FREEDOM! Just Cause 2 Paints Its Face Blue

By John Walker on February 5th, 2010 at 12:35 am.

Mummy, what are the two boats doing?

As we all agree, the most important thing in gaming is realism. It’s the only thing I want in a game, the only thing I care about. Just so long as the experience is as close to replicating reality as is possible, then I’m happy. For instance, just now I’m playing this game where I update a website with a video of a game. Oh no, wait! That’s actually happening! And demanding realism is idiotic! Phew. Which is why Just Cause 2 makes me want to hug everyone nearby and say, “Look! Just look!” If this game is crap, I’m going to find everyone responsible and kick them right in the knee. So, yes, new trailer.

After last time’s semi-interactive trailer fun, this one instead embraces the, er, mid-90s with one of those photo montage thingies, which it zooms in and out of. But then there’s blowie up explodie gun bang grapple tethers! And that makes me smile.

, .

74 Comments »

  1. SirKicksalot says:

    LMAO @ gas tank!

    This game reminds me of Machete…

  2. Pianosaurus says:

    Wait, it’s coming out the third of Icosikaitritember? I’m never going to make sense of the American calendar.

  3. Bonedwarf says:

    I am so pre-ordering this! I think… Want the game, but the recent DLC for pre-order thing confused the shit out of me. I mean it said it was Europe only. And that in the US we’d only get one of the items. But then I read something else which implied North American pre-orders would get all the goodies anyway.

    Anyone know WTF is going on?

    Regardless, this game looks absurdly bad ass. If you have an Xbox I recommend hitting up the game videos on Live and downloading the mission playthrough video on there. It’s glorious.

  4. mroaes says:

    I see the Eidos logo on the beginning of the video. Will it come with that new DRMadness they’ve been talking about?

  5. ZIGS says:

    Don’t you mean Ubisoft?

  6. Buckermann says:

    These trailers must be lying, The game can’t be as much fun as it seems.

    IT CAN’T BE!

    • Meatloaf says:

      Seriously. I was going to wait until it was on sale or some such to buy it, and then they made a trailer where a man rides a tank of oxygen into the sky.

  7. El_MUERkO says:

    it’s got that “Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!! ##KABOOOOM## hehehe!!” appeal :D

  8. Urthman says:

    I lost all my joy and interest in this game when I found out it’s not supporting XP.

    Because clearly, my 3Ghz processor, 512MB DX9 video card, and 2GB of RAM can’t possibly handle a game that runs on the mighty XBOX 360.

    (…but…dammit…that’s a great trailer…sob…)

    • El Stevo says:

      Huh?

    • Spacewalk says:

      What?

    • Devan says:

      Seriously? That’s ridiculous! I hope that “unsupported” means they aren’t going to provide tech support, and not that it doesn’t work at all.
      There’s nothing that Vista/7 has that I want. Heck, the only reason I run windows at all is for the games that are exclusive to it. Such a shame.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Urthman

      Thanks for the heads up, I was unaware that the makers of this game didn’t want my money. Pity.

    • MD says:

      I noticed that a little while ago, and yeah. Never before has the expression ‘sadface’ been more appropriate. I was the guy who would normally pop up in these comment threads and be all ‘woooooo’ or ‘YES’ or in my more thoughtful moods ‘mannnn I hope they pull this off and make it as fun as it looks’. My creaky old PC was going to be the limiting factor, but I always planned to buy JC2 post-upgrade. The upgrade has happened, but it didn’t involve a new version of Windows, so it looks like I won’t be playing this for a long long time. :-[

      I’ll have to check the details, though — I can’t remember the exact wording, but at the time I got the impression that it simply wouldn’t run on XP. I was probably just looking at a system requirements list though, which is less encouraging than a simple ‘unsupported’ but more so than an explicit statement that it won’t run at all on XP.

    • Bob says:

      The no Windows XP support is stupid, and just shows why Valve games sell so well on the pc! It’s because they look at their survey,

      Windows XP 32 bit (-2.62%) 42.15%
      Windows 7 64 bit (+3.89%) 19.50%
      Windows Vista 32 bit (-1.62%) 19.09%
      Windows 7(+1.58%) 9.03%
      Windows Vista 64 bit (-1.18%) 8.82%
      Windows XP 64 bit (-0.01%) 0.63%
      Windows 2003 64 bit (-0.07%) 0.57%
      Windows 2000 (0.00%) 0.10%
      Other (+0.02%) 0.10%

      I’m just waiting for the game didn’t sell well because of pirate copies! lol

    • Taillefer says:

      Eep. Now I need to check all those other games I wanted to play…

    • phuzz says:

      You might want to get upset with micro$oft as well then, mainstream support for XP ended last april. And you can’t buy leaded petrol or pay in shillings anymore, bastards!

    • Premium User Badge Vandelay says:

      I didn’t know this, but I am constantly surprised by the uproar whenever this kind of requirement is mentioned (look at Alan Wake, back when it was going to be a PC game.) I remember being told by the requirements of Deus Ex: Invisible War that it would require XP, when I was only on ME (unfortunately, it did run.) That was only 2 years after the release of XP and there were many others afterwards that had similar requirements.

      Vista has been out for 3 years now and we still haven’t seen any game actually released that requires it.

    • Kadayi says:

      Time to man up and buy Windows 7 (and install 64 bit like all the cool kids).

    • Urthman says:

      But why, Kadayi?

      I have no complaints about a PC-only game that wants to use Windows 7 and DX11 to do stuff that is otherwise impossible, but the idea that an Xbox 360 game can’t run on a Windows XP machine is just ridiculous.

    • frymaster says:

      currently the biggest google hit for this issue is… this page

      but amazon, at least, don’t seem to believe it:
      http://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Cause-2-PC-DVD/dp/B002ZRQ3UC/ref=pd_sxp_f_r

      souce?
      afaik about the only vista-requiring game is shattered horizon, as that’s about the only dx10-only game I know

    • frymaster says:

      I should also point out that amazon _is_ one of the “official” pre-order vendors, so you’d think they’d know if anyone would

    • Jad says:

      But how could this be? I can understand why a PC-only game like Shattered Horizon would be Vista/7 only, as its a DirectX 10 game, but this is also coming out on the DX9, pre-Vista XBox 360. I thought that, in terms of gaming, there really was no difference between Vista and XP. (UI and security and lots of little features, yeah, a difference, but for gaming?)

    • bookwormat says:

      This would be really stupid if it was true, so I’m optimistic and assume it is not.

      Personally, my copy of windows only exists to run games, so I have no benefit from upgrading other than games requiring the upgrade. So every game that does that just looks damn expensive to me.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Urthman

      “But why, Kadayi?”

      “I have no complaints about a PC-only game that wants to use Windows 7 and DX11 to do stuff that is otherwise impossible, but the idea that an Xbox 360 game can’t run on a Windows XP machine is just ridiculous.”

      Why cater for what is a soon to be unsupported OS, and over complicate development by having to work across differing versions of Direct X? Why continue to divide a house when instead you should be pushing to unite it? Personally I’d rather developers concentrate on making great games, rather than wasting resources catering for different OS skews. Continuing to support XP only encourages certain people to be lazy and not migrate to Windows 7, even though pretty much every tech expert agrees that Windows 7 is a much better and more responsive OS than XP. It’s not exactly a prohibitively expensive upgrade either (unlike Vista). My question would be to you ‘Why not upgrade Urthman?’

    • Bonedwarf says:

      How is not wanting to make a pointless OS upgrade “lazy”.

      Vista and 7 offer nothing.

      I’ve had this argument with other idiots before, and they say “Well it’s better”, but when I ask them to quantify it beyond “it just is” they can’t, as there IS nothing. They’ve been suckered in by shiny things and trinkets when Vista and 7 offer nothing worthwhile over XP.

      The jump from 98 to XP made sense. A huge leap in stability etc… But there is NOTHING, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise, that warrants moving to Windows 7 beyond Microsoft’s desire to sell you the same crap you’ve already bought, and for hardware manufacturers to sell you new crap you wouldn’t need if Microsoft weren’t snake oil salesmen.

      There is NOTHING WRONG with XP. And anyone who makes asinine remarks about people being “lazy” or other derogatory remarks just because people like using a stable, reliable OS that doesn’t eat their hardware for breakfast (and of course all that DRM built into Vista and 7) are just shills for Microsoft.

      Windows 7 has no reason to exist unless you are a Microsoft shareholder.

    • Vinraith says:

      Early adopters think non-early adopters are “lazy” and “behind the times,” non-early-adopters think early-adopters are idiots easily distracted by new shiny objects, this is an age old “argument” and it’s completely pointless.

      What is relevant is that Just Cause 2 just told 40-some percent of the PC user base (according to Steam’s hardware survey) that they can either pay for (and go to the trouble of) an OS upgrade, or they can’t play the game.

      That means those 40-some percent of gamers are going to have to make the decision for themselves, and I trust a lot of them are going to come to the same conclusion I have. Just Cause 2 looks like fun, but it doesn’t look like $150 (game price + upgrade price) + a weekend’s work worth of fun, so screw it.

    • bookwormat says:

      Vista and 7 offer nothing.

      Nothing important, I agree. The known names in desktop operating systems for PCs have become pretty boring. Every popular one does pretty well what an operating system needs to do. You don’t really need new features, and you can switch to Ubuntu or OSX without having more or less problems than with your Windows boxes.

      The problems and benefits are different, but not significantly more or less. Most important software is cross platform, or has good alternatives on all systems. Or is in the cloud. Except for games of course, but I think installing games on a machine you want to work on is madness anyway.

      I use Ubuntu mostly because I’m used to it, and because I do not have to evaluate if I want to pay for an upgrade. OSX was not worse when I used that, it was just not better. Same with XP.

      Mobile operating systems are a bit more interesting. But not much.

    • Devan says:

      @Kadayi

      Bonedwarf is abrasive, but he has a point. Aside from what these “tech experts” agree about the OS usability and such, it doesn’t make a lick of difference for gaming. Once you’re in that full-screen execution the best OS is one that consumes the least resources and gives the game code the most full use of the underlying hardware. With the DRM-centric design of Vista/7, it’s unlikely to give you better value from your hardware than XP. Even for DirectX, there’s no reason why the newest versions can’t run in XP, except that Microsoft says so.
      You call our reluctance to buy the latest windows “laziness”, but the reason is perfectly sensible and Microsoft themselves apply the same reasoning to the Xbox. Hardware technology has advanced greatly since the 360 was released, so why aren’t they releasing a new gaming system? It’s simple: They’re still recouping the costs of 360, and that hardware is still capable of playing the latest games.

      Do you see what I’m saying? If you want to avoid “dividing the house” and “catering to different SKUs”, then it makes sense to get to a point where you have a stable, capable platform and then stick with it until it’s really truly outdated. That way, the developers can focus on making great games, as we all agree they should do.
      Applying the Xbox philosophy to the PC, it makes sense that in order to accommodate new technology in games, we simply upgrade the hardware, and the OS should only change as much as it needs to, and not in ways that break compatibility. That’s the ideal situation for the development community and consumers both, don’t you think?

    • Urthman says:

      Here’s my source for the system requirements:

      http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=100426

      I’ve used Windows 7 on other machines, and so far Just Cause 2 is literally the only thing I have any interest in doing with my computer that I can’t do with XP. So definitely not worth the expense and hassle of an upgrade. I doubt I’ll upgrade before I get a new machine (at least a couple more years, unless this one dies suddenly).

      Bob, I agree there’s a lot of gamers still using XP, but I wonder how many of those XP users otherwise have enough hardware to run JC2? Because the system requirements are pretty steep. Of course, if the game were running in DX9 under Window XP, it’s possible the requirements would be more modest – maybe only a machine 2x more powerful than an Xbox360 instead of 3x-4x more powerful.

    • Kadayi says:

      @fire fearing Neanderthal naysayers

      See later post. Reply system is crapping out (much like XP on an Alt-Tab)

  9. Fatrat says:

    I really hope this doesn’t end up being a prettier version of the first game, that was terrible.

    • Fatrat says:

      Hmm, now that i watch the trailer again… it really reminds me of Mercenaries 2, with more stuff. And i actually liked Mercenaries 2, i thought it was a massive bundle of laughs whereas a lot of people didn’t seem to agree. So it’s not like i’m that hard to please.

      PS – You win RPS, i’ve been reading the site for over a year, maybe over 2, i really can’t remember… i’m gonna register next time i want to comment to avoid this annoying little captcha. =P

    • BigJonno says:

      Agreed. I love this sort of thing, but JC got boring really quickly and I never quite figured out why.

    • Vinraith says:

      @Fatrat

      Most people’s problem with Mercs 2 wasn’t the gameplay, it was the massive buginess. If you got lucky and avoided that I can see why you’d enjoy it, seeing as the first one was absolutely brilliant.

    • Dominic White says:

      Mercs 2 was often at its best when it was buggiest.

      For anyone who likes funny things, this is a site you should visit:
      http://v.lp.prinny.co.uk/mercenaries-2/

  10. Gabriel G. says:

    I’m into fantasy, realism doesn’t matter much to me.

  11. PixelCody says:

    The latest trailer is pretty good!

    http://www.gametrailers.com/video/exclusive-freedom-just-cause-2/61573

    After GNILLEY I considered making a habit of commenting on your posts, pretending to ignore swathes of your writing, John. Then I came to my senses and realised how that would just be annoying =P

    Honestly, about the trailer, I much preferred the demos that the team gave rather than all this cut up jazz. Luckily they’ve already sold me on the game, I just hope “Freedom to defy the laws of physics” is a design decision that gets rewarded come March so we can see more of this stuff! So many big games will have come out in the 5 months prior I worry that some may not get the attention they deserve.

  12. Heliosicle says:

    My 1 (maybe 2) worries are that the vehicles won’t feel very good to drive, feel too rigid or whatever.

    And the other is that it’ll be full of cut and paste missions..

  13. Bob says:

    The date don’t make sense to me either, why put the date your most likely to look at in the middle?

    • dingo says:

      Well it’s March 23th 2010.

      Why do you count weight in stones in the UK?
      Doesn’t make sense at all but it’s tradition that’s why!

  14. Ste says:

    Looks like it has a Minimum Requirement of Microsoft DirectX 10, thats why XP cant play it..get with the times lads….Win7 65bit 4TW :)

    • Ste says:

      lol…typo 64bit…ha ha

    • Bonedwarf says:

      Do you hold shares in Microsoft? Because seriously, that’s the only reason I can see for Windows 7 to exist, to make MS money. It’s pointless.

      Show me where 7 is better than XP, and I’ll upgrade.

      And MS leveraging DX10 and 11 does NOT count.

    • Kadayi says:

      @Ste

      Careful Ste, this one is biting ;)

  15. clive dunn says:

    shit, for a minute there i thought i’d have to upgrade to 65 bit. I won’t do it i tell ya; i’m perfectly happy with 64, yadda yadda….

  16. Ian says:

    SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

  17. Blackberries says:

    Okay, I am now interested in this game.

  18. Bozzley says:

    The first game just wasn’t to my tastes. I love sandbox games (or whatever the correct term is – if it’s like GTA but not exactly like it, then I’m calling it a sandbox game), but the first Just Cause left me cold. I think there’s a case to be made for games which contain gameplay which is in no way realistic whatsoever to also not look realistic too. Yes, this makes very little sense, but this is the internet, so I will say it (type it).

    Crackdown on the 360. Was basically GTA but with super powers. Cel-shaded graphics, loved it. It felt comfortable. It had a look which suited the gameplay behind it. Just Cause. Was basically GTA but with a super parachute. Realistic graphics. Didn’t like it. It felt awkward and, for want of a better word, false.

    Rant over.

  19. Wolfox says:

    The best thing about the article is the ALT text in the picture. Seriously, check it up. ;-)

    • kalidanthepalidan says:

      Haha! That John Walker is so clever.

    • Premium User Badge Spork says:

      Anyone else have problems with RPS’s alt-text in Firefox? Not as spontaneous when you have to view the image info.

    • jalf says:

      The “problem” is RPS’s insistence on using the wrong attribute. For this, you are supposed to use the title attribute, not the alt one.

      alt is meant to show up instead of the image. The title is meant to supplement it.

    • Psychopomp says:

      The thing they use doesn’t have a thingy for putting in title text.

  20. DeanLearner says:

    Well I for one, wont be buying it.

    My favourite things about games is the smug feeling I get from playing a game as not intended. Like making a ladder out of trip bombs in half life, or using other cars as assisted brakes in gran turismo.

    Upon seeing the guy set fire to a gas cannister and right it into the sky, I see this will not be possible :(

    • Urthman says:

      I’m afraid the only way to subvert this game is to only use guns in every mission, never use the grappling hook or parachute, and always drive on the road within the legal speed limit.

  21. Calabi says:

    I’ve wondered how are you supposed to take the name.

    Is it Just Cause as in a justified causality.

    Or is it Just Cause as in Just Because(Just Coz), without the Be.

  22. Premium User Badge Schaulustiger says:

    And there will be a demo, too: http://twitter.com/eidos/statuses/8637381952

    Hooray for demos.

  23. WJonathan says:

    I just want analog gamepad support this time. Please.

  24. disperse says:

    Wee. Piñata!

  25. disperse says:

    I hope the game environments aren’t too carefully set up and scripted. This game seems to give you the the tools for all sorts of creative “solutions” to “problems”. I just hope it steps aside and gives you the room to make those decisions yourself.

    For example, your mission is to blow up a tower: “Hey, look at those precariously stacked crates of explosives next to the gas tanks at the base of the tower. Hmm, I wonder if I should blow them up?”

  26. Kadayi says:

    @Bonecancer

    Nothing? I sense a man who actually hasn’t tried Windows 7. If you had you’d actually have a clue instead of an attitude (and a surprisingly poor one at that). The simple fact that it’s not running upon a 9 year old backbone means it’s a little more limber when it comes to working with modern hardware architecture (most of which didn’t even exist when XP was developed), and surprisingly it’s a lot less inclined to force you to have to hit the reset button when your software applications (esp games) inevitably crap out on you. Faster response time, ability to multi-task seamlessly (Alt tabbing is not like playing Russian Roulette) and significantly more stable, plus support for the next 5 or so years? For a mere £60 you say? Bargain.

    I doubt anyone reading this thread hasn’t upgraded at least one thing to with their computer in the last 9 or so years, yet probably the things they replaced were still functional in some form or other whether it be 10GB hard drives or Nvidia Geforce 2s. Simply that they were functional didn’t save them from being discarded though, it’s the inevitable price of progress in an evolving medium. Now you can wail and nash your teeth about it, and spool off elaborate fantasies about how it’s no different (and you’re all Bill Gates Shills), but ultimately who are you fooling but yourself? You think your convincing us Win 7 users to come back like some John the Baptist style evangelist?

    • bookwormat says:

      Windows XP runs all my hardware, it is stable and Alt-Tab works fine.

    • Urthman says:

      No one’s asking you to stop using Windows 7. We’re just saying that it doesn’t offer anything we’re interested in, XP is working very well, and so there’s no reason for a developer to abandon it. Especially not for a game that works perfectly fine on a console that’s even older than my XP machine.

      If Shattered Horizon wants to be Vista/7 only to take advantage of stuff that can’t be done in XP, I have no problem with that. But there’s no reason JC2 couldn’t run under XP. It’s certainly not using DX11 on the Xbox.

    • Kadayi says:

      @bookwormat

      Never ever in the last 9 years? Next up you’ll be telling me you’ve never had a BSOD. Pull the other one it’s got bells on.

    • bookwormat says:

      Never ever in the last 9 years?

      What? No! I only use Windows XP for a little over three years now, and only on my couch pc. But it is stable now, and I have no problems with ALT-TAB now, and it runs all my hardware just fine.

  27. Frye says:

    Come on, this has been settled a year ago. Everybody seems to agree (from tweak freaks’ benchmark sites to serious researchers): XP will beat all the others in raw application throughput. It will continue to do so until the number of cores reaches a certain point (say, 8 or 12). MS had to look ahead and Vista was a ‘necessary evil’. Writing multi-processor code is NOT a trivial thing.

    If all you care about is fps in games, then by all means stick with XP.

    Personally, though, i’d gladly give up one frame per second for all that I get back for it.
    I make a living on my gaming PC aswell, so I have a different perspective. Most importantly for me is having a browser or a development studio starting up instantly, because it’s getting pre-cached. Also buggy code not closing properly (sometimes even bringing down the OS) is a great help.

    • bookwormat says:

      I make a living on my gaming PC aswell, so I have a different perspective.

      That’s a fair point. Windows is a couch only software for me, and upgrading has no benefits except in cases like this, where a company decides not to support my current version anymore.

  28. Javaguy says:

    I have a feeling I’m going to be told off for this, and I know that graphics aren’t everything at all but Avalanche’s PC port of Just Cause didn’t exactly, uh, make the most of high end PC hardware

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCX8kVAwlA

    The PC version was also pretty buggy for some people and had performance issues on some hardware (The Eidos forums were a very angry place around the game’s release) and never got any kind of patch.

    So, yeah, as exciting as these trailers look I’m definitely waiting for reviews.

    • Dominic White says:

      Looks like the PC version of the original was based on the original Xbox version, rather than the 360 release. Happened a lot during that era.

      Anyway, it was an outsourced port. Seems like the devs themselves are doing this one multiplatform from the start, so it should be the same on all systems, and prettiest on PC.

  29. Gimpy says:

    The ONLY feature that makes Win7/Vista even remotely attractive is the extra memory supported by the 64-bit versions (and this only because support for XP Pro 64 is so bloody poor.) The other “features” make it a no-sell for me. Actual value-add features are supposed to do things which help me or my computer work better, bogus “features” like DRM waste CPU cycles by constantly checking to see if I’m doing something that I’m not supposed to be doing, or threaten to cripple the usability of our PCs (Google for “driver revocation” and then ask yourself why corporate and government IT folk are still so wary of Vista and 7. Simply put, Vista/7 CAN NOT be relied upon in a business environment.)

    Back to gaming though… Does anyone remember the very first “DX10 only” game, ShadowRun? Well, FASA employees sure do, as their studio went out of business. ;-) Guess ignoring the revenue from all those Luddite XP gamers was a really poor idea after all…

    Oh, and remember Halo 2, which was also “DX10 only”, but mysteriously ran without a hitch under XP with a little help? Looked identical (like crap) no matter which OS you played it under, though — like a DX7 game, even if you ran it on Vista with the latest drivers and an 8800… I remember the MS fanBoys on the forums back then too… all insisting that Halo 2 made use of some magical features of Vista/DX10, and that it was just so advanced that only Vista or the XBox could run it. Uh-huh. Let’s be honest… Halo 2 was Microsoft’s “toy in the bottom of the cereal”, designed to trick you into buying your box of Vista… ;-)

    Just Cause 2? I chock it up to this : lazy developers who couldn’t be bothered to write a scalable graphics engine to turn of the two or three DX11/DX10-exclusive features that were used. ;-)