a Die Hard movie without Bruce Willis, let's have a Madden game without skating (see what I did there?). If they made Uncharted into a movie and Will Smith played Nathan Drake, the appeal wouldn't be the same you see? I'm not speaking on behalf of the quality of the adaptation (which is ultimately important as well), I'm speaking on behalf of our accustoms to said adaptation. You can slap a label on whatever you want, but if it doesn't meet authenticity's standards you can more than likely count me out.

What did this have to do with inFamous 2, by the way?

[Eman5805]

Re: inFamous 2

I wish the combat was a little deeper in that game. Got repetitive towards the end.

[mgoblue]

Re: inFamous 2

I wish the combat was a little deeper in that game. Got repetitive towards the end.

I'm enjoying it (just picked it up Sunday for the holiday) and cleared the first island last night (all side missions, etc) and I'm on the 2nd one now. It's pretty fun, but I could see how it'd be somewhat repetitive by the end.

Now I'm looking forward to the sequel though, should be great. Shouldn't have skipped this but I played Prototype first and wasn't in the mood for a similar game...

[CaptainZombie]

Re: inFamous 2

I received the free exclusive theme over the weekend from Sony for Infamous 2, did anyone else get the email?

[mgoblue]

Re: inFamous 2

Beat the game last night, really fun game.

I look forward to whatever they do for the sequel, will be interesting to see new powers and whatnot.

I may have to play through as someone evil though, cause the powers change a bit and there are the other evil missions...hmmm, this game gives you more of a reason to play through twice.