Wolfenstein: The New Order annouced

I personally can't stand the disney animations. It scrambles any kind of tone or emotion you're trying to convey and all you're left with is a generic looking cartoon. Overall, it doesn't hurt RAGE that much because it doesn't *have* a tone, is devoid of emotion and has almost no atmosphere. There isn't much to ruin. For a more competent game though, I much prefer the subtlety of TNO's character animation than the "I AM AAAAAAAACTIIIIIIIIING" seen in RAGE and countless other places. You can call it stylized and I guess it is, but these days it's more the lazy school of generic cartoon animation than a bold choice or statement.

DooM_RO said:

Despite this, is it just me or are the villains in this game a bit underdeveloped? You never really get to see them. I kept getting the feeling that the game was originally supposed to be more than what we got.

This is one of the main reasons why I felt like we might get a sequel: Frau Engel actually had a more central role throughout the game than Deathshead and she actually survived. Plus, she would have her own motives for destroying the resistance after BJ killed Bubi.

Frau Engel was awesome ,very Wolfenstein-esque. I easily could have seen her and Deathshead as Wolf3D bosses. BTW, you don't have to kill Bubi, you can just leave him there.

Oh, and this was probably the inspiration for the Supersoldat
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120519174416/wolfenstein/es/images/3/32/Death_Knight.png

Shaviro said:

I personally can't stand the disney animations. It scrambles any kind of tone or emotion you're trying to convey and all you're left with is a generic looking cartoon. Overall, it doesn't hurt RAGE that much because it doesn't *have* a tone, is devoid of emotion and has almost no atmosphere. There isn't much to ruin. For a more competent game though, I much prefer the subtlety of TNO's character animation than the "I AM AAAAAAAACTIIIIIIIIING" seen in RAGE and countless other places. You can call it stylized and I guess it is, but these days it's more the lazy school of generic cartoon animation than a bold choice or statement.

If you're talking purely about body animations, I agree, it's better in TNO. Facial animations though are a huge issue for me in games. RAGE isn't any better but in my opinion it gets away with it because it's more 'cartoony' with body animations. More consistent. I'm not trying to defend it, just saying what I think. However TNO has better looking characters, better body animations... but facial animations are still very poor, which creates this uncanny valley effect for me. I look at the faces and they try to be realistic but they're not natural enough. Certain sequences are literally creepy to me. I'm more offended by the horrible facial animations in so many games than 'cartoony' body animations.

Shaviro said:

Overall, it doesn't hurt RAGE that much because it doesn't *have* a tone, is devoid of emotion and has almost no atmosphere. There isn't much to ruin.

All a matter of taste it seems. I can't remember any game which immersed me as much in its world as RAGE did. I was genuinely impressed by how its world managed to make you feel as if you were "there" without interferring with the shooter mechanics too much.

Touchdown said:

Body animations/Facial animations

I actually never thought about the two as distinct areas, but with this distinction I can definitely see where you're coming from. I still prefer the stiff facial animation and subtle body movement though. But "game characters" as a whole is an area that needs a lot of improvements. With the exception of a few titles, the rendering of skin etc. seems to have been stuck in plasticville for several years.

Patrol1985 said:

All a matter of taste it seems. I can't remember any game which immersed me as much in its world as RAGE did. I was genuinely impressed by how its world managed to make you feel as if you were "there" without interferring with the shooter mechanics too much.

Yeah of course. To each his own :)
Having a card from ATI at the time and having to restart the game every half hour or so didn't help the experience any either.

I rented this game for my ps3. It's to hard. I can't stand the fact that the enemy always seems to know exactly where you are once they're alerted. And they don't miss when they shoot. And they don't seem to stop shooting! The game is almost unfair. And I'm playing on bring me on difficulty. I've died a million times in this game.

Let me guess. Those autoshotgun nazis and the supersoldiers are tearing you a new one?

Screw this! I had to lower the difficulty to don't hurt me. It was just no fun. This is much better. This games normal mode is other games hard mode.

imp1979 said:

ps3

There's your problem.

Don't have a PC and don't have the money for an Xbox one or ps4. And the game does look like shit for the most part on the ps3. I hear it's much better on the new systems. Maybe one day, I'll see for myself.

It looks like a great game!

It's a great game but not fantastic. It could have been fantastic but I feel something happened during development. Not sure what.

I have a core i3 and a mid-range video card. gt440. Can it run the game at medium settings at least?

This is a reply to some of the Wolf stuff that has found its way into this thread. Although looking at it now it's more about game-related things in general rather than strictly TNO. Oh well.

Jaxxoon R said:

You know, like how the pause menu is rarely a canon part of the game's universe? Same thing applies for gameplay mechanics.

GoatLord said:

I think he was bothered by a mechanic that just seems too video game-y for its own good.

Gameplay mechanics and 'realism' collide very often but the point is to not shove that fact in the player's face. Especially in this situation. I mean, there's literally NO reason for substituting a regular weapon upgrade system with something as bizzare as a weapon magically upgrading itself after killing a certain number of enemies in a certain way. That's just asking for being nitpicked.

Think of something like food restoring health. Not realistic but it's ok when it doesn't happen all the time (Deus Ex or Shock2). It's basically "hey you can eat food, interactivity! And it also gives you a bit of health." But when the protagonist literally devours everything he comes in contact with (BioShock Infinite) then it's just silly.

This is actually a significant problem with the industry. Devs often struggle with merging gameplay with a realistic portrayal of the world. But what I absolutely hate is when they say "you know, it's a game, whatever" and then the silly stuff sticks out like a sore thumb. When they're not even trying to hide it that it's a game. I know it's a game! You don't have to remind me. Actually you should do the opposite.

GoatLord said:

I like the point about how the ridiculousness of the universe has to still make sense within that universe.

Internal consistency is something that I value a lot. I hate it when creators break their own rules. Again, some people will say "hey, there's magic in this world so why do you care about logic?" Well, just because something doesn't exist in our world (or at least we don't know about it) it doesn't mean there shouldn't be any logic behind it. If you establish that a wizard needs a wand and an incantation to cast a spell then I don't want to see people casting spells with their minds. You can establish any rules you want so... why not just have rules that you won't have to bend or break?

Generally I don't like it when people make an excuse that "oh it's not realistic so anything is valid." No it's not.

That coma thing in TNO is stupid. If the protagonist can survive all that action-movie mayhem, it's not enough to just throw a shrapnel at him. Have half of the damn castle fall on his ass. Yeah, a normal person would not survive but it's BJ. That would at least be something as over the top as what we experience during gameplay.

But this is a common problem in movies as well. Protagonists are often portrayed as superhumans... until the plot calls for drama. In that case suddenly their Invulnerability runs out and they're as fragile as every one of us. The 'because plot calls for it' thingy overwrites internal logic way too often.

Also too often in games it feels like the story and gameplay teams live in different buildings. In different cities. On different continents. It's like both do their job but nobody really pays attention to how everything will actually work together. Again, BioShock Infinite is another example of that, the gameplay feels like it was created for a different game.

Plasma Gun said:

The diary was Anya's ;-)

That's one of the things that confuse me. The diary hints that it was written by Anya but then why did she present it as Ramona's diary? Did she lie? If so then why? Found a [url=http://wolfenstein.wikia.com/wiki/Ramona's_diary]transcript[/url] and at the end she says: "Some of the things in this diary happened a long time ago. And some of them may have happened to me." It's like she's not sure about it. And didn't she say that the owner of the diary is dead? Finally, Anya that we meet seems fairly normal whereas the author of the diary... I don't know, the way that a 17-18 year old girl repeats "I learned this..." everytime is really weird.

Touchdown you might like The Old Blood then based on your complaints.

There are less cutscenes, more action