H.A.W.X.

[+FLOGGER23 2,792]

Based on this video looks arcade but it has nice cockpits....

 

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/tomclanc...t-view-movie-13

[Viper6 3]

I read the preview on gamespot and it is a arcade flight shooter which kills it for me. of course it looks great just as the 360 version of ace combat looks great, but for me, the arcade flight shooter does not appeal to me, 99 missiles, big giant boss planes?

[SGCSG1 0]

I read the preview on gamespot and it is a arcade flight shooter which kills it for me. of course it looks great just as the 360 version of ace combat looks great, but for me, the arcade flight shooter does not appeal to me, 99 missiles, big giant boss planes?

 

I'm hoping it will be something like 'U.S. Navy Fighters', which was not a serious sim, but was a lot of fun.

 

I'm also hoping it won't have unacceptable DRM, like limited installs, etc.

[+Julhelm 266]

I'm looking forward to this. Finally a decent jet-based actiongame for the pc that doesn't require a degree in switchology and a masters in modern avionics.

[Viper6 3]

I'm looking forward to this. Finally a decent jet-based actiongame for the pc that doesn't require a degree in switchology and a masters in modern avionics.

That is why I bought 3rd sims Realistic but no advanced degrees required

[JediMaster 451]

TK's sims are like USNF, actually. The spiritual successor, if you will. All radars basically the same aside from range, simple targeting commands, forgiving FMs, etc.

[Rodent 0]

Not requiring a hundred billion switches is one thing, but completely disregarding any laws of physics is another. The manouvers I have seen the planes perform in the trailer would tear the planes to pieces, and after performing those manouvers they accelerate away with what I figure must be 80G at least. Also the latest trailer showed what appeared to be a laser guided sidewinder blow up a tank. Of course it could just be the editing but it still does not bode well.

 

Does not Tom Clancy's name usually stand for at least some level of correctness? Everything I have seen so far shows for a complete disregard for just about everything.

 

 

Edit:

That came out a little bit more negative than I first intended. I don't have anything against arcade style gaming. I just don't think this should have the Tom Clancy name on it. I don't mind arcade style games, they can be quite fun. My own stance is I like something a bit more realistic more but there is nothing wrong with prefering Arcadey games. I just personally find that a decent sim holds my attention and interest a lot longer than a quick arcade fix.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Rodent

[gbnavy61 1]

Tried the demo. Very disappointing. If you like Ace Combat 6, that's pretty much what you're getting with HAWX (with a few extra planes). I'm NOT getting HAWX - don't care how many Tomcats are in it. It's the same cheesy physics and 1000-missile loadouts.

[SGCSG1 0]

I read on the official forum that if you go into 'cockpit' view, the game forces you into 'assisted flight' mode.

 

Sucks, eh?

 

I wonder if that's true even for the PC version, or is it just the console versions that are gimped?

 

This would be a deal-breaker for me.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

The comments made me chuckle a bit

 

would it be fun to play a game in which you can shoot your missiles only 4 times??

 

this game is seriously a revelation for combat air simulations

[MAKO69 186]

looks like a great arcade/shooter "SIM" (I use that loosley) game. It looks like it is going to be cool.

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

looks like a great arcade/shooter "SIM" (I use that loosley) game. It looks like it is going to be cool.

 

Yeah, me laughing at the comments was not a dig at the possible "fun factor"

[+Viggen 516]

I am going to say this as loosly as possible, but one of the older Ace Combats, 04 Shattered Skies (Distant Thunder in EU), perhaps had better physics than HAWX. Atleast in Ace Combat I can't do a Cobra or Kulbit in an F-16.

[Rodent 0]

H.A.W.X. Physics are about as realistic as the driving physics of the Outrun 2 arcade. I would not call this a sim at all. It is an action game with airplanes. I doubt anyone would call Outrun a driving sim but as soon as aircraft are involved its apparently a simulator

[jomni 6]

Does not Tom Clancy's name usually stand for at least some level of correctness? Everything I have seen so far shows for a complete disregard for just about everything.

 

Strating from GRAW... every game churned out with the Tom Clancy name became "Sci-Fi".

 

BTW, I'm a fan of Ace Combat.

Edited February 17, 2009 by jomni

[johnrey 0]

BTW, I'm a fan of Ace Combat.

Amen brother!

 

BTW:Is it me or it takes multiple missiles to actually kill a target?

 

EDIT:And it has no black-outs.

Edited February 17, 2009 by johnrey

[JediMaster 451]

I think Clancy "sold" his name to Ubi far too cheaply.

[+Viggen 516]

I think Clancy "sold" his name to Ubi far too cheaply.

 

 

That just about describes it perfectly.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

BTW:Is it me or it takes multiple missiles to actually kill a target?

 

I dunno dude, in the DS Mod, seems like every time I take on a Mirage F-1EQ my first AIM-9 bounces off the fuselage and the second takes it down. It's a shame they're taking the "2 missile takedown" for this action shooter too. I remember in the earlier Ace Combats (2 and 4 I think) where some aircraft like the Tornado, A-10 and the Mig-31 would take you at least 4 to take down.

 

I dunno that it's going to be as bad as you guys are all suggesting. This game is being developed to take on Ace Combat and, lets face it, what other competition is there for vaguely aircraft sim/action type games for console? It's very pretty, but what I'd be interested to see is if the game leaves you with that kinda hollow feeling Ace Combat 6 left me with (the f**king god aweful and massively cheesy script/acting was mostly responsible for that) or whether I'll get immersed in it like I have with Distant Thunder (or Shattered Skies, whatever its called there.).

 

I don't care what kind of toys I get to use in the game, if I'm not completely gripped by it or caught up in the game in any way, I won't go back to it later. Simple as that.

 

Now, if it resembled the difference GRAW2 had with the average FPS, I think I'd be in. And on that point, I see everyone bagging this about it not being simtastic enough (fair enough, it doesn't look it), but I bet a bunch of you play COD 4. How much of a sim is that compared to AA or GRAW2? Hmmm?

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Heh, yeah... I thought so.

[JediMaster 451]

I don't have any of the CoDs.

I played the first one, tried the demo for the 2nd one and decided I didn't like where it was going.

[Rodent 0]

Call of Duty 4 is awsome in an action movie sort of way. It is a shooter on rails, but very cinematic and very intense. Realism is not of a great concern since nobody is calling it a simulator. It's an action game all way through. I do not mind a game not being very realistic but I don't like people throwing the word sim on anything that involves airplanes regardless of realism levels.

[+JonathanRL 973]

I think Clancy "sold" his name to Ubi far too cheaply.

 

QFT

 

R6 Vegas 1&2 - clean rape of the Rainbow Six Franchise. Please, never again.

GRAW - good, and the story too. Just about as realistic as CoD 4 and just as entertaining. It worked.

End War - No f***ing way Clancy had anything to do with that plot

H A W X - Seriously, Does Ubi even call Ol Tom before they use his plot?

 

I will - however - buy and play H A W X. I could use something like this actually.

[JediMaster 451]

The 2 Vegas games were at least better than that coding abortion called "Lockdown."

[Arrow 83]

I've burrowed through many of the threads on the H.A.W.X. website and I've played the 360 demo twice now. I never expected the game to be much more than Air Quake, but that said, I still can't fathom why they thought it was a good idea to not allow the cockpit view for the unassisted flight mode. Actually I should correct myself, I read through the developers thread so I know what they thought were logical conclusions that lead to their decision. The problem is that I fundamentaly disagree with their conclusions. As one poster at the H.A.W.X. forum put it; the developer seems to think that a player needs an out-of-body/out-of-cockpit experience in order to employ defensive tactics/maneuvers. So what you get in unassisted flight mode is a very disorienting and hard to control view which they term 'dog fight view.' When you consider that there isn't a single snap view available in the cockpit mode -at least on the 360 - then it kind of makes sense how they could have drawn such an incorrect conclusion.

 

What I found most frustrating is that while reading their speel, I couldn't help but think they might not have made that mistake if they'd ever played the 3rd wire sims through their evolution from SFP1 onward. I remember the challenge of dealing with SAMS and A2A in the early days of SPF1 and WoV and how that was eventually worked around with 3rd party mods to missile trails and the use of external camera positons. I'm sure the same was true for many other PC flight sims. So how the developer could be living in such a vacuum is a bit beyond me? Anyways just my 2 cents and an expression of my dissapointment as I was hoping this might be a good game for my son. I'll just save my money and pass.