[QUOTE="The_Rick_14"]
[QUOTE="sixgears2"] I agree it isn't a terrible game by itself (minus a couple of horrific design choices like leaving out a party system), but this game should not bear the Socom name. It's offensive...
Besides, even if the game is taken as a stand-alone apart from the main series there's really nothing in it that would make it "awesome." "Ok" or "decent" are more accurate and more fair.
sixgears2
No party system at launch was not a design choice. They had it in the beta, it had problems, so they removed it to fix it. Poor developing yes. Poor design choice, no.As far as what is accurate and fair, please don't try to state your opinion as fact over other people's opinions. Fine, you don't think it's awesome, but obviously others do.
Releasing the game without a functional party system and patching it in later was absolutely a design choice. Their design failed so rather than waiting to release until it worked properly (the responsible decision to make), they simply removed the problem feature. Removing something from a game is a design choice. They've also stated that it was removed in part because they wanted to dissuade big teams from ganging up on noobs, which once again points to it being a deliberate design choice. I think you need to think more carefully about what that phrase means before you jump all over me due to a misunderstanding on your part.Also, I don't recall stating that my opinion was any better than anyone else's. I simply stated that I don't think it's accurate to call the game awesome when it does nothing out of the ordinary. Saying what I think does not imply an insult just because you don't agree with it. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to think it's incorrect and to say so. That's how opinions work.
I didn't know they said that was part of the reason why it was removed. Knowing that I'll say it makes it more of a design choice than before. If it was removed to be fixed and put back in, then having it in was always part of the design and still is, just not the product. I'm in Software Engineering and just because something makes it's way into the design doesn't necessarily mean it get implemented into the final product. They're two separate but related things. However, this really seems like a matter of symantics. In this gaming era where patches exists, I personally prefer being able to play the game without a party system and then have it patched in then not have the game for another 2 months. But I know other people feel differently about this.
As far as the opinions go, I'm actually in your camp. I think Socom 4 is ok. Doesn't blow me away, but it's still good. Other series haven't done anything new and were considered "awesome" so I'm not sure what this notion of accuracy and fairness is based upon. It just seemed to me by saying its inaccurate to call socom 4 awesome that you were implying that the game can't be awesome to anyone.
Last, if my tone came across as attacking or insulting in anyway I apologize for that. That was never my intention but after reading what I posted it does seem that way. My bad.
Log in to comment