Hands On: Hard Reset

Why, hello. Would you like a big old fight?

Hard Reset seemed to appear from nowhere. First a screenshot. Then a name and a video. Then a pile of screenshots. That started barely a month ago, with the game due out as soon as September. And then yesterday we found a few levels of the game arrive in our inbox. So I’ve had a play of this PC-only shooter. (The screenshots aren’t ours, as the code was watermarked, but those below are all new, and you can click on them for bigger versions.)

Flying Wild Hog, the best-of-Polish development team behind today’s treat, have been selling Hard Reset as an old-school PC shooter, and in many ways that’s true. In other ways, it really isn’t. Where it falls between the two is an interesting place, full of promise, but with elements I beg the developers to fix before release.

The story, told in comicky-book cutscenes, is about something called the Sanctuary, millions of human lives, defending it from the machines, doesn’t this sound a bit like the Matrix, shouty men, and so on. Which is essentially the words people say in between bouts of your shooting at things. An old-school shooter’s story should be ignored in favour of shooting at things, and so here I give it a tick. I then draw a smiley face next to the line at the end of one of the cutscenes where your shouty-man character shouts, “Time to blow shit up!”

That’s mostly what Hard Reset is about. Having some weapons, and shooting at the enemies. Also, shooting at the scenery to make stuff blow up to destroy the enemies. And it’s no more sophisticated than that. Another tick.

Things get even more ticktastic when the very neatly used in-game tutorial tips (presented alongside the game’s in-game narrative nonsense, context sensitive, and not enforced – tickticktick) introduce you to the concept of looking for secrets. The great forgotten feature of classic shootering are present and correct, either offering you bonuses for exploring off track, or having cracks in walls that can be widened by exploding nearby barrels, cars, etc. These bonuses are presented in the form of madly glowing giant awkwardly shaped boxes of ammo (tick), health (tick) and XP (waitwhat?).

XP is the game’s perhaps first serious deviation from 90s shooters. As you kill things you gain it in drips, as well as gathering larger lumps from the pickups. This can then be spent at upgrade stations, letting you elaborately adapt your two main weapons, as well as improve your armour and health. Those two weapons, by the way, begin as a standard bullet-firing machine gun, and an electricity-firing plasma gun. Each can eventually be upgraded until it shifts, Transformers style, into many alts. So your machine gun becomes a shotgun, a rocket launcher, grenade launcher, and so on. The plasma orb doodah can fire arcing electricity, balls of fizzing lightning, giant electric domes, and hefty beams. Then these modes each have improvements and alt-fires, and so on and so on, meaning that just two guns are in fact an enormous arsenal.

Enemies, as I said, are machines, of many different types, and there are immediately far more of them than you’ll think reasonable. Like Serious Sam, Hard Reset is a game best played while running backward, which is an ultro-tick. However, flipping crikey these demo levels got hard. Being swarmed by bombs on legs, all exploding on you at once whether you shoot at them or not is, at the moment, a touch frustrating. There are ways to get past it using different weapons, but, well, here we come to the first of my major gripes…

The two changing weapons thing is a great idea. One is assigned to Q, the other E, and then the varying modes on your mousewheel or the number keys. The massive issue is, in the version I played there’s no useful way to know which mode is which. The gun changes shape, but not in a distinctive way, and the little symbols that appear in the bottom left of the HUD are utterly meaningless. This version of the game generously unlocks lots of the modes of the guns midway through, so as to give the previewer an opportunity to use everything despite not having the full game. And it quickly becomes apparent that trying to remember the order in which the different modes of two weapons are in, with no useful visual feedback, is a real pain in the arse. It lead to my blowing myself up with bombs, or firing useless electricity at giant mechs.

This becomes more problematic when combined with another cross next to its old-school values: no quicksave. Clearly the argument tediously rages on about whether games should quicksave or checkpoint, but there’s no debate that when the latter is chosen, they have to be done really bloody well. Currently, and there is plenty of time for this to be fixed, Hard Reset’s aren’t. Being killed from behind four rooms (and thus four major waves of enemies) into a level sees you put right back to the start, which is not okay. I’d far rather see a quicksave put in, since that’s how super-tough shooters always used to play, and would escape the need for the team to dramatically fix its checkpointing.

And while I’m listing things I’d love to see tweaked so as this astonishingly gorgeous shooter can be everything I’d like it to be, the damage feedback is currently all over the place. Using the rather more modern technique of reddening the edges of the screen to show you’re taking damage, the intensity of this in no way matches the damage taken. You can be presented as being at death’s door with 90% of your health, or on other occasions suddenly drop dead without warning. It definitely needs tidying up, especially in a game that’s so focused on being difficult.

Talking of being difficult, a rather weird feature, and one I can’t immediately understand, is the way difficulty levels work. The usual are available, Easy, Normal, Difficult and Insane. I picked Normal, as is only appropriate. Later in the few levels we were sent I found myself being utterly trounced. No bad thing – being difficult is another important tick. But I wanted to get past it to be able to write this for you, so switched down to Easy for a spell. Except, it was to be for the rest of the game. Changing difficulty in-game will only let you make it easier, not harder, and then when you select that change it warns you that you can’t undo it. It meant that as I went on to finish the portion of game, including the big boss, it was all rather too easy, and there was nothing I could do about it. A very peculiar thing, and I cannot immediately think of a good reason for it to exist.

The reason I bring these things up in a preview (usually a more neutral territory as it’s unfair to judge something that’s unfinished) is because I really desperately want this game to be good. The graphics, as the video and screenshots will have shown you, are astonishing. It runs incredibly smoothly for so much elaborate detail, and copes well with a dozen enemies on screen at once. Such fidelity, combined with 1990s shooter values, desperately running backward as you avoid the onslaught, is exactly what I’m missing from my gaming at the moment. Just being in a shooter that wasn’t trying to teach me a valuable life lesson while asking me to solve Fermat’s last theorem using planks and physics was a rare joy. My shoulders relaxed slightly as I realised I was being allowed to have fun without consequences. That’s something well worth fighting for, so I really do beg Flying Wild Hog to reconsider their use of checkpoints, and to rethink their feedback for which weapon is selected. Tweak that, and we’re really onto something here.


  1. torchedEARTH says:

    In my day we didn’t have quick save.

    You young’uns don’t know your born.

    • Vexing Vision says:

      Well, my Wolfenstein did!

    • Dana says:

      Of course we had, you just had to leave computer/console turned ON over the night.

    • Doth Messar says:

      @Dana: Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, “the Whale,” they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Both DOOM And Duke3D let you save at any time. I can’t remember if there was a “quick” key for it, but it is clearly closer to that than bloody checkpoints.

    • lokimotive says:

      Saving at anytime was always a feature of first person PC manshoots. Quicksaves, are really just a refinement of that as it just means you don’t have to go to the menu to save. I don’t know what game first did this, or even which one I first noticed it in…. for some reason I want to say Rise of the Triad.

      I have no evidence to back this up, but I’m pretty sure the ridiculous checkpoint “function” only came about after those kiddies with their funboxes got on the scene. Stupid kiddie funboxes.

      My favorite utilization of quicksave has to be Serious Sam because not only did they have a quicksave, but they had multiple quicksave slots, so you could back up a few saves if you needed to. Brilliant!

    • mollemannen says:

      probably since you didn’t have games back then? :P

    • Text_Fish says:

      Quake 1 definitely shipped with a quicksave button. It might’ve been available earlier, but if it was I didn’t use it out of sheer ignorance of the fact. Quicksave is excellent and anybody who says otherwise clearly lacks any sort of willpower if they’re finding they can’t stop pressing it.

      First time I noticed Checkpoints was HL1 — I think they were introduced to solve the problem of not having very definitive beginnings and ends of each level.

      Hard Reset looks brilliant so far.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Well, checkpoints are “just” level codes that the computer keeps track of (helpful on crippled consoles since it’s a doddle to store “got as far as X” compared to “entire state of level”), and those go back to the primordial game soup.

      Max Payne’s quicksave is the best. Two alternating save slots, and a quickload that requires a second tap to confirm unless you’re dead. It’s never frustratingly “are you sure?” while at the same time avoiding accidental screwups from pressing the wrong one of the two keys.

    • deadsexy says:

      I like quicksaves, especially for hard games. The argument that it makes dying less impactful is meaningless if you choose your quicksaving wisely. In quiet moments for instance and additionally inbetween sections that get frustrating.

      However I fear that after years of gaming with a complete lack of quicksaving I might just forget about it too often…

  2. coledognz says:

    Maybe they can revive the long lost PC demo and let the general public download it.

    Closer to release obviously, once things are a bit more defined.

  3. Hexidecimal says:

    Good preview. The couple little things you mention should definitely be worked on. Hope they polish it up before release but I can’t wait to play this one.

  4. db1331 says:

    Do we know if this supports DX11 yet?

  5. Jharakn says:

    I’m currently playing my way through the awesomely named doom TNT evilution and a modern old school shooter sounds amazing

    • KillerB says:

      TNT is really well thought out but mega hard, and if not for quicksave would be virtually impossible

  6. robostac says:

    Quite a few games only let you adjust difficulty downwards as they want to do achievements or unlocks based on the difficulty you completed it at . I’m pretty sure BlackOps (and other CoD games) have the same restrictions.

    • Crimsoneer says:

      That’s rather silly.

    • TheApologist says:

      Personally, I don’t really care about achievements. At least, I care about them less than the game being fun. So if that is the reason, that is indeed rather silly.

    • Gnarf says:

      Yeah, that doesn’t really sound too weird.

      unlocks based on the difficulty you completed it at

      Like beating level 1 on normal unlocks level 2 on normal, while beating level 2 on easy does not unlock level 3 on hard. I’m not sure what’s so peculiar about that.

    • LionsPhil says:

      So unlock the achievement based on the minimum difficulty used that game, rather than the one the player was set to at the end.

      Or, alternatively, stop letting achievements rule over gameplay.

    • Nick says:

      because its stupid, abitrary design with no real reason beyond fucking achievements which can frankly die in a fire.

    • Tams80 says:

      Or, for those who want to show how ‘great’ they are, have an achievement for completing all the levels on said difficulty.

      The people who say, “you should only complete game on the difficulty you chose (or less)” just want their achievement to be easily seen (nothing more obvious than completing the game). Most other people don’t care what this person as achieved (and won’t look at their achievements). I don’t see why someone’s ego should affect how other people want to play the game though.

    • Diziet Sma says:

      That’s stupid. There’s nothing to stop them recording the lowest difficulty you had the game set to at any point during your play through and rewarding the achievement based on that. Sloppy sloppy design. I don’t really play those man shoots though.

    • Siimon says:

      Are you for real? I always wondered why the latest CoD games had this retarded restriction… I usually switch down a difficulty when I’ve re-played something enough that its not fun and/or where I have to re-play something because I keep dying out of chance/being forced into a position where I may or may not be killed no matter what I do. And then promptly switch the difficulty back up a notch.
      I hate this restriction. Just warn me that if I swap down a notch I won’t earn achievements and then let me do what I want.

      I’ve played games w/ this restriction before where I downloaded a 100% savegame just so I could swap down a notch, then on the next level I’d load up the 100% savegame so I could keep playing on the higher difficulty.. Why should I need a workaround like this? Bah.


      All in all, I’m very excited for this game. One thing I’m curious about is if enemies come from a logical place (at least from inside an empty room up ahead) or if they appear out of nowhere and insta-spawn right behind me?

    • heretic says:

      Fallout New Vegas had a good system, you could start the game in the hardcore mode, but if you changed difficulty it would just tell you you wouldn’t get the achievement for doing it on hardcore.

      I believe you could even switch hardcore mode back on whenever you want (you just wouldn’t get the achievement), but this is a much better compromise (to get passed a very difficult grindy area say), than to just not allow the player to switch back to a more difficult difficulty level.

    • thegooseking says:

      I do believe Mass Effect allows you to change difficulty whenever you want (in both directions), yet it has an achievement for completing the game on the hardest difficulty without changing it. As Diziet Sma said, it’s not technically hard to implement.

    • Zenicetus says:

      Yep, Mass Effect allows change in difficulty either way, at any time.

      In ME2 there was at least one (maybe more?) little prizes tied to difficulty. You could pick up a very cool Geth assault rifle, but only if you do the Tali recruitment mission on Hardcore or Insanity, start to finish. Then you can ramp it down to Normal or lower after the mission is over, and keep the weapon.

      I like that much better than stupid achievements. The game gives you something useful if you continue to play at the harder levels, and you also have the option to drop difficulty back down and just use the weapon to keep things moving a little more smoothly, if you’re more interested in plot than shooting (which, by the time I could pick up that weapon, I definitely was).

    • InternetBatman says:

      I like achievements sometimes and I still think it’s a bad design decision. All you have to do is break a game into chapters, maps, or missions and record what level of difficulty they were completed at.

  7. KillerB says:

    Sounds (and looks) good so far (bar the quicksave issue) and i cannot wait play it and to run backwards through the level hoping i dont hit a wall shooting the bad guys in the face!!

  8. godgoo says:

    Well, caveats aside, consider my interest firmly piqued!

  9. TheApologist says:

    This sounds great. I got me a graphics card the other week n’I fancy me a purdy game to play ohn eet.

  10. KillahMate says:

    “Astonishing” graphics? I dunno. They’re very technically proficient, but the visual style (judging from the screenshots, which were, after all, released precisely so we can judge that) is horribly mediocre, in a way that screams “video game”. The aesthetics of the game are, to be blunt, crap.

    Not that I mind much, after all these games were never about looks (as long as the enemies and powerups etc. are readable on screen), but I find it strange that everyone praises the graphics when any given Gears of War looks to have more style than this.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Gears of War is a bloody weird example, but I do agree that this game looks ugly static. I’m hoping it improves in motion because the actual playing part mostly sounds pretty solid.

    • KillahMate says:

      I used Gear of War because it’s a good example of current high-end sci-fi shooter aesthetic, not because it’s particularly impressive (although they do spend a lot of effort on their design, I was surprised when I saw how much).

    • The Sentinel says:

      I dunno, I think the graphics look rather splendid. We spend so much time bemoaning everything as ‘brown’ but when some genuine colour shows up it’s all ‘garish’ this and ‘crap’ that…yes, it’s not your father’s cyberpunk grimdark but it’s no less pleasing to the eye. :)

    • LionsPhil says:

      Because obviously if one extreme is bad, the other must be good, right?

    • The Sentinel says:

      Don’t be putting words in my mouth now, LionsPhil; it’s rude and somewhat farcical. It was just an observation inside a subjective opinion.

    • InternetBatman says:

      Gears of War isn’t a great example because it hasn’t been on the PC for almost four years.

  11. Fringe says:

    Heh. I read “Hard On” in the title.

    Oh dear

  12. Cerzi says:

    While it seems restrictive, I think it’s appropriate for games that are emphasizing difficulty. It’s important for the game’s integrity: if you could just drop the difficulty down to easy just for the hard bits then, in a game so focused on being challenging, is almost in the same vein as cheating.

    If there’s some kind of online scoring used then it’s even more relevant.

    • Kdansky says:

      As if it was hard to store for each level on what difficulty it was finished on, and giving out the achievement for “completed on insane” only when all levels had been played on insane at least once…

      Further: If achievements start to directly impede on my gameplay experience, redesign your achievements. You’ve fucked up royally. Do not compromise your game for silly imaginary badges.

    • Gnarf says:

      Stop obsessing about achievements.

      It’s about having to beat one section of the game in order to move on to the next section of the game. You don’t get to start the in that room that’s like right next to the boss, you have to start at like the beginning instead. That’s not really controversial. It’s not the kind of thing that people complain about. And then I don’t really get why “beating level 1 on easymode unlocks level 2 on easymode” would be.

    • Zenicetus says:

      “It’s important for the game’s integrity: if you could just drop the difficulty down to easy just for the hard bits then, in a game so focused on being challenging, is almost in the same vein as cheating.”

      The trouble with that idea, is that it assumes the game’s designers are always perfectly balancing each level, and not screwing up with a too-tough boss or something else that makes progress stupidly difficult, and not just intentionally difficult.

      It’s easy for a game designer to screw up the difficulty balance when they become familiar with playtesting the code, and knowing the tricks to get through each level. Being able to temporarily set a lower difficulty, and then ramp it back up again, is the player’s insurance against bad game design, or just over-familiarity with the design.

    • rayne117 says:

      “It’s important for the game’s integrity: if you could just drop the difficulty down to easy just for the hard bits then, in a game so focused on being challenging, is almost in the same vein as cheating.”

      Why don’t you go tell Bioware they did it wrong in… every game they ever made?

    • wengart says:

      If I drop 50$ on a game I expect to be able to play it how I want to play it. If I decide that level 3 is a bitch and i’m not having fun anymore I should be able to play it on easy then go back to normal on level 4.

      If you don’t want to do that then tough level 3 out on normal.

    • Rii says:

      “If I drop 50$ on a game I expect to be able to play it how I want to play it.”

      You can play the game how you want to play it. What you can’t do is impose upon the developer to make other than the game they want to make. If you don’t like what they’re offering, don’t buy it.

  13. Kdansky says:

    I really hope they don’t mistake “no quicksave” and “difficulty cannot be switched” as game design elements, because as Gamasutra will tell you in dozens of essays: Preventing the player from playing the game that they want is never good design. If someone wants to play on ultra-easy, allow them to. If someone wants to save right before the boss, switch the difficulty to ultra super mega nightmare, and quicksave every two seconds while taking potshots at the boss, just allow him to. It’s his damn choice, and you have no reason to forbid him to do so.

    Just because it doesn’t look like fun to you (or me) doesn’t mean it’s not fun to him, and for a single player game, it really does not matter whether I would have fun when someone else is playing instead.
    Design the game well, and make the default way to play painless. Don’t rely extensively on the player being able to quicksave nonstop and try to balance for that. But don’t remove quicksaving. Bonus: That way, you can afford a few mistakes when balancing. We all know a few games where there was that one spot which was impossible to get past because the designers messed up the difficulty and forgot a checkpoint. Enter Quicksave Button, problem solved.

    There are so many new game designers who just don’t get these things, when we had to painfully learn them ten years ago.

    • Sicram says:

      I heartily agree, as a to-be game designer we’ve gotten to know that we (gamedevs (or my case, to-be)) are making games for the PLAYERS (GASP!!!). As said, limiting players to what one self finds fun isn’t a good thing to do, hell, even a rather bad thing. Even more so in a single player game!

      Hopefully they’ll fix what is needed.

    • Josh W says:

      I agree with that up to a point, but there are people who will feel that they are making things awkward for themselves for no reason and so take easier options, and then miss out on the more fun mechanics of the game.

    • InternetBatman says:

      I absolutely agree. There is still this immediate reaction against save scumming that I don’t get. If it’s how a player wants to play the game then let them play it. This is doubly true for a game trying to be an oldschool PC shooter since most of them let you save at any time.

      The smartest way I’ve seen of handling save scumming is probably in New Vegas, where they make it difficult for the player and strongly discourage that playstyle in the casinos, but let you do it anyways if you want to.

  14. Tams80 says:

    I think it’s actually better to judge previews than to judge games. At least with previews, if they are judged; the developers are more likely to change some features.

    More on topic: It looks promising.

  15. wodin says:

    One of the developers Wooz is always over on the No Mutants Allowed forum…which is a Fallout website..he loves the old school Fallout. Think he mods aswell…not sur though

  16. BobsLawnService says:

    You cannot play this style of game without save anywhere. It sounds like it is awesome except for that one thing which is a deal breaker for me.

  17. BathroomCitizen says:

    This smells surprisingly good.

    Also, I’d like a return to the quicksave feature!

  18. SavageD says:

    I’m really going to be hanging out for the ‘wot I think’ on this one.

  19. perfectheat says:

    The Lawnmower Man!

  20. shoptroll says:

    So is this the Serious Sam equivalent of Deus Ex?

    As for the one-way difficulty downgrade…. If I had to wager a guess, they probably dole out more XP on the easier dificulties. The downgrade would prevent the play from powerleveling on “Easy” and then popping back up to “Normal” for a boss fight or a quick achievement or something. Although… for a single player game I can’t really see this being a real big problem actually.

    A good compromise might be allowing the player to select the difficulty on a per-level basis.

    Quicksaves please by the way, even if they opt to do a checkpoint system. Not that I have much of an issue with checkpoints for most games, but I agree this is the sort of game that needs quicksave.

  21. StingingVelvet says:

    I am very much in favor of checkpoints. Despite being a PC gamer my entire adult life I have always thought quicksaves for linear games was almost cheating. There should be a punishment for death, and repeating a small section counts as that. Also in a linear game I don’t want to think about saving, I just want to progress. It makes it feel more like a game when you have to make it through and then finally see that checkpoint come up and you say “whew!”

    In an open game like Oblivion or Risen or whatever I think quicksaves are REQUIRED though. It all depends on the game. And, as said in the article, a game with checkpoints needs them placed well. Nothing worse than sparse checkpoints that make you not want to experiment or punish you too harshly. Crysis 2 had some bloody awful sections where checkpoints were placed poorly.

  22. taldira says:

    Graphics themselves are impressive, but something about the overall look of the game does not click. It’s kinda not consistent. We have this city in the style of Blade Runner, all serious and grim, and right next to it are guns from some 50’s Science!Fiction (they would not be out of place in Serious Sam), enemies that look like MST3k rejects, and that awfully colorful health bar.

    I like what I’ve seen of the game, but really, it just doesn’t feel right.

  23. DarkByke says:

    Ooooohhh. :) Killzone 3 for PC. Almost

  24. Demiath says:

    This does look promising, but I would hardly call the graphics “astonishing”. Closer to Crysis 2 than Black Ops, for sure, but I fail to see how the technological aspects (let alone the colorful but ultimately generic art direction) manage to be ground-breaking on any level. But, yeah, I’m very excited about the game in spite of its sudden appearance out of nowhere.

  25. Homo_erectus says:

    Looks very interesting but there’s very little chance I will buy this game if it only has a checkpoint system for saves.

  26. RyuRanX says:

    And how is the level design? Old-school, complex and interesting like in Duke Nukem 3D or modern, linear and boring like in Duke Nukem Forever?

    I hope they reconsider the saving system because I hate checkpoints. Also, I’d rather have fully different weapons instead of only two moddable weapons.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Well, it sounds like it’s ten weapons in all but looks and—oddly—control.

      Although admittedly gun look and feel is a pretty big thing for manshoots.

  27. Tyrone Slothrop. says:

    “And it’s no more sophisticated than that. Another tick.”

    Well I don’t see how it deserves a tick for being a pure manshoot. Come to think it; Modern Manshoots; terrible, lacking innovation, bloody screen pop-a-moles for kids. Old Manshoots: classic, enoyable with running-backwards, absorbing bullets while enemies are bullet-sponges for serious gamers.

    A game where your only interaction is to left-click damage into people’s heads gets boring and stale incredibly quickly whether it’s Call of Duty or unfortunately Hard Reset which I was formerly most interested in. A demo will convince me if this ‘REALLY SERIOUS SAM’ game can be carried by its gunplay.

    Also a redundant story is another tick? Heaven forbid someone make an old-school shooter at least attempting a compelling story.

    “And it’s no more sophisticated than that. Another tick.”

    • poop says:

      if only you could talk to the monsters, that would be interesting

  28. Vesperan says:

    Just peering quickly at that first screenshot.. is that red guy.. can it be.. yes!

    It’s 2011 David Bowie from the video game “Hard Reset”!

    I’m not sure why that came to me, but it was certainly my first impression.

  29. thegooseking says:

    I like checkpoints in conjunction with quicksaves. The number of times I’ve played Deus Ex and died, only to discover that the last time I remembered to save was two hours ago, because I was just so engaged with the game I forgot about the mundane hard disk interactions…

    And honestly, that’s what a game should do, whether it’s something like Deus Ex or something more traditionally shootery like this or (almost) anything else. It should give you enough of a sense of ‘transportation’ that you forget to quicksave, which is why autosave is such a good thing. But that doesn’t mean autosave should be used instead of quicksave.

    • Vandelay says:

      This is so very true. I’m always forgetting to quicksave, particular in RPGs. I like a game to be saving as regularly as it can.

      It is less of an issue in a game like this though. Just quicksaves would suffice.

  30. Mist says:

    I hope it’s of a decent length or released with a budget price. This game is the sort of thing that I want to support (well, judging from the preview), but paying 50 euros for a 5 hour campaign = eh..

    Of course, quality over quantity, but even Portal 2 at full price made me go “I don’t really regret this, but I also wouldn’t recommend it to anyone else, considering all the other great games that I could still play at a fraction of the price”.

    Also: nice to see some colour, but still a lot of grey/black. Nice for atmosphere, but a few levels where the sun is shining would also be nice for contrast, so I hope those are also present.

    edit: also, what the gooseking said. I love quicksaving, but a really immersive gaming experience makes me forget that I should save. So an additional strong autosave system is a strong bonus.

  31. JiminyJickers says:

    Oh no, I’m tired of playing games where I can’t save where I want.

    If they ad in save whenever you want, then I will buy it. If not, then its a no go for me.

  32. Bart Stewart says:

    I also quite like what I’m hearing and seeing, but I’m much, much less likely to give these developers my money if there’s no quicksave.

    It’s just too frustrating (especially in a shooter billing itself as tough) to successfully plow through a bunch of mini-bosses only to be dropped by an end-boss (with no preceding checkpoint save) and have to go back and do it again… and again… and again. That is the opposite of fun. (And it’s even less entertaining when you’re forced to sit through an unskippable cutscene each time.)

    And that’s to say nothing of wanting to explore the (dangerous) gameworld, or to try out different tactical ideas for a fight you just won.

    In short, I don’t mind checkpoint/autosave systems, and I appreciate being limited to them on a consoletoy, but they’re not sufficient for a PC game. I say this with regret, and after careful consideration: no quicksave, no sale.

    My only concern (other than the devs aren’t listening and/or don’t give a damn) is that Hard Reset is designed like Alpha Protocol: the “state” of objects like enemies isn’t preserved; instead, objects are created from a base instance keyed to checkpoints. This would mean that even if you tweaked an .ini file to bind a key to the engine’s quicksave function, loading a quicksave would just load the default checkpointed objects, not objects with all their interesting state.

    If that’s the case, then it’s not just a matter of Wild Hog officially exposing a quicksave function for keybinding — they’d actually have to redesign object behaviors, and probably rejigger setpieces and difficulty levels as well. And there’s not much time left for that.

    I guess we’ll see. “Hope for the best, expect the worst.”

    • thegooseking says:

      There’s really no reason for a 7th generation console be restricted to checkpoints and save points either. 6th generation and earlier, sure; 7th generation, not so much.

  33. outoffeelinsobad says:

    I am going to buy this game SO HARD.

  34. wazups2x says:

    It better have Quicksaves, that’s a must!

    Really every game should have quicksaves, I see no reason not to include them.

  35. dellphukof says:

    There’s a reason that people are making a big deal about Hard Reset featuring developers from People Can Fly, as they come from a team responsible for one of the best FPSes of the last decade, Painkiller. A refreshing break from the increasingly formulaic modern shooter, Painkiller clung to old-school, frantic gameplay not out of nostalgia, but because it was fast paced and fun. We sat down with an early build of Hard Reset, and we’re happy to say it looks to be following in its predecessor’s footsteps.seo service