Red Faction Armegeddon maxed out with the FOV mod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbEVNtYsxvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hudyw5w_sTU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbEVNtYsxvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hudyw5w_sTU
Please don't tell me the whole game is that dark.
Why is this a reason to game on PC?
FPS's played from the third person are dumb.
From what I've seen of it so far (360 version, I played about two hours) it really is dark most of the time, just like in the linked videos. I've never owned the previous one, Red Faction: Guerrilla, but from what my cousin tells me (he's the 360 owner, he bought Armageddon but he also bought Guerrilla last year I think) it's still a much better game anyway (Guerrilla being much better), since most of it happens outdoor and despite the fact that the environment is mostly tinted in red you can actually see where you're going and what's happening.
The thing is that most of Armageddon, if not all of it (at least from what I've played) happens underground, so the actual game's setting/context kind of forces things to be dark, still... they (developers) could have added some more lights around. I for one don't really like the game overall anyway, yes the destruction is pleasing to look at, but there's not much purpose to do it, I mean structures do blow up here and there but I wasn't doing it on purpose, there's no viable (from what I've seen) game-play elements linked to the destructibility of the environments (finding secret passageways, or just finding secret caches or easter eggs, or destroying a bridge to block the way of enemy reinforcements passing on it for instance or things like that, useful game-play aspects, there's nothing like that from what I can remember).
If I had to chose I'd go with Guerrilla even though I myself never played it per se, I saw it on videos, on the web, and just that is enough to convince me that Guerrilla is considerably better overall. But anyway, to me there's only one Red Faction game and it's the original which I own on Steam. That game was superb, a great Paul Verhoeven-styled story to back it up, and a couple of places where destruction of the environment actually meant that you could avoid future enemy encounters or find secret caches containing weapons that would otherwise never be found in the level had you not blow up that passageway. I never completed the sequel, and I do remember not liking it one bit. I still remember when Guerrilla was still under development and I first saw a game-play video, then I noticed it was a third-person game and I was pissed off. I never bought Guerrilla for that very reason, had it been a first-person game I would have bought it (still, I might have not liked it as much as the original anyway).
FPS's played from the third person are dumb.
Its probably a console port, or the developers are console fan boys, what do you expect?
Almost as dumb as people who don't know what a TPS is...
Almost as dumb as people who don't know what a TPS is...
have you heard of this thing called a console? they're for third person shooters because they help compromise the crappy gamepad controls.
third person with a mouse blows, so that pretty much kills this as 'a reason to game on PC'. then add in that it literally looks like an FPS with a guy pasted across half your screen, lacking any nuance to the perspective ala GoW or other modern console 'TPS's.
LOL nonsense, there's plenty of good TPS games on PC.
I don't know about that. There's the Mafia and Hitman games (and Tomb Raider if it can be called a TPS), but those games are well suited to that perspective. This looks like another crappy corridor shooter much like the original, and does not warrant it.