I just got the warriors game for PS2 today. I’ve been playing it this evening. I love it. It’s got all the cheesey, 70’s, grindhouse feel of the movie. It’s got the theme gangs. It’s got the leather vests. It’s got Cyrus giving his “Can you dig it” speech. You have to work you way up to “bopping” your way through all the goofy gangs to get home, though (Baseball Furies are my favorite). You start out on Coney Island, building your gang and running missions (“mug that guy. Now go steal that car stereo”). It’s very similar to the GTA games in that regard (and it’s a Rockstar game so that makes sense). It’s completely amoral and anti-social and heedlessly violent. Your characters are all sociopaths and drug addicts. It’s awesome. It’s even got the same soundtrack as the movie.
Has anyone else played this game? It’s partially nostalgic for me. When I was a kid, I thought The warriors was the most badass movie ever made. Now it seems comically silly but I have fond memories of it.
I got the DVD last year and wathced it for the first time since back when I saw it in the theatre. The funniest part in retrospect was seeing David Schwimmer playing a gang member (although he was perfectly cast as a member of a gang so laughably pathetic that it had David Schwimmer as a member).
I definitely want to check it out - my main question is, “how does it control and play?”
I’ve been in the mood for a good brawler lately, and “Urban Reign” had an amazing demo that makes me want to go out and buy it right now. Have you played “Urban Reign?” How does The Warriors compare?
I haven’t played “Urban Reign,” but “Warriors” is a pretty nice beat-em-up. A lot of the game is just brawling and it has some pretty easy mapping for combos and attacks. Each gang member has different abilities. The environments are completely smashable and you can pick up just about anything and use it for a weapon. It’s also reasonably bloody. If you beat somebody in the skull with a bat, the blood will gush out. You can fight with bats, bottles, 2-by-4s, knives, everything but guns. There’s no shooting, it’s all hand to hand, old school gang banging. The look is a lot like GTA, not really that fabulous or detailed, but the AI in all the other characters fighting simultaneously sort of makes up for it. It has a good story and it breaks up the brawling with enough missions and mini-games that it doesn’t get tedious.
That was a good game. I don’t know if it was one of my favorites, but I liked it. My opinions of the game over the course of playing it:
This is kind of disappointing
I’m kind of starting to like this
This game is awesome!
This is starting to get old
I’m sick of this game
I hadn’t seen the movie before, so I netflixed it when I was about halfway through the game. Oddly enough, I thought the movie had a different viewpoint than the game. To me the movie didn’t seem to entirely glorify the stuff that they did, while the game did. I also got the feeling from the movie that they were more than cold, vicous thugs, which they were in the game. For example, in the movie before Ajax gets arrested he goes up to the woman on the park bench and asks “are you all right?” and it seems like he’s actually concerned about her for some reason.
Yes, the brunette. That was my favorite moment; they were on the subway and a bunch of beautiful, well dressed teens came on, and she tried to adjust her clothes.
I have a question. Presumably New York had street gangs in the 70’s, but I find it hard to believe that they dressed as mimes or baseball players or other thematic ensemble-type stuff. Who came up with this idea? Why? Why was it supposed to be menacing and hood-like to dress up like that? Was it supposed to be menacing? What the heck??
My brother does a perfect ‘Warriors, come out to playeeay’ yell. He’s hilarious.
Eh. I regrated. Despite the promess, it just wasn’t as intertaining as I expected it to be.
Well, at least I didn’t buy the thing.
Maybe seeing the movie would have made it better, but a gangster game without guns? Just not my bag, I guess. I hate trying to remember button combos for fighting moves. For those that are into that sort of thing and dig the '70s kitsch, I’d say go for it.
If you’re not, though, you might want to check out the recently-released “True Crime: New York City.” Your character does fight on the good side of the law in that game, but you can be a dirty cop if you prefer. Also, the game recreates the entire borough of Manhattan in beautiful detail. It’s available for Xbox, PS2, and GC.
Ok, I’m confused. To illustrate your point about the guys not being vicious thugs in the movie, you cite the scene in which Ajax tries to rape a chick?
But he was so nice about it. Actually, and it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, I’ll have to dust it off and watch it again to check, I remember thinking he got a little jobbed in that scene. Seems he was more trying to make her than rape her. I don’t remember any force or coercion being used. As I recall, he tries to kiss her-after she has given him a definite “come hither” look-and she handcuffs him to the bench.
Walter Hill (the director) explains in the recently-released “Ultimate Director’s Cut” DVD that the film as theatrically released failed to include two key elements:[ul][li]It was meant to be set “Sometime in the future”[/li][li]It was meant more or less as a live-action comic book[/ul][/li]Both of these were corrected with the director’s cut, which features scene transitions designed like comic book panels, including a leading "Sometime in the future . . . " note. The director’s cut also has an introductory spiel about the Battle of Cunaxa in 401 BC, when “an army of Greek soldiers found themselves isolated in the middle of the Persian Empire”, said historical reference being another thing Hill felt was never really emphasized in the original release.
Viewed in the comic-book sensibility with an indeterminate “future” setting, maybe one can forgive it some of its more egregious silliness. (Being one of the very first R-rated films I attended in a movie theater (underage, of course), it’s always seemed like great fun to me.)
Well, no - he got rough after she told him to slow down, and she struggles with him just before slapping on the cuffs (Mercedes Ruehl in one of her first roles, by the way). Seems to me he would definitely have taken advantage of her whether she wanted him or not at that point. But, in defense of the Warriors as a whole, I’d just point out that Ajax was not a fair representative of the gang - he was clearly the most hot-headed of the group, and the rest seemed to recognize he was a bit of a loose cannon (mild spoiler):Cf. the scene in the graveyard after Cleon, their leader, was wrongly accused and beat down for Cyrus’ death and the gang follows Swan after Ajax challenges for leadership.
I love the movie and I loved the game… at first.
After awhile you get into a boss-fight against somebody who has the high grounds and throws molotovs at you.
You have to win by throwing bottles and rocks against him.
The bad thing is that before you can aim you get a bottle in your face.
It got really frustrating and I stopped playing it.
I loved the first few hours of it, but it is just too frustrating a game in the later levels.
That would have been pretty pathetic, especially considering that David Schwimmer was thirteen years old when the movie was released. However, I thought David Patrick Kelly was well cast as Luther, the leader of the Rogues.
Man…When he dies, you know that’s going to be his clip in the memorial reel at the Oscars!
