-   Earth Defense Force: Insect Armageddon (
-   -   Disappointing (

DeathConvoy 08-28-2011 04:59 PM

I'm a big fan of the series, starting on 2017 though GDF is definitely my favorite. A fellow fan and I have just finished the game and needless to say, we're both exceptionally disappointed. There will be spoilers.

The game is good, and there are a number of nice touches, I just can't seem to get over how much they've left out of the game. Its essentially a cut-down version of 2017 with better graphics and classes. My main problem is length and stage variation - only 15 stages, all in the city with just the one night mission. Hell, you're introduced to Hectors in the very first mission. To summarise my thoughts:

The Good
- Local and online co-op.
- Survival mode.
- 4 classes with around 80 weapons each (versus 176 in 2017, 150 each class in GDF)
- Weapon unlocks are not just random drops, classes level up allowing some weapons to be purchased (random drop weapons are free).
- Its pretty.

The Bad
- 15 campaign stages, 6 survival stages (versus 53 in 2017, 71 in GDF).
- 3 difficulty levels (versus 5 in 2017, 6 in GDF).
- Only a few new enemies, but nothing special (GDF has a number of dinosaurs, mirror gunships, centipedes, slaters, and gargantuan ant hills).
- The length on Normal was under 5 hours without any prior levelling (aside from prior EDF familiarity), sure the stages were longer than some in the other games, but still very disappointing.
- Classes/levels/weapons do not carry over to Survival mode.
- The "finale" [last warning] is just Hectors and larger variants while being shot by the Mothership overhead. You can't hurt it, you just have to beat a few Hectors until the objective changes - after which, you die. Ok, maybe you don't, but there is certainly no feeling of accomplishment for saving the world.

The game is fun, but any EDF/GDF fan should know its got a long way to go. If you're thinking of picking it up, make sure your expectations are low so the short length and awful ending doesn't ruin it for you. That said, if they bring out an expansion to expand on the campaign - even if they don't expand on the stages, just add a handful of enemy types and allow you to actually win, my tune will change. The engine is great, they've kept the same dialog style from 2017, its clear they were fans of the game - if they're given the chance to finish the 'demo' they've created, my tune will change to the highest praise.

Axl DS 08-28-2011 05:35 PM

The ending is based on difficulty level, you can tell you only finished Normal.

DeathConvoy 08-29-2011 12:22 AM


Originally Posted by Axl DS (Post 4452008)
The ending is based on difficulty level, you can tell you only finished Normal.

Thats amazing, were you able to deduce that by where I said we'd just finished the game or did you peek at my public profile.

Sure, the ending is based on difficulty level, but you can't honestly tell me that a few seconds of additional dialog:

...can even compare to:


Wrinklefighter 08-30-2011 12:11 AM

I never played the first one, so I didn't have as much to base an opion of as you did. I enjoyed it for the most part. Could care less about story, and usually have the tv on mute when I play it. An overall fun arcade style shooter.

Only thing that really got to me was the amount of friendly fire I had to put up with. Don't tell me they didn't pick up on that in the testing phase. If my dickwad AI teammates can't go 60 seconds without putting a bullet (or more than likely rocket) in my back, turn friendly fire OFF.

ghostface24 09-03-2011 10:38 AM

I understand your feelings, IA seems to be more convoluted with all these ranks and classes as well as the restrictions on weapons. It is pretty cool how the game has evolved but I miss the simplicity of the older games.

TyrannoSpank 09-25-2011 11:12 PM

Why does 2017 look more epic then Insect Armageddon =.=.

MrFrost 10-27-2011 12:01 AM


Originally Posted by TyrannoSpank (Post 4527639)
Why does 2017 look more epic then Insect Armageddon =.=.

Because it was.

If you've never played 2017 and you like Insect Armageddon even just a little bit, you'll love 2017.

Awesome outdoor levels, not just the city, I mean like the beach, rolling hills, river banks. And if I remember, the levels were all pretty big.

And helicopters.

As for the OP, they do this with alot of games nowadays it seems. They take a good game, improve the graphics and combat and such and then screw up something else. Or they get the something else right and screw up the combat or the graphics.

Fried Cola 11-23-2011 01:44 AM

I've heard this "its disappointing" opinion a lot. Comparing 2017 to IA is a little like comparing apples to oranges. It gets the basics down right just running around killing giant bugs which is what counts the most IMHO.

but yes, if you liked 2017 a lot and go into IA expecting the same style of low budget zanyness, you will be disappointed. One is Japanese and the other was made by Westerners and that's the big difference right there. IA's code is a lot less crummy than 2017's, but there's no jumping on a helicopter flying up a million miles in the air and HALOing out of it. I loved doing that in 2017.

there's other stuff IA does that annoys me, but it's a budget game and meant to be underwhelming. edit: after playing a lot more, the teir system messes IA up a lot and restricts the player too much in terms of tackling later stages on harder difficulties forcing stupid grinding to actually kill anything on the later stages. Also maybe underwhelming wasn't the best word choice. Half-assed maybe? Imperfect?

Brianzilla2004 12-06-2011 12:29 PM


Originally Posted by Fried Cola (Post 4708276)
the teir system messes IA up a lot and restricts the player too much in terms of tackling later stages on harder difficulties forcing stupid grinding to actually kill anything on the later stages. Also maybe underwhelming wasn't the best word choice. Half-assed maybe? Imperfect?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you. On paper, the Tier system may sound restricting. It is, after all, the point. But if you think about it, 2017 operates on its own brand of restriction.

In order to get tough enough to play in the later levels, and on the higher difficulty settings, you need to kill enemies and collect Armor pickups. In order to deal enough damage to be reasonably efficient, you need to kill enemies and collect Weapon pickups. The thing about these Weapon pickups is that they only allow you to unlock weapons in the ballpark of wherever it is you collected the pickup. You can't get one of the most powerful weapons in the game on the first level on Easy difficulty.

In Insect Armageddon, they simply automated the process. Instead of having to run around and collect a pickup for every last health increase and cross your fingers that you'll find a useful weapon, you gain Experience that eventually increases your health and gives you access to all of the weapons you need to get through the game, albeit for a price. There's still those random Weapon pickups as well, but you no longer need to rely on pure luck for which weapons you acquire.

I've only had Insect Armageddon for two days now, but I already have most of the guns for my Jet Armor available to use or purchase. It literally took me years of playing 2017 to get around to collecting all of the weapons, and hours and hours of farming for those weapons and for Armor to become powerful enough to survive on Inferno. I can't say that I feel restricted by the Tier system anymore than I was with the dumb luck system behind collecting the weapons in 2017. I feel more freedom from the health increasing in Insect Armageddon, since I can move onto higher difficulty settings without grinding and farming for hours.

With all of that said, I must agree with some of the things said in this thread. I'm first and foremost disappointed with the length of the game, and while I haven't watched the 'true' ending yet, the Normal ending was a disappointment as well. The lack of caverns, open fields, or any sort of level variety is another real letdown.

Still, there's so many improvements to the formula. The missions are longer and more interesting, there's more enemy variety, and some of the dialogue is (intentionally) funny. As I said, the Tier system makes progressing your character much easier, with less grinding. The vehicles are actually useful now. So useful, in fact, that I could see a couple of young brothers fighting over who gets to pilot the one remaining mech in a level. The game is obviously going to look better, but it's not just the tech. The art style is actually very solid, and while I love the cheesy B-movie style of 2017, this newer, sleeker style is an attractive and welcome change. Perhaps the best visual change is the EDF soldier, who went from looking... lame, to looking pretty awesome.

There's always room for improvement, and while EDF4 is being developed by the crew in charge of 2017, I'm sure that if the folks behind Insect Armageddon get another crack at the franchise, they'll take our criticisms to heart. I think that if they made a follow-up with more levels and more variety to their environments, they could create the best in the series. Then again, who knows what kinds of improvements the original team has in store for us. I've still got loads to do with Insect Armageddon, and I already can't wait.

amuro98 12-20-2011 07:38 AM

Lack of an ending
I think the main complaint with EDF: IA is that it lacks a real ending. As it stands, the 15 missions feel like the first act of a larger story. I mean think about it, at the end of the 15th mission you haven't managed to liberate any cities from the ravagers. In fact you haven't even managed to save just one city (New Detroit)!

The other EDF/GDF games all ended with you personally gunning down the mothership, as unbelievable that would seem...though since when have these games been about believability?

There were also more units to face off against in the other games as well and they were more evenly spaced. I mean, come on, anthills and a small Hector in the first mission? Gunships in the second?

Fried Cola 12-24-2011 04:26 AM


Originally Posted by Brianzilla2004 (Post 4739508)
I'm gonna have to disagree with you. On paper, the Tier system may sound restricting. It is, after all, the point. But if you think about it, 2017 operates on its own brand of restriction.

I get what your argument is, but your logic is off. The tier/leveling system in IA is restrictive as hell and holds the player back from moving on to tackle the harder stages. This isn't an 'on paper' analysis, this is from my hands on experience with the games.

2017 has a gradual but slow build up of armor and weapons that permit you to tackle the harder stages. There are no equipment restrictions -that's what i'm talking about. The moment you unlock a weapon in your arsenal, you can use it. Through playing the game, you slowly and steadily get more powerful by picking up items

Insect Armageddon is completely different. If your armor and weapons are shitty, things are stuck that way until you get it to the next level. Random weapon pickups don't change things, they're handicapped by the tier system as well (and usually suck). IA's difficulty is inconsistant and what you're left with doing as a player is grinding 1-1 or 1-4 solo umpteen times until you level up. Things could have been changed for the better if they added a few more tiers for a better and more gradual increase in armor strength and arranging weapon rewards a little differently but no, what's there and the way its set up is really uneven and prohibitive more so than 2017 and its annoying and really not fun and pretty much killed my interest in playing it anymore.

Tr1pw1re360 01-31-2013 07:14 PM

I will admit i was a little disappointed when i first played, but only briefly. Yeah it's short and not as many enemies on screen at once but i still loved every second of killing hordes of enemies and destroying buildings. Can't wait for the next one!

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.