Mercenaries 2:World in Flames

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-09-04 10:27pm

Andrew_Fireborn wrote:No splitscreen, personally I blame Microsoft & EA.

How does this make any sense? You think that Microsoft deliberately told a developer they couldn't put in split screen multiplayer?

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-09-04 10:44pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:
Andrew_Fireborn wrote:No splitscreen, personally I blame Microsoft & EA.
How does this make any sense? You think that Microsoft deliberately told a developer they couldn't put in split screen multiplayer?

They didn't deliberately do it, as far as I know, but they won't complain. It follows the logic of "If two people need to buy a copy to play multiplayer with each other, then we get money from two copies". Cracked had it in an article a while ago as the reason why games stopped including split-screen. That's mainly why I prefer Left 4 Dead: It has full split-screen and bot support.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2008-09-04 10:59pm

chitoryu12 wrote:They didn't deliberately do it, as far as I know, but they won't complain. It follows the logic of "If two people need to buy a copy to play multiplayer with each other, then we get money from two copies". Cracked had it in an article a while ago as the reason why games stopped including split-screen. That's mainly why I prefer Left 4 Dead: It has full split-screen and bot support.

That's why Halo 3 didn't have 4 player splitscreen, right? Same with Call of Duty 4, Forza 2, etc. I don't know how resource intensive Mercs is but it's totally possible that it's just too much for the 360 to render twice.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-09-05 03:20pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:
chitoryu12 wrote:They didn't deliberately do it, as far as I know, but they won't complain. It follows the logic of "If two people need to buy a copy to play multiplayer with each other, then we get money from two copies". Cracked had it in an article a while ago as the reason why games stopped including split-screen. That's mainly why I prefer Left 4 Dead: It has full split-screen and bot support.
That's why Halo 3 didn't have 4 player splitscreen, right? Same with Call of Duty 4, Forza 2, etc. I don't know how resource intensive Mercs is but it's totally possible that it's just too much for the 360 to render twice.

I don't think so. I've seen barely any lag from just rendering the game.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-09-07 05:08pm

Online reviewers seem to be overwhelmingly panning this game. For the next-gen versions they say it's buggy, glitchy, and shallow. It has difficult control, terrible voice acting, a boring story, dull and inconsistent graphics (explosions being the one beautiful exception), a giant world full of nothing to do, repetitive missions, repetitive combat, repetitive characters, little challenge, and poorly balanced weapons. On the last charge, they generally say that explosions are lacking in splash damage and guns in stopping power, apparently sometimes it's easier and more efficient to just walk up to enemy soldiers and beat them to death. In short, they say this game is clearly unfinished, disappointing, and gets old after a while.

For the PS2 version they basically say it's the previous game but with crappier voice acting, mission structure, world design, and general originality. In other words, the they took no steps forward and some steps back. Graphics and animations are exactly the same as the old game, with some retexturing and several new models. It does appear to be less buggy than the next-gen versions, though, since I haven't seen any complaints about that. I wager that means it's probably exactly as buggy as the last game.

The one exception is the Game Revoltion review. This is no surprise, GR is full of wankers, however it is a good read in and of itself, I enjoyed it, so I'm linking to it anyway. Do note it's exactly the same for all versions of the game.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-09-08 08:21am

I will give my own firsthand review of this game - as Stark and the other Chatizens can attest, I was not only perfectly willing to forgive quite a bit with this game, as I am an unabashed Mercenaries fangirl, but I was also looking for it to be the best thing since air.

Now that I have set the tone, let's deux this.

Let's talk about graphics. First of all, I want to be certain that it is 2008 *checks outlook* hmm...yep. *checks driver's license, counts on fingers 'Yep, I'm thirty...1978 plus 30 = 2008* Cool. Now that we've established that it is definitely 2008, why are we releasing a title with 2003 level graphics and calling it next gen? I will talk about 2 things in particular, the ground and the water. now, I'm not ultra familiar with grphics terms and fancy technical stuff, but I know when something looks like shit. I look at the ground in this game and it really appears as if they took a tile from Halo CE and just cloned it over and over, copy+pasting all over the entire world, which I could forgive, maybe if they had done so in a sufficiently high resolution as to make it look bad, but not horrible. But they apparently nicked it from a 1988 amiga monitor with 16 colors, streeeeeeeeeeetched out the tile and THEN pasted it.

Let's bash the water now. You know how the water effects are REALLY good in Bioshock? Or, like, Half Life 2 ep. 2? Let's go back to a time when those did not exist. In fact, lets go back to Wave Race 64. It's not as good as Wave Race 64. Oh, don't get me wrong, they tried. I think they tried by pasting a semi-transparent, semi-reflective layer on top of Wave Race's water. Maybe. Then they paint a little froth around the object, whatever it happens to be (MS paint-style) to show how cutting-edge it is. Also, WHAT PHYICS?! LOLONEONELOLNENENEshift+oneeleven

More later - - - - -

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2008-09-08 01:52pm

I have to echo Chardok on the graphics. I haven't played it, but I got to watch it being played on a 360 for quite awhile, and the graphics were horrible. Absolute shit. They were better than N64 graphics, but I would say not quite as good as the PS2 can have, and all this on a "next-gen" system.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-09-08 07:45pm

I've seen game play videos and thought the problem with the graphics was art direction rather than quality or technical sophistication. More to the point, while the technical sophistication isn't that great, I've never given a shit about that, I play 10 year old games which I still think look gorgeous despite being composed of blocky models and blurry textures. Causing a frame-rate murdering explosion in, say, Perfect Dark, is still cause for smiling like a fool and laughing like the Joker. So the fact that the graphics don't look next-gen isn't really the problem, and in any case, it was probably never going to look like contemporary games for the simple reason that the game world is too fucking huge, the first game didn't look as good as other PS2 titles for that same reason. Anyway, the real problem with Mercenaries 2's graphics is that they look uninspired, dull, and boring. The art direction is clearly half-assed, and shitty art is still shitty art even in the highest definition and most sophisticated renders.

That is why when I buy the game, I'm getting the PS2 version, at least there I know that I'm getting a retextured Playground of Destruction with not quite as good mission design and structure.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-09-08 08:54pm

Rubbish. Making a huge gameworld is a challenge for streaming technology, not an excuse for PS2-level graphics. While poor graphics aren't terrible in themselves, releasing a sequel years later that appears to use the same engine as the previous game is funny as hell. It took them until DW6 to finally update the engine for 360 as well, and the series is rightly lampooned for it.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2008-09-08 10:11pm

Stark wrote:Rubbish. Making a huge gameworld is a challenge for streaming technology, not an excuse for PS2-level graphics. While poor graphics aren't terrible in themselves, releasing a sequel years later that appears to use the same engine as the previous game is funny as hell. It took them until DW6 to finally update the engine for 360 as well, and the series is rightly lampooned for it.

Meh, I don't know much about computer games, just that the quality of the graphics always seems to be directly proportional to the size of the game world. I do agree that the so called "next-gen" version isn't worth, as released, the $60 next-gen price tag.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2008-09-09 12:36am

My issue with the game is it is a buggy piece of shit.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2008-09-09 08:29am

Xon wrote:My issue with the game is it is a buggy piece of shit.

And here is part 2.

Now, I will, as I said before, forgive a lot. I'm understanding, making a game ain't easy. But when you rape me - then I get butthurt. UNACCEPTABLE.

If the gameplay was awesome, or the story engrossing, or even if the voice acting was good, I could maybe let the graphics slide. If this was Grand Theft Auto: North Korea again, I would let the graphics slide. But the gameplay is not even worthy of previous generation consoles. It is shallow and completely unfun. the weapons are horribly inaccurate (hmm....LMG or uzi, LMG or Uzi? Oh, I think I'll pick the Uzi because the LMG fires one round every two seconds and does exactly the same damage while the uzi is a tiny little buzzsaw.)

Also: Killing enemies via melee is always preferable to shooting them IRL. NOT. Come on! Every single weapon in this game with the possible exception of RPG's is completely useless outside 50 yards. when I have to shoot an entire clip of M16 ammo just to hit an enemy ONCE when he's 100 yards away is UNACCEPTABLE.

And another thing - there are so many bugs in this game is makes me feel like I'm testing a VERY early beta version. For instance: if you mark one of the many magically respawning resources (read: RACKS OF BOMBS AND PALETTES OF MONEY) for your helo pilot to snag, toss the smoke to mark it, then tag another resource while he is enroute, what do you think happens? Does he return later? Maybe nothing happens? WRONG. IT MAKES THE SECOND RESOURCE YOU TAGGED DISAPPEAR. UN-AC-CEPTABLE. Are you fucking kidding me? NOBODY in the legions of testers marked a resource while the helicopter was enroute to pick up a different resource? REALLY?! FUCKING REALLY?! I'm the first in HUNDREDS TO THINK OF THAT?! did everyone else go "Oh, dear, he's already picking one up, I'd better not mess with any other resources!"

BULL

FUCKING

SHIT.

And that's just me. If you check out the Mercs boards, there are HOARDS of people screeching for a patch JUST TO MAKE THE GAME PLAYABLE. EA's response? I'll post it here:

EA wrote: .

And

EA wrote: .

Bra-fucking-vo.

In closing, don't waste your time with this game, don't even waste a rental, it's easily the shittiest game ever released on any of the next-gens, and I would say previous gen, but there's always Azurik: Rise of Perathia, so meh.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2008-09-09 09:37am

Chardok wrote:Also: Killing enemies via melee is always preferable to shooting them IRL. NOT. Come on! Every single weapon in this game with the possible exception of RPG's is completely useless outside 50 yards. when I have to shoot an entire clip of M16 ammo just to hit an enemy ONCE when he's 100 yards away is UNACCEPTABLE.

I went straight for the sniper rifle and anti-materiel rifle right off the bat since I liked those in the first game, so I didn't notice this really. So it's not just the AK that's inaccurate?

For instance: if you mark one of the many magically respawning resources (read: RACKS OF BOMBS AND PALETTES OF MONEY) for your helo pilot to snag, toss the smoke to mark it, then tag another resource while he is enroute, what do you think happens? Does he return later? Maybe nothing happens? WRONG. IT MAKES THE SECOND RESOURCE YOU TAGGED DISAPPEAR.

Are you sure? I was almost positive you got both items after he picked up the first one. I know that's what happens if you tag multiple ones before you call him, too.

The problem I'm having is with the first real Chinese mission. I have to rescue a guy from the top of a tower, but before I can take out all the SAMs either the allies accidentally blow the whole place up trying to kill me or he'll just randomly fall off the building. True story.

Also, helicopters are far too explosive. I had trouble with the oil rig mission, too, since a single helicopter crash would take out the entire thing every single time.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2008-09-09 05:45pm

He picks them both up on my game I know that much.

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2008-09-09 06:11pm

To add on, Bonersgames.com is doing this game right now, and I can see on his videos that Ewan does pick up both. No resources disappear.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2008-09-09 06:29pm

chitoryu12 wrote:To add on, Bonersgames.com is doing this game right now, and I can see on his videos that Ewan does pick up both. No resources disappear.

Well, in effect the resource does disappear without Ewan ever touching it.

It's just it disappears right into your inventory.

I do agree that the rifles are stupidly inaccurate. Although the AN & PRC rifles are much more accurate. It doesn't excuse the first bullet not being exactly where you're shooting on the rifles...

It's also greatly annoying that field repair & reload for vehicles was either taken out, or reserved for a DLC pack. (Alot of folks who're fine with the game as is have said they'd be greatly PO'd at EA if that happens.)

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2008-09-09 08:18pm

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: The problem I'm having is with the first real Chinese mission. I have to rescue a guy from the top of a tower, but before I can take out all the SAMs either the allies accidentally blow the whole place up trying to kill me or he'll just randomly fall off the building. True story.

That mission was somewhat difficult. My approach was to take the Warsong Chinese chopper armed with eight ATGMs, fly in, and take out the AA. Pulling it off is less trivial than it sounds, however. For the first two (closest to the river), try to fly in low and launch as soon as you get a lock. For the third, you can take cover behind the high-rises, peek out, then launch. You can also try to dodge missiles, but it's a pain in the ass in a head-on engagement. Once they're done, fly around and strafe the adjacent rooftops to clear out any remaining grunts with RPGs and Stingers. You can then gun down the guards of the primary target, and safely land.

Another mission I had trouble with was the one to destroy Allied buildings in Caracas, near the end. For the main strike role, the free strikes provided were crap, so rocket artillery was best. I bought a bunch of combat air patrols, because enemy helicopters armed with AAMs were a huge problem. I then took a helicopter, landed on the roof of the nearest skyscraper to one of the targets, launched a CAP to take out the goddamned Cobras, called in the strike (via satellite, so it was easy), and moved on to the next one. Unfortunately, my helicopter was destroyed after the second target, and I couldn't get one delivered to the rooftop. This forced me to jump off and take cover below, and repeat the strikes. Leaving the area was accomplished by jacking an APC. To finally nab Joyce, I cleared out the area surrounding the Alliance HQ with another half dozen rocket strikes. After that, I just walked in and punched him in the jaw.

I found helicopters to be extremely useful; most of my income was spent on buying large stocks of them, to use on practically every mission. They have each have comparative advantages.

The UP Rogue Assassin is probably best for the anti-personnel role, with its 6000 minigun rounds. It's also agile enough such that dodging AA missiles is practical.

The PLAV helicopter with dual miniguns is good to exploit by loading it up with guerrillas that will shoot for you, and thus not piss off any other faction you may be operating against (particularly good for HVT kills).

The pirates' Anaconda is very durable and has 80 rockets, good for destroying buildings and such. It has 4 ATGMs, in case you encounter some SAMs that must be destroyed.

The Chinese Warsong is fairly rounded, with a decent quantity of rockets, ATGMs, and shells. I found myself using this one most often near the end of the game, as its maneuverability was a fair advantage.

Peptuck · Post by **Peptuck** » 2008-09-09 09:31pm

So, this time around you have more anti-AN missions?

Do you still get penalized for killing AN troops in this game?

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2008-09-09 09:53pm

They are more like a "normal" faction, since you can get your end-game Nuke from either them or China and since everyone sells airstrikes, there is no need to keep them happy.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2008-09-10 11:32am

Peptuck wrote:Do you still get penalized for killing AN troops in this game?

If the Chinese like you, you get a $50k bonus for every one you kill. I've racked up a few million just from that in my several attempts to complete this one mission.

Edit: Finally completed that mission. The key, apparently, is to take the bridge farthest away that is also guarded by an Abrams. It's the only way to be able to reach all the SAMs before giving the guy a chance to jump off the skyscraper roof.

Also, a bug no one else has mentioned yet: for large, seemingly random, chunks of time, neither crouching nor looking through binoculars/the scope zooms the camera in at all.

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2008-09-10 02:09pm

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Edit: Finally completed that mission. The key, apparently, is to take the bridge farthest away that is also guarded by an Abrams.

It's not actually guarded, lol. If you steal a Chinese APC, you can quickly drive in and mow down Allied troops before they have a chance to enter the tank. Then, you can just take it.

It's the only way to be able to reach all the SAMs before giving the guy a chance to jump off the skyscraper roof.

I tried the ground strategy many times, all of which failed. Switching to the helicopter approach described above resulted in success after only a few attempts.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2008-09-10 02:18pm

Well, I suck at not being hit by missiles when piloting helicopters, so it was the only way for me.

nickolay1 · Post by **nickolay1** » 2008-09-10 11:21pm

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:Well, I suck at not being hit by missiles when piloting helicopters, so it was the only way for me.

It's easier with a small helicopter, but the trick for that mission was to fly in low and kill the SAMs before they even had a chance to launch.

Andrew_Fireborn · Post by **Andrew_Fireborn** » 2008-09-11 03:46am

Heh, on that one... I took the AN Helo in, and winched out the SAMs under disguise. Apparently, airdropping them into the river isn't a hostile act.

Then I went and methodically picked off the guys on the roofs. (This was about my fifth attempt when I learned that winching stuff doesn't break disguise.

Pulp Hero · Post by **Pulp Hero** » 2008-09-11 08:54am

HA. Thats fantastic, I never thought of winching enemy emplacements!