Quantum of Solace Demo out!!!

Gerard · 7 Oct 2008 at 01:00

Sinny said:
Just voicing others really too short, except i liked the combat. I will try the 360 demo if their has been one released as i was going to pick this up for the 360 anyway.

I do hope it plays better on the 360 as it was most anticipated game of the year.

It was? Must be a slow year on the 360 despite gta 4 and gears.

moomoomoo · 7 Oct 2008 at 04:14

I hadn't heard anything about this game so wasn't expecting much

I liked the graphics and the cover system. However there was parts where the graphics glitched.

The weapons didn't really do anything for me either.

Seems odd they would lock it at 30 fps but it seems like qwick port from console.

Properly the shortest demo i've ever played, the videos you of latter levels look a lot betetr then the demo

Its hard to judge it based on what i played, but i think its more of a console rental game then a pc game. With all the good pc games coming out i don't think its worth a purchase.

I get the impression its gonna be a rather short game with little replay vaule also.

Sho · 7 Oct 2008 at 09:29

i just finish downloading this demo and tried it, to short, but i enjoyed it, i might pick this up.

Sinny · 7 Oct 2008 at 09:58

Gerard said:
It was? Must be a slow year on the 360 despite gta 4 and gears.

forgot to include for me ;D, i was really looking forward to it more than gears and GTA4.

rjk · 7 Oct 2008 at 10:52

i wanted this to be good so much

still goldeneye is the best bond game

Shep_Cobain · 7 Oct 2008 at 11:26

rjkoneill said:
i wanted this to be good so much

still goldeneye is the best bond game

helmutcheese · 7 Oct 2008 at 12:27

Na, Nightfire was great.

Heatsinked · 7 Oct 2008 at 13:19

Another vote for dire. What a waste of time and bandwidth! The developers should be ashamed of themselves for delivering such a poor title for an otherwise potentially lucrative game franchise.

KNiVES · 7 Oct 2008 at 13:33

Heatsinked said:
Another vote for dire. What a waste of time and bandwidth! The developers should be ashamed of themselves for delivering such a poor title for an otherwise potentially lucrative game franchise.

Why should they? It brings in the money, job done. You only have to look at the last lot of Bond games since Goldeneye to know that quality isn't necessarily be-all and end-all. In fact, you only have to look at any movie-to-game adaptation to realize that.

Heatsinked · 7 Oct 2008 at 14:12

KNiVES said:
Why should they? It brings in the money, job done. You only have to look at the last lot of Bond games since Goldeneye to know that quality isn't necessarily be-all and end-all. In fact, you only have to look at any movie-to-game adaptation to realize that.

I do realise that... as for "why should they", well, I'd like to think / hope that game developers and publishers are not solely trying to make a quick buck and do in fact care about the quality of their games and the potential enjoyment experienced by each of their customers.

I know that may sound a bit naive but there are some out there who believe that quality is and should be the "be-all and end-all" rather than profit. Valve are a prime example. They deliver consistently excellent games and they are respected and rich as a result.

Shep_Cobain · 7 Oct 2008 at 14:45

KNiVES said:
Why should they? It brings in the money, job done. You only have to look at the last lot of Bond games since Goldeneye to know that quality isn't necessarily be-all and end-all. In fact, you only have to look at any movie-to-game adaptation to realize that.

The Warriors is good.

BobbyBBB · 7 Oct 2008 at 14:55

console'D, that was pretty bad

magick · 7 Oct 2008 at 15:15

No bond game will ever beat Goldeneye on the N64.

Neil79 · 7 Oct 2008 at 15:33

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cxhwd7IQJQ

KNiVES · 7 Oct 2008 at 16:32

Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh this game is horrible. Stuck at 30fps, the field of view is a pathetic 60 degrees, the cover system is terrible, the melee combat is dire and the graphics are crap.

What a stinker.

mrk · 7 Oct 2008 at 17:18

carrot1401 · 7 Oct 2008 at 17:29

Neil79 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cxhwd7IQJQ

Poor guy, he only wanted to get out.
And don't make this sound bad, I've been at uni since 9, wont get home til half 8 and got this demo downloaded and ready to install, its currently whats keeping me going lol.

Wasn't there a command in console in cod 4 to set the FOV up to 80 in multiplayer without getting kicked by punkbuster?

Last Kronin · 7 Oct 2008 at 19:15

I cant really judge it by the demo, as stated its far too short, i had no problems with lag though running it at max settings.

interspaced · 7 Oct 2008 at 20:45

What an absolute **** take of a game. This gave me the same feeling I had when I tried solider of fortune payback. Disappointment that they appear to have messed up a renowned series. The graphics are poor for the cod4 engine and controls are clearly designed for consoles (cover system for example). More evidence of this being a console port is the lack of tweaking options in the video settings. I really hope cod5 doesn't turn out like this.

EDDS · 7 Oct 2008 at 22:25

i really have no idea what planet most of you are on for you to say the graphics where crap, either you've got a crap system/didn't change the settings/are blind or all 3.

the graphics where by no means the best I've ever seen but they were pretty good and it was very smooth, the game play itself was good as well i thought, again nothing really new but it actually feels like your playing bond.

i agree about it being to short though, way to short, it was good though and i will definitely be buying it.

i swear most of you PC only people are never happy with anything thats not either half life or world of warcraft.