Hands-on: Huxley: The Dystopia
by Ben Gilbert 
{ Jun 7th 2009 at 11:30PM }
We were dropped into a deathmatch with a handful of other show attendees, all of us employing impressive gaming PCs and headsets to boot. So here's the thing about Huxley -- it feels exactly like Unreal Tournament. Nearly identical, actually. In fact, back in mid-May, the game's producer admitted as much, saying, "It is more like Unreal or Quake or something like that ... much faster." Hit the jump for our full impressions.
Gallery: Huxley: The Dystopia
That being said, the environments looked great and the pacing was fast and furious. Unfortunately, what separated Huxley from the pack of UE3-based FPS games out there in the past was the game's focus on an MMO/persistent world with cross-platform play. What we saw at E3 seemed a lot more like a competent first-person shooter running on a PC we couldn't possibly afford -- and, ya know, no cross-platform play/persistent world whatsoever.
It didn't help that the selection of weapon loadouts for each of the game's classes were woefully dependent on the strongest of the bunch (though we only played the game for 20 minutes, to be fair), nor that the level we played felt downright cramped. This comes across as especially confusing to us given the game's original emphasis on an open-world and enormous battles.
It's hard to complain about the price of entry to the game though -- aside from a fawncy PC, that is -- and as such, you may want to at least give the game a shot if you have the requisite hardware. NHN America/ijji.com is still saying the game will release sometime later this year, but, like most things Huxley, we've heard promises before that went unfulfilled, so you may not want to make any high-stakes bets on that.
It didn't help that the selection of weapon loadouts for each of the game's classes were woefully dependent on the strongest of the bunch (though we only played the game for 20 minutes, to be fair), nor that the level we played felt downright cramped. This comes across as especially confusing to us given the game's original emphasis on an open-world and enormous battles.
It's hard to complain about the price of entry to the game though -- aside from a fawncy PC, that is -- and as such, you may want to at least give the game a shot if you have the requisite hardware. NHN America/ijji.com is still saying the game will release sometime later this year, but, like most things Huxley, we've heard promises before that went unfulfilled, so you may not want to make any high-stakes bets on that.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Xvnine @ Jun 7th 2009 11:35PM
Game is bad.
InFaMoUs1- @ Jun 7th 2009 11:40PM
wow.. that trailer alone made me go wtf!?
AsherR @ Jun 7th 2009 11:51PM
I was kinda with it up until that last line.
It made my head hurt.
Lustis @ Jun 8th 2009 3:53AM
No AsheR, this is destiny
wwm0nkey @ Jun 7th 2009 11:48PM
Im in the beta, Im loving it!
Mest @ Jun 7th 2009 11:55PM
this beta sucks the big one dude
the gameplay is like unreal tourney lame edition
and for a game thats been in the works since like 2005 it doesnt show much at all
there making a big deal about it and i was really unimpressed
Levi @ Jun 8th 2009 12:20AM
I signed up for the beta, and like usual, didn't get an e-mail invitation.
Though, I've become less excited since the game looks like UT or Q3, which are not my FPS's of choice, and the fact that the game world sounds a lot less constant than any other MMO like WoW bums me out.
I'm still looking forward to trying it.
searchingsignal @ Jun 8th 2009 11:06AM
i completey agree with mest the beta looks horrible i watched my brother play he didnt like it either
Zorink @ Jun 8th 2009 7:40PM
It's okay, but the whole mmo/fps concept is kind of neat to play. You get some fairly standard mmo quests (ex: go kill x of creature y) but it's all in an fps.
Caveman @ Jun 7th 2009 11:51PM
I'm so glad this game is coming to fruition. It will be a great day when it's finally released.
Duke @ Jun 8th 2009 10:35AM
That's what I thought it would be when they first announced it, but the whole thing seems to be falling apart. I have heard nothing to excite me over this game as of late.
Ashkental @ Jun 7th 2009 11:54PM
Back at 2006 @ your link they say that 200 player was not possible because of tecnology problems...
WoW... Guess MAG is really only possible on the PS3, but is so generic that i won't really care at the end, kind like socom...
eNrique @ Jun 8th 2009 12:04AM
Why is it generic?
I've never seen anything like MAG in gaming.
Also it's like SOCOM, because, you know, it's being developed by the creators of SOCOM.
It's more tactical, not like your favortie FPS where you just run and shoot and randomly trow granades.
But I'm sure your precious halo expansion is the most original game ever, right? RIGHT???
Ashkental @ Jun 8th 2009 12:09AM
hum....
So... lemme clarify things...
I have a PS3, i have Resistance 2, i have Killzone 2 i don't have a Xbox 360, i don't like Halo, i love gears of war.
With that out of the way...
MAG IS generic... Nothing compelling about it just for seeing the videos, maybe a demo can change my mind...
Wow... everyone here calls me PS3 fanboy, when i say MAG is generic the Internetz call me 360 fanboy! i'm laughing here...
Ezio Auditore (Now equipped with double blades!) [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 8th 2009 12:19AM
MAG doesn't look generic. the overarching squad gameplay is really cool, and hasn't been done a lot. the tremendous emphasis on teamwork is amazing.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Jun 8th 2009 12:25AM
I think if you could say why you think it looks generic then at least people would understand what you are getting at with the comment. Otherwise it does comes off as a fanboy type of rant.
Please feel free to express why you think MAG looks generic.
tmacairjordan87 @ Jun 8th 2009 12:30AM
It looks generic because nothing special has been shown. The squad leader gets commands, which in reality no one will follow, but other than that it's your tyical online shooter. Also, I haven't read a preview yet from E3 that said there wasn't any lag at all and that was with their setup. It doesn't bode well for regular people.
Hell, even the damn name is generic.
Ashkental @ Jun 8th 2009 12:34AM
I think MAG is so generic because for me there wasn't anything special other than 256 simultaniously. Don't get me wrong, is really nice to have all this type of player playing along you... But didn't resistance 2 alreay had squad based skirmishes (not in the same level of grandiosity of course) but still, apart from that it feels like the same.
I don't know if i'm tired of shooters and don't see the same appeal that i once saw... I have Killzone 2, Resistance 1, Resistance 2, Bad Company, GTA, Bioshock, Farcry 2 (generic shit).
I need to see more of it, it really has no appeal to me, just for seeing it i don't feel like there's anything really compelling about it, that i was like: OMFG I NEED TO PLAY THIS ASAP!.... It seems to me like: Oh, another shooter, what's about it? 256 Player? Nice...
Ezio Auditore (Now equipped with double blades!) [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 8th 2009 1:07AM
so far, all i see that is generic about it is the name.
arkweld @ Jun 8th 2009 1:13AM
"Please feel free to express why you think MAG looks generic."
I thought it looked like and played like Battlefield 2 with greater player numbers. It even had UAV's you can call in to survey the battlefield. Squads, commanders, strykers, helicopter spawn points ... pretty standard stuff.
The only thing that makes MAG stand out is the player cap but since I played Joint Ops a lot with a 128 player cap years ago even 256 doesn't seem that amazing now.
What will be amazing is if anyone at all who isn't in a clan will follow the command structure. Now THAT has never happened in any online game I've played yet. Usually it's a rush to the airfield to get in line for an aircraft spawn.
Which also reminds me of Warhawk.
eNrique @ Jun 8th 2009 1:16AM
"It looks generic because nothing special has been shown. The squad leader gets commands, which in reality no one will follow, but other than that it's your tyical online shooter."
tmaca,
Go and watch how it was demo'ed in the Sony media briefing.
Ohhhh and 256 online matches are waaaaaay too typical.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Jun 8th 2009 1:25AM
... you guys are entitled to your opinions. It gives people a better understanding when you can articulate them like that.
One of the things that interest me about the game is the dynamic of the three distinct and unique paramilitary factions. They all have their own types of weapons and terrain that suits their style. I also like the fact that you aren't simply fighting for your own experience but for the greater advancement of the faction you select initially. It's like a never ending war between the factions with multiple objectives and challenges to keep things fresh aside from the standard tam death match or capture the flag. I think thats pretty innovative in it of itself because nothing like that has been done on a console.
As far as the issue of lag goes I would just say I read the hands on preview in game informer a few months back and they didn't mention any issues with lag at all. In fact, I haven't heard any type of major complaint or issue with lag and I think this is due to the large scale of the game which is really trying to create an actual feeling of real life combat. It's not like Resistance 2 where all the players can turn into a bottleneck that is a huge clusterfu*k.
The graphics aren't OMGWTF good but the frame rate looked solid and reminded me of a modern warfare type of vibe. Another thing that makes me optimistic is that it's been an online only game from that start and has been designed with only online in mind. So, I expect nothing less than a comprehensive experiences.
You will certainly have some people that will run off and do their ow thing Rambo style but the incentives are there to work together as a squad and I believe at the end of the day most people will work as a team to complete objectives. Since the game is squad & objective based I would imagine the players not helping to accomplish faction goals will be weeded out. These things just tend to work that way most of the time. You play enough and you get a squad of people who are regulars and work well together. Thats standard for any online competitive match. It's not really setup to have every match be a random assignment because you do select a faction to join initially.
I think Zipper is bringing a lot of innovations to the genre but at the end of the day the execution and originality can't be determined until we get our hands on it. Inevitably more details will be leaked by Zipper as we get closer to launch because at this point we haven't heard much and just recently found out the moniker of the third faction.
Maverick Saturn @ Jun 8th 2009 1:33AM
MAG is generic in the sense it's a shooter, but if you love tactical shooters, why would that bother you? I love games whereby it involves using intelligence and hate all out shootouts, GRAW and I get on superb, large open spaces, stelath gameplay, sniper shots, love it.
Halo and Resistance, not so much.
But you say generic, most games are in my eyes, with the occasional one popping up which diffrenciates, but it becomes generic when everyone else copies its success.
Ezio Auditore (Now equipped with double blades!) [PSN SniperChameleon] @ Jun 8th 2009 2:04AM
johnny, since i haven't been able to say it anywhere else, i'll say it here.
you're not into the psp hacking scene that much are you? because you went around saying the psp-3000 hasn't been hacked and that people consider it unhackable on that psp go article. you do know that it HAS been hacked right? it just can't play ISOs or CSOs. look up the PSP-3000 HEN.
Neptune @ Jun 8th 2009 8:35AM
@ tmac
"The squad leader gets commands, which in reality no one will follow"
It is likely, but I read somewhere that you get double xp by following your squad leader's orders.
Mr Clickerson @ Jun 8th 2009 9:40AM
Only on the PS3? That kind of shit is possible on the PC and the 360 as well. Dedicated servers is the solution. The PC already has them, and the dev has the option of hosting them. THQ did it with Frontlines: Fuel of War on the 360 and hosted dedicated servers for everyone to play on. The same could be done here. :l
Mr Clickerson @ Jun 8th 2009 9:45AM
BTW: MAG = Glorified BF2. Squad gameplay... A Commander... Vehicles... Large maps... I'll go play BF2, thank you, with my one hundred something player servers.
eNrique @ Jun 7th 2009 11:55PM
Did I just saw Duke Nukem in the trailer?
jpopp1989 @ Jun 7th 2009 11:57PM
In beta also its a great game, much better than what you saw then, beautiful levels the pve is pretty fun, its not done but its not crap like you depict, you cant really understand the game and how it works without playing more of it.
cknblade @ Jun 8th 2009 12:06AM
I'm gonna be honest, this looks horrendous. Bad dialogue, lame armor (I'm not sure where the whole "girls don't get to wear armor, just an armor bra and miniskirt/short shorts" thing got started, but in games trying to come off as intense war/action games, it just looks silly), laughable story...I guess I'll have to play to see.
Ashkental @ Jun 8th 2009 12:12AM
Girls don't wear armor because huge boobs don't fit. - Itagaki
Shingo_E_X @ Jun 8th 2009 3:17AM
"Girls don't wear armor because huge boobs don't fit. - Itagaki"
See Spartan 458 in Dead Or Alive 4.
Shagittarius @ Jun 8th 2009 12:41AM
I only played this for about 2 hours in Beta...but my opinion of it is it plays a lot like UT or Quake, but with some single player grinds to buy weapons between the matches.
Kenny Powers Fastball (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Jun 8th 2009 12:55AM
After a trailer like that the game should be free because no one in their right mind would buy THAT game. I haven't played it but I remember hearing about in development before this generation of consoles launched!
I'm not even trying to be critical about the game because I had forgot it existed and thought it was vaporware at this point. The whole style of the game from the lame suits to the cheesy dialogue just has the feeling of a VERY poor mans Unreal Tournament or Gears. The way they tried to show that team/co-op gameplay was a nice representation but I don't get the feeling the tactics used in the trailer would work out like that. I don't really know what to say because I haven't played it or whatever but at the end of the day how can anyone really be all that disappointed or upset about the quality when the game is free to play.
I'm not really clear if "free to play" means no subscription fees or if it mean no subscription fees in addition to no charge for the game. With this type of development cycle I can't imagine they would solely rely on micro-transactions for revenue. But, it would certainly get them a large flux of people around launch who would buy items if the game was worth playing.
It kind of reminds of Haze in A sense ... Lot's of delays and some hype and promise for a game that turned out to be less than expected. But, for as bad as Haze was (pretty bad) it still had some fun and redeeming qualities like the campaign, co-op and competitive multiplayer modes. Basically, it wouldn't of mattered how much development time they spent because the game was flawed from the conceptual stage.
This really could be one of those games thats so bad (from a cheese factor) that it's good and enjoyable. At the end of the day the point is to have fun with it and if it's not completely broken I could see it as a good little time waster. But, I tend to like games others see as awful (Lair, Haze, Kayne & Lynch, Blue Dragon, Wario Shake It, Operation Darkness etc etc ...) and dislike games other think are incredible (Prince Of Persia, GTA IV, Left 4 Dead, RE:5, COD W@W etc etc ...) so I'm kind of strange in that regard.
But, I still think this game has some kind of weird charm to it even for being so generic and cliche.
Sorry for the long post ...
-=A.X=- | 3lite @ Jun 8th 2009 1:31AM
If they ran dedicated servers for the game play it would be much better but from my experience in the beta that is not the case. It suffers from lag. Other than that, if they manage to get rid of the lag I would be fine with it.
I enjoy the beta even with the lag, but to remark about the requirements to run the game...I must disagree with the editors comments. I have a nice PC sure, not that expensive imo, Q9550 @ 3.4ghz, 6gb mem, 4870 512mb, win7 beta and it runs perfectly fine maxed out, but it does the same on my friends over 2 year old PC. He runs a Q6600 @ 2.4ghz, 2gb of mem, 8800GTS 640mb, win vista.
Both of the systems run the game max'd at 1680x1050 with no issues at all, so if you consider my system expensive then fine, but to make one just as powerful as his then it will not set you back much.
Sorry for the rant...I just hate the "PC game is so expensive" cliche. For the record, this is coming from a person who also owns all 3 consoles, so I do not hate console gaming by any means and am not an elitist prick, as PC gamers are so often called.
Best,
3Ball
-=A.X=- | 3lite @ Jun 8th 2009 1:37AM
I must consider the extreme irony in my name after saying that I am not an "elitist prick" in my previous comment.
Oh and an edit about the dedis in the game play. I meant the FPS battles, they are separate from the "MMO" type world. It seems that for the actual FPS part of the game they have the users running servers from their own PC, but I haven't been in long, so I could be mistaken.
Oh and sry for my sig, I am used to my name being 3Ball in forums...no idea where 3lite came from tbh. lol
Best,
3lite?
abelpc @ Jun 8th 2009 1:58AM
I tried Huxley and it needs some work.. it does require a serious machine to run properly and classes are seriously out of balance.. it looks pretty good but it is UT in execution but not as good.
As for a large FPS only capable on a PS3? Baloney.. Sony made another product that could easily and regularly host large scale FPS battles... one of the most neglected MMO's - Planetside. ( Stop groaning it wasn't that bad!)
Unfortunately the game is close to it's end because of Rampant cheating and dated graphics but I had many battles with hundreds of players way over 256 total for the 3 sides..In fact just 3 weeks ago between the 3 sides were at least 300.
Hell one battle ended up lasting over 3 days ( I logged in and out over the time ..but the base we were fighting over had a continous battle for the entire time).
I am looking forward to MAG as there isn't anything else available but it is a far cry from to full open world FPS that Planetside can still provide.
Ignatius @ Jun 8th 2009 3:03AM
And here I got my hopes up that this was an actual MMOFPS...
Dethgar @ Jun 8th 2009 3:12AM
The biggest problems I have had in the beta are network related. Mainly lag, due to unreliable ping mechanics. Lots of stuttering and hitching in PvP. The PvE was okay but real boring. And yes, everything about it is identical to U3, just in different skin.
To beat it all, the deathmatch PvP isn't on any form of dedicated servers, its player hosted. This will not only fail, but fail epicly.
Olicon @ Jun 8th 2009 7:17AM
Let's see here..Medic Uber Charge, cloaked sniper (oh--Ambassador Spy, I mean). And Blur Scout with badass shotgun (AKA ForceA'Nature) booyah!
It's going to be interesting, but nothing we haven't seen before.
I kinda wished they had taken the slow+tactical route over fast and furious shooter.
joe @ Jun 8th 2009 10:53AM
lol i seem to recall my friend telling me about this game 3 or so years ago.
Cyril Lemerle @ Jun 8th 2009 11:13AM
FF-style trailer : when TF2 meets Unreal engine for MMO game
malachismithad @ Jun 27th 2009 6:15PM
Half of the people commenting here, have obviously not played it. I understand everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you haven't PLAYED the game, don't judge it. I've been following the beta since it opened, and have been a developer for the Unreal Engine since Unreal 1 - The engine has changed greatly since then, but the power to transform it into something more than it is, has never changed. The author of this article also has clearly not given it a willing chance, you can tell that just by how he's described it. He even admitted to only playing the game for close to 20 minutes -- that's no time to judge a game with such a massive structure, and it also certainly shouldn't warrant him to write a review of it without first grasping the game's feel.
To correct some of the false information in the author's post also:
"seemed a lot more like a competent first-person shooter running on a PC we couldn't possibly afford -- and, ya know, no cross-platform play/persistent world whatsoever." -- This information is FALSE. Huxley is planned to be released on Xbox 360/PC/Playstation 3. Where he says "NHN America/ijji.com were on-hand at E3 to show us the Unreal Engine 3-based, now free-to-play, FPS. " -- This information is also, False. The developers have, since the begining, always stated that they were unsure to make it pay-to-play, or free.
If you want to judge it, get into the closed beta, and play it for yourself. Critics are known to be people who sit back and judge, yet supply nothing in return; so get to playing...
Espirtu @ Aug 6th 2009 4:59AM
The Game so far merges the two genre, pretty well ....in the beta and what i told my friend its like Unreal with a waiting room...the fps side is pure fps from the style of fighting to the movement of the character ...the MMO side or in the city is just like any mmo ..alot of socializing, alot of ppl asking questions, just the normal thing.....
The Customization of the classes and armor looks like it will bring alot of originality to the characters. Most these ppl that say the game is bad are looking at it as a pure FPS...they don't want to think about much just point and click and cut on their aim bot..this is not what the game is ..its merge of 3 things...FPS/MMO/Single Player content so when you look at it like that play it again and really take in what the game is trying to do. Not saying its the next big game..just saying after spending 2 days in the beta you cant make a good judgment. The weapons get better, your abilities get better and the over combat experience changes the more perks you add to your armor. At first glance i was under the same impression...been there done that...but after spending some time playing ..i saw that they incorporated a few things from a lot of good games out right now...speed to boots, camo to suits, steady aim, restriction when it comes to the classes. Don't sell this game short listening to a bunch of kiddies saying it sucks....just cause you don't start out pwn your face over powered. Try it for yourself and you will see that they actually put a lot of thought and work into it.
Later
GhÓst