Jackablade on 7/4/2009 at 06:20
What did we decide on... ten equals signs to Tonamel's cock.
Volitions Advocate on 7/4/2009 at 06:23
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Okay, so a spammy, highly unrealistic (REGEN HEALTH, AHOY), arcade shooter is better than a tactical FPS that actually requires the player to dedicate some brain power whilst playing?
I would say they are different. rather than one better than the other.
I'm a huge Tom Clancy fan. and I gotta say I'm kind of sick of how he is whoring his name out. I was good fun and he was making a statement back in the days of Red Storm Entertainment. Now he really is just whoring himself.
Comparing CoD to R6 and Swat is like comparing Warcraft to Civ.
Yeah they're strategy games but they are very different.
If I were hunkered down trying to repair a tank the middle of a firefight in some crazy mudhole in suburban baghdad with insurgent's swarming at me then yeah I'm not going to worry too much about how I'm going enter X building, all i want to do is make sure i'm not going to get my ass shot off.
R6 and Swat are police tactic simulators, they're designed to make you think about what police really do. and R6 I think does (or at least did, i havent played much since eagle watch) that very well. Thinking like a soldier doesn't usually involve that kind of micro management. Collateral Damage is unacceptible in a SWAT type setting. In war it's mostly just considered tragic. The first SWAT game was hardly action oriented. I played interactive movies that were more nail biting.
CoD is a Warfare game. not police.
and I think it does what it's meant to do very well.
EvaUnit02 on 7/4/2009 at 07:18
I put all Tactical FPSes under the same umbrella, Ghost Recon, SWAT, R6, BiA 1 & 2, etc and Vegas is the only console one that I've played. I might've used GRAW 1 or 2 for Xbox 360 as an example if I had played either of those. I don't know if one should count Brothers in Arms 1 & 2 - which are quite unforgiving and closer to what a PC audience would expect from a sim FPS, despite being designed for PS2 and Xbox.
Brothers in Arms 1 & 2 were all about the tactics - laying down suppression fire (idealy) with your rifle team and then flanking the enemies' position - usually with your assault team. There was no health pick ups or regeneration, aiming was difficult and if squad mates died they stayed that way for the rest of the mission.
They really dropped the ball with BiA3 - now that is truly a console gamer's FPS.
SubJeff on 7/4/2009 at 09:06
It's an interesting angle; sequels not conforming to previous game mechanics.
There is a big difference between extending a mechanic and retaining the genre of the prequel and altering the mechanic so much that a sequel's genre is changed. The question is whether its a good or bad thing. Having a game, or series or games, that is/are rooted in one genre (e.g. stealth, for the obvious) and then bringing out an action oriented sequel is a kick in the face to the fans but you have to ask yourself - is the game STILL good?
If Deus Ex 3 is a point and click adventure (oh yeah!) but a GOOD adventure what can you really say about it? It doesn't conform to the prequels genre but then what? People would moan, others would cry. But if it were the best adventure of the last 10 years can one really say the devs dropped the ball?
I don't know. How good an FPS was BiA3?
Jason Moyer on 7/4/2009 at 11:07
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
They really dropped the ball with BiA3 - now that is truly a console gamer's FPS.
I take it you've actually played it? Because it's balls-fucking-hard on authentic, and the only thing remotely console like anyway is the cover system which works really well in a tactical WWII game. Oh, and the regenerating health I guess, although I found dying much more commonplace in BIA3 than 1 or 2 since it doesn't take much to put you on your ass.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I don't know. How good an FPS was BiA3?
It was pretty fucking good if you crank the difficulty and turn off the suppression indicators and other HUD shit, although that was the case with the first 2 as well.
june gloom on 7/4/2009 at 15:18
RSSUnit02 screams "consolitis" at the drop of a hat. He claims to love FEAR 2 yet all anyone hears from him is bitch bitch bitch.
He's not so bad, really, but he needs to lighten up.
Jason Moyer on 7/4/2009 at 17:26
Well, most people's logic when it comes to arguing the console-ness of a game is totally flawed to begin with, and that's without going into the entire debate as to whether some of the designs that have been refined during the most recent few console generations are actually a bad thing. I haven't seen a "FEAR 2 WUZ DUM DOWN 4 CONSOLE" argument that couldn't have also been applied to at least some of Monolith's PC-centric titles.
Anyway, BiA 3 was great if you don't cheese through it with a crosshair and suppression indicators*. The further development of the characters from the first 2 games is great, the squad tactics are great, the wildly-firing-in-a-vague-direction-when-you-should-be-moving-your-squads-around 3rd-person cover system is great, the odd FEAR-like shellshock/insanity/supernatural stuff is awesome, and I couldn't recommend it highly enough despite some weird glitches here and there (yes, you will laugh everytime you complete a solo area and suddenly your teams come running up from the wrong side of the battlefield).
*Actually, I did that on my first playthrough on easy just to grind through the story and unlock Authentic diff, and it was still great, but don't tell anyone.
Koki on 8/4/2009 at 07:07
Can someone explain the health regen hate to me?
june gloom on 8/4/2009 at 08:32
Apparently it's consolitis.
Personally I think a good way to describe the dichotomy would be to play CoD1 (and especially United Offensive) and then CoD2 immediately after. CoD1 can be a gigantic pain in the fucking ass when there's no health anywhere near you and you're low and that goddamn MG42 is keeping you pinned and there's fucking Nazis advancing and alfkjdsa;lfkdja;lfdja;lfdj whereas CoD2 effectively removes that trouble by regenerating if you're smart enough to NOT GET SHOT for a few seconds.
Aja on 8/4/2009 at 08:44
Quote Posted by Koki
Can someone explain the health regen hate to me?
unrealistic
