Tom Clancys H.A.W.X

[mondamoto]

Tom Clancy games are usually good I wonder how this one will fair since it is the first air combat game from the collection

http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/04/02/ub...m-clancys-hawx/

The game will be set in 2012 and come with 50 planes with 4 player coop and jump in modes and will handle up to 16 players will be coming out for the 360, PS3 and the PC

I will probably get it since I am a sucker for a good flight sim

What do you all think?

Mond

[David Hingtgen]

I want to see more than a video--show me an actual mission.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Ubisoft? I'm skeptical on this one.....the plane games they have done tend to be more arcade-like than Ace Combat.

[F-ZeroOne]

It might be good, but I'd like to bet its not going to have an entire fleet of fighter planes riding into the final mission with all the pilots singing their lungs out, or a continuing theme of unrequited love between a wingman and his AWACs...

[Impreszive]

If it is aClancy game, it is going to be harder than balls.

[CoryHolmes]

If it is aClancy game, it is going to be harder than balls.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ubisoft recently bought the rights to the Tom Clancy branding inperpetuaum. They can now make whatever they want and slap the TC label on it and not pay a dime of licencing fees to the guy. Before, if you wanted to get the TC brand then your game had to meet his standards. I don't know if that still holds true.

[Knight26]

Interesting, will wait and see.

[dizman]

Looks interesting, would be nice to finally get a good online battle flightsim for the PS3 (unless Ace 6 finally comes back to PS3).

[Fly4victory]

Ubisoft? I'm skeptical on this one.....the plane games they have done tend to be more arcade-like than Ace Combat.

Ouch and I thought Ace Combat is arcade like... Still A.C. X is my favorite on PSP.

[Macross007]

Not Mexico again please, NOT MEXICO AGAIN !!!

[Loner]

They better be compatible with the AC sticks.

[F-ZeroOne]

Ouch and I thought Ace Combat is arcade like... Still A.C. X is my favorite on PSP.

They've done a couple of World War II games. You can get the demos on XBox Live. Going by the demos, they're... okay. Nothing special, a couple of nice ideas, and the later second game is rather improved (even in the demo) over the first.

[Fly4victory]

Not Mexico again please, NOT MEXICO AGAIN !!!

Cuba... Colombia? How about Canada It can build on CBC's Trojan Horse

[mikeszekely]

Ubisoft? I'm skeptical on this one.....the plane games they have done tend to be more arcade-like than Ace Combat.

It's funny that you and I are skeptical for the opposite reasons. Recall that, while Taito developed it, Ubisoft published Over G, which managed to capture all the boring parts of realism.

I suppose the good thing about the current generation of game consoles is that we can always wait for a demo in the XBL Marketplace/PlayStation Store.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

It's funny that you and I are skeptical for the opposite reasons. Recall that, while Taito developed it, Ubisoft published Over G, which managed to capture all the boring parts of realism.

I didn't mention it, but I meant to refer to the Blazing Angels games.

[Garou Kuroryuu]

I suppose the good thing about the current generation of game consoles is that we can always wait for a demo in the XBL Marketplace/PlayStation Store.

Yeah, demos are a really nice thingy.

And I would definitively try the demo for this one. Without AC6 on PS3, it's really lagging behind in fighter-sim terms (thou I know AC's are not exactly "sims").

[mikeszekely]

I didn't mention it, but I meant to refer to the Blazing Angels games.

That's what I guessed you meant, and no, I wouldn't want H.A.W.X to turn out like BA, either. But I think that BA was deliberately more arcadey to make the act of shooting down other airplanes with naught but machine guns more accessible to a broader audience. With the Tom Clancy name on it, I figure H.A.W.X will be a little more hardcore.

[Vostok 7]

That's what I guessed you meant, and no, I wouldn't want H.A.W.X to turn out like BA, either. But I think that BA was deliberately more arcadey to make the act of shooting down other airplanes with naught but machine guns more accessible to a broader audience. With the Tom Clancy name on it, I figure H.A.W.X will be a little more hardcore.

Yeah, if you've ever played a realistic WWII sim, you know how retardedly hard it is to dogfight with only machine guns.

Vostok 7

[F-ZeroOne]

Okay, now played the recently released H.A.W.X. demo through a couple of times.

Graphics are pretty good, but they lack a bit of the sheen of Ace Combat 6.

Mechanics are very similar to Ace Combat series, with some differences - I'm not convinced about the OFF system, it seems very difficult to keep on a straight heading to track a target (the Harrier, ironically, is very bad at this because its difficult to tell which way its pointed - just like the real thing) and the double-tap on the triggers to access is a bit iffy. Barely glanced at the radar, using the HUD tracking more; thats very different to Ace Combat, where the radar is an essential tool. I do like the bomb aiming reticule; it works like the semi-active AAMs in Ace Combat, a circle you keep the target in to guide the bomb.

Theres an "ERS" system which involves flying through a series of triangles to track difficult targets like tanks near buildings or agile aerial targets. This does seem a bit pointless for aircraft as it takes an age to get into shooting position. Its also a bit fiddly to activate as you have to press "X".

First go has you running all over the place reacting to instructions from controllers or ground troops - who will not shut the hell up - until you realise you have to eliminate a certain number of a certain kind of target to progress, again just like Ace Combat, and the frantic calls for air support are mostly window dressing.

Earning XP is a nice touch but I think I prefer the Ace Combat credit system which allows you to choose which aircraft to buy.

Music is one area where it really loses out to Ace Combat; the demo has rather muted, generic action music, compared to Ace Combats sweeping epic bombast.

Slight oddity - your allies stand by and watch as enemy formations fly right over them without doing anything at all. Those look like AEGIS destroyers to me, surely they can handle a few landing craft? (in other words, theres - in the demo, anyway - no "Allied Force" help).

Overall, its fun, especially if you've played and liked Ace Combat, with a few marks against and a few marks for. I think Ace Combat has the edge in presentation and overall charm (being, basically, an attempt to make Area 88: The Game), but HAWX is by no means bad going by the demo.

[mikeszekely]

I totally didn't know there was a dedicated thread for this game. I'd played the demo, and posted my thoughts in the "All Things Videogames" thread. I'll just cut and paste what I put there to continue the discussion here.

It's better because it's pretty arcade, which puts it closer to Ace Combat than Over G. In limiter-on mode, you don't have to worry about stalls. You can take a few hits before you die, and you're carrying something like 250 missiles. In some ways, it's even more arcadey than Ace Combat... at times, you can activate an "Enhanced Reality System" that puts a series of triangles up. Depending on the context you activated the ERS in, flying through the triangles will put you on the optimal path to hit a ground target nestled between skyscrapers, to get behind a particular enemy, or to dodge a missile.

Where the game goes down hill, though, is when you turn the limiter off. The concept is cool... the fighter's FCS prevents you from turning in a way that'd cause the pilot to black out or to cause the fighter to stall, but by turning that limiter off, you can perform riskier moves to try to gain the upper hand. In practice, this is the most useless feature ever crammed into a game. For one thing, blackouts don't seem to be an issue, just stalls. But the big problem is that, far from giving you an advantage, it makes the game borderline unplayable. Turning the limiter off puts the camera a great distance from your fighter, and the camera is no longer fixed to the tail of the fighter. This has you struggling to turn your fighter around and line it up with a target, without stalling, from a distance and at an angle.

The good about the limiter is that, aside from the tutorial level, it doesn't seem to be necessary. If the controls can be re-mapped to be more like Ace Combat's, H.A.W.X. will probably be worth checking out.

[Zx31]

I'm going to disagree and say that I like the Off mode. Sure, the control takes some getting used to, but I think it's a cool concept that separates it from other Flight Combat games. The best part is that they made it completely optional. It's not like some games where you are forced to use a gimmick. Another thing that we have yet to test, since it's not available in the demo, is the 4 player Coop. That's something I wished Ace Combat would have had and I think it's going to be a fun addition.

[Chronocidal]

I'm gonna have to go with the "stupidest idea ever" party. Yes, the idea of turning the g-limiters off in an aircraft is cool (and actually rather realistic, since most aircraft these days have those systems, and you need overrides to perform certain maneuvers). But the implementation sucks beyond measure.

Overall, the game was very AC like, and after reading the aircraft list, I was pretty much convinced that I'm going to buy the PC version (YF-17 and YF-23? I'm there ). Playing the Xbox demo tho, I'm not so sure anymore. It really depends.

On the plus side, the graphics look pretty much up to par with AC6, and I do appreciate the aircraft selection (which was an utter disappointment in AC6). They do need to get their aircraft designations right tho, their F-16A is actually a C model.

On the other hand tho, I think this game tries way too hard to cater to non-flight sim people. Face it, it's a niche you're not going to attract people to easily, and the more you try, the worse the game is going to get.

Now.. ooh, limiter mode, you will kill this game in sooo many ways if left the way you are. After playing the demo, I went to the Ubi forum about this game, and there's already an extremely heated debate brewing over why you can't use the cockpit view (or any other view for that matter) with the limiter off. I registered just to vote in the poll/petition they have going. I could rant and rave all day about this thing. While the mode is a useful concept, they need a boot to the head about how air combat works.

The viewpoint in that mode is beyond worthless. Generally, when I'm flying a plane, I like to see what's ahead of me. It's kind of a useful thing, especially when lining up a gun shot, or trying to get a target lock. I got so frustrated with the training mission, I almost chucked my controller thru the screen. There's one thing that view is good for, and it's evading.

What worries me the most about this mode is the effect it'll have on multiplayer. It basically reduces air combat to flipping around the sky as fast as you can, and spamming missiles everywhere hoping to hit something. The people who actually care about aiming, and use the cockpit view, will get screwed over because they won't be able to keep up. If the view remains as is, I seriously doubt I'll ever bother with multiplayer, and then, I may as well just go back to AC.

Now, I can see the reason that they limited the views the way they did. Lets face it, if you let people use cockpit view with the limiters off, everyone would fly that way, all the time. It's like they're trying to throw some sort of strategic decision in here, making people choose between being able to evade, and being able to attack effectively. Flipping between modes fast may give you an advantage, provided you don't get completely disoriented by the view swapping. It makes a weird demented sort of sense in that way. But by doing all this, they're throwing in an artificial limitation that looks like it's specifically aimed at leveling the playing field, just to give people who don't know how to play air combat games an advantage. Just face it Ubi.. if someone is actually playing this game, it's because he already knows how to play these games, and your artificial limits are going to make him want to slap the developers.

I guess my only real hope in all this is that they might implement modes for multiplayer that don't allow the limiters to be turned off, forcing everyone to fly the hard (real) way. Those Su-47 aces at the end of the first mission weren't hard at all with proper throttle control (btw, I'm pretty sure it is still possible to stall the plane with the limiters on), and if the game can be fully played without touching the no-limiter mode, I'll probably get it.

My final hope against hope is that the PC version will actually be able to be modded. Perhaps someone will figure out how to allow the views to switch, and let people fly relatively realistically, or even add more aircraft or missions to the game. I'd love to be able to patch in a bunch of VFs, and fly them around. The game already has thrust vectoring, multi-missiles, and VTOL capability implemented. I can easily see that turning into a working VF with gerwalk mode.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Chronocidal

[Alpha OTS]

So PS3 or Xbox? Or are both versions identical?

[aerocombatpilot]

Does anybody know when this is going to be released for ps3?

[Chronocidal]

The demo should be coming out sometime this week for PC and PS3, I dunno why the Xbox version came out first. I am looking forward to the PC demo still though, maybe it'll have files I can tweak a bit.

[Zx31]

Does anybody know when this is going to be released for ps3?

US release dates currently listed as March 3rd.

[mikeszekely]

The best part is that they made it completely optional. It's not like some games where you are forced to use a gimmick.

Yes. I mean, I hate it. I'll concede that it's a good idea, if poorly implemented. But as long as it's optional, I'm not going to hold it against the game.

Does anyone know if there's any advantages/disadvantages to any particular version? I'm used to playing those sorts of games on consoles, but I've been getting a lot of use out of my PC lately. If one version has some great exclusive content, I might want to go for that, but if not, I'm thinking PC, if only for the mods that could turn up... first one to get a Valkyrie in the game gets a cookie.

[anime52k8]

I'm gonna have to go with the "stupidest idea ever" party.

I don't think it's the stupidest idea ever, it's actually a good idea, but it's definitely the worst implemented idea ever. I remember back before they had shown anything related to game play reading about how they were originally going to do the ERS/limiter ON/Limiter OFF set up. originaly you were supposed to be able to turn things like stall prevention, ground collision avoidance, G limiters and all that stuff on and off independently so you could customize exactly how much freedom you had/stuff you need to worry about. I don't know when or were it went form that to this training wheels vs. worst camera angle ever situation but its definitely the saddest moment in this games development.

overall the game really tries to be like Ace Combat AND bring new things to the table. but it never really gets it right. it's probably going to be a fun game, but its just not as good as AC games, and frankly not even as good as it could have been.

a couple other little things; it sucks that when you're in cockpit view you don't have a HUD. all you have is the little marker for where you're pointing and that's it.

it's interesting to have to use the mechanical horizon in the instrument panel but when the plain really should have that in the HUD its just stupid.

also, I've noticed that the Harrier doesn't really handle any different form a normal plain. it would have been cool if could take the plain down to zero airspeed and go into a hover.

[Chronocidal]

Hmm, I'll have to agree with you then, I hadn't read about the other options the limiter-off mode was supposed to include. Yah, implementation is really the error there. Maybe they thought all those options would get too complicated for consoles. *shrugs* I'd still love to see the options all available in the PC version.

The HUD thing I just noticed today too. I'd been flying behind the plane for a while, and the HUD sucks arse the way they did it. No instruments, no indicators, nothing. And as useful as that lead-point indicator is, they obviously have given up on any kind of realism in that regard. I get the feeling they actually might be just ignoring the HUD because you're supposed to be wearing one of those new fangled tracking helmets.

On top of that though, even in an F-16 with a full bubble cockpit, they apparently can't figure out how to let your head turn far enough to look behind you. You just kinda hit a stopping point, and then the view floats awkwardly if you're trying to follow a target. I don't think you can even turn far enough to see your own wingtip. The external camera does it fine, but unless something like a TrackIR activates some kind of expanded field of view, the cockpit view is really getting the short end of the stick in this game. Frankly, I don't care if I am looking at my own headrest.. I still want to look behind me.

As for advantages to the PC version.. well, besides the potential for mods and such, PC peripherals for flight games blow consoles out of the water (or at least have in the past). Not only do you have a large variety of stick/throttle/rudder pedal options if you want them (not to mention the ability to configure your controls however you please), but you've even got stuff like head tracking sensors to look around with. Also, personally, I tend to prefer PC game matching systems for hosting/joining over anything on consoles, but that's just me.

About the Harrier though.. do you mean they added it, but gave it no VTOL-type capabilities at all? Does it at least fly really slow if you hit the brakes?

[anime52k8]

Hmm, I'll have to agree with you then, I hadn't read about the other options the limiter-off mode was supposed to include. Yah, implementation is really the error there. Maybe they thought all those options would get too complicated for consoles. *shrugs* I'd still love to see the options all available in the PC version.

The HUD thing I just noticed today too. I'd been flying behind the plane for a while, and the HUD sucks arse the way they did it. No instruments, no indicators, nothing. And as useful as that lead-point indicator is, they obviously have given up on any kind of realism in that regard. I get the feeling they actually might be just ignoring the HUD because you're supposed to be wearing one of those new fangled tracking helmets.

On top of that though, even in an F-16 with a full bubble cockpit, they apparently can't figure out how to let your head turn far enough to look behind you. You just kinda hit a stopping point, and then the view floats awkwardly if you're trying to follow a target. I don't think you can even turn far enough to see your own wingtip. The external camera does it fine, but unless something like a TrackIR activates some kind of expanded field of view, the cockpit view is really getting the short end of the stick in this game. Frankly, I don't care if I am looking at my own headrest.. I still want to look behind me.

As for advantages to the PC version.. well, besides the potential for mods and such, PC peripherals for flight games blow consoles out of the water (or at least have in the past). Not only do you have a large variety of stick/throttle/rudder pedal options if you want them (not to mention the ability to configure your controls however you please), but you've even got stuff like head tracking sensors to look around with. Also, personally, I tend to prefer PC game matching systems for hosting/joining over anything on consoles, but that's just me.

About the Harrier though.. do you mean they added it, but gave it no VTOL-type capabilities at all? Does it at least fly really slow if you hit the brakes?

yeah, I remember a while ago on an Ace combat forum I found a link to a Q&A thread about this game with the developers. the made it sound like you'd be able do all kinds of customizing to gameplay in terms of how much help the game would give you.

and with the HUD you'd think that with the Helmet mounted display they'd have more reason to include a full HUD Since they're designed to have them. it's really sad how poorly the cockpit view is done since that's my favorite view to use.

As for the Harrier, it's here but I didn't notice any VTOL capabilities at all. if you break you slow to down more than on the F-16 but not a lot more, at which point either the limiter kicks in or you stall out. maneuverability isn't effected either, and I couldn't find a way to make the nozzles move at all.

[altermodes]

I Downloaded the Demo over Xbox live the other day ....

If i don't count the assistance off camera view , I like it

And I am not adding the Voice Command Function to that , as it is a lot easier to say:

"Map" to change the zoom level on the map ,

"Weapon" to change the weapons selection ,

"ON" - "OFF" to turn the Assistance mode on or off

and i think "Change" to change the selected Target

than pressing buttons during a battle.

Edited February 24, 2009 by altermodes

[Chronocidal]

*sigh* ... ubi... really??

Well, that does answer the question of why it won't hover... they replaced the thrust vectoring system with an afterburner.

What amazes me, especially for a Tom Clancy game, is how many completely .. well, just plain wrong things I keep seeing.

For instance.. in the opening cutscene.. do they even know what illuminating a target means? It usually means you're painting a target with a laser designator for homing purposes... and it's not very effective if you attack from the opposite side the laser is pointing at.

Also, I keep hearing someone chattering about "select zone whatever".. apparently, it's been completely lost to the ages what that phrase, "select zone 5," even originally meant in Top Gun. That was a Tomcat specific phrase, indicating the 5th stage of the plane's progressive afterburner. In other words, it means to turn tail and run. EDIT: Actually I think I was partly wrong about this. I still think it's being misused for the aircraft (most engines now have continuously throttleable afterburners without zones), but the phrase "select zone 4 and extend" meant to get some range between planes.

Also, on the off chance that you actually bother to read your HUD for airspeed, it's obvious they did no research into the actual performance of these planes. Cruising speed in the F-16 (not braking or accelerating) is a whopping TWO THOUSAND KNOTS. Max braking in normal flight only goes down to 1000 knots. That's over 2300 mph in full afterburner, or over Mach 3. Actually using the afterburner, and accelerating level, I got up easily over 3800 knots, or Mach 5.7. Yeah, that's realistic. I dunno which is funnier.. the cruising speed being on a par with the SR-71, or the slowest you can go still being Mach 1.3. I'm hoping against hope that this is just a math error in the code that's multiplying the numbers, and they'll fix it before the final release.. because for a brand so dedicated to military technology in other games, this is just inexcuseable.

I dunno.. the more I look at the nuts and bolts of this game, the more I think they have no clue what they're doing.

Edit: Oh this one's killer.. so I smack in the ground on purpose to test something.. and the first thing I hear on the comm traffic is "Lead has hit the ground- notify search and rescue."

Edited February 24, 2009 by Chronocidal

[kaiotheforsaken]

Does anyone know if there's any advantages/disadvantages to any particular version?

Nothing that I've seen indicates a difference in content. If memory serves Ubi has been part of EA for some time and EA basically puts out the same thing on every platform. So they should be identical other than maybe some very minor graphics differences.

[mikeszekely]

Also, on the off chance that you actually bother to read your HUD for airspeed, it's obvious they did no research into the actual performance of these planes. Cruising speed in the F-16 (not braking or accelerating) is a whopping TWO THOUSAND KNOTS. Max braking in normal flight only goes down to 1000 knots. That's over 2300 mph in full afterburner, or over Mach 3. Actually using the afterburner, and accelerating level, I got up easily over 3800 knots, or Mach 5.7. Yeah, that's realistic. I dunno which is funnier.. the cruising speed being on a par with the SR-71, or the slowest you can go still being Mach 1.3. I'm hoping against hope that this is just a math error in the code that's multiplying the numbers, and they'll fix it before the final release.. because for a brand so dedicated to military technology in other games, this is just inexcuseable.

I only played the demo once, but I think the defaults for the HUD were metric.

[Chronocidal]

Nope, I made sure to change those, they were labeled as knots. And even in metric, those speeds are ridiculous.