[QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Eragon_11"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"][QUOTE="Eragon_11"][QUOTE="mjarantilla"]Unthinkable, you say? I dunno. I think the shooter genre as a whole advanced in the last year when devs started implementing cover mechanics--GRAW 1 and 2, Rainbow Six, obviously Gears of War, etc.--and I think Halo 3 might feel a bit dated gameplay-wise if Bungie hasn't added something similar, or at least add a twist to the game. Think about it; no next-gen FPS without cover mechanics has received AAA. The closest is PDZ, since cover in PDZ was barely an afterthought, but most people don't even think PDZ deserves its AAA score. Who else thinks high-AA for Halo 3 (like the "consolation prize" of 8.8 or 8.9) could be a possibility? EDIT: BTW, people are complaining that Halo 3 looks like Halo 2. IMO, the way to change this would be to totally revamp the game's animations, because right now they look like crap even though the models are amazing.Eragon_11
i stopped reading right there. what is the point of a statement such as this, if there has only been two "next gen" FPS so far that dotn involve cover system?
Your basing your whole post upon the fact that basically, resistance didnt get AAA, so any other FPS game not named PD0 is doomed to get the same is it doesnt have cover system.
fail/10
FEAR, Prey, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2 and 3, Far Cry Instincts Predator, RFOM, Lost Planet. All no cover system, all AA or less. PDZ, GRAW, Gears of War, Rainbow Six Vegas. All cover system, all AAA. The only non-AAA shooter that had a cover system was GRAW 2. And anyway, my only point was that the only shooters that have gotten AAA have been shooters which have NOT relied on the traditional FPS design, but have instead tried to break the mold and try something slightly different, and in doing so excelled. EDIT: Oh lord, your username's Eragon...... *barf*first of all, Fear is AAA, so, from right there you fail.second, none of those other games, with the exception of MAYBE quake 4 had any chance at being AAA in the first place seeing as how they werent from standard AAA series, and far cry instincts was like a year old remake or something.
thirdly, all of the games 9except call of duty 3 i think) were released before the cover system games unless im mistaken. This being the case, how could not having a cover system possibly hinder thier score, if we didnt even have experience with the system to compare it.
and lastly, you're make the connection between being AAA and not being AA is a cover system. This is simply illogical. Perhaps the cards have happened to fall that way.
First, FEAR is AAA on the PC (and deservedly so), but a year alter on the 360, it's AA. Second, I've heard more than once that COD2 deserves to be AAA, as did RFOM and Lost Planet. Third, FEAR, Prey, RFOM, Lost Planet, and COD3 all came after GRAW started the whole "cover system" craze. Fourth, no, I'm saying that games that did not try to do anything new and stuck to the old FPS templates did not get AAA. I singled out the cover system feature because it's the most obvious new feature being used by modern shooters, but if you'd read my last sentence, you'd have understood my point: "And anyway, my only point was that the only shooters that have gotten AAA have been shooters which have NOT relied on the traditional FPS design, but have instead tried to break the mold and try something slightly different, and in doing so excelled."
First, A year later, no **** it isnt going to be AAA, not to mention on a unoptimized platform (port)deserving AAA in the eyes of a few,does not mean it was accually worth it. Those games werent hurt because they simply didnt have a cover system.
Third, honestly, the only game of all the "cover system" games which accually has a "cover system" is gears. Personally, i think you're stretchingit to make your point seem more valid. just because a game is tactical (i.e rainbow 6, and graw) your making it seem as if it automatically has a cover system, which would be wrong, that my friend, is called a "tactical shooter". So, gears was the last of all those games to release so you cant possibly blame any of the others failure to achieve AAA on its lack of "cover ystem" because technically, graw and rainbow didnt have it either.
last, your point is moot, a cover system is not the only way to change from the "standard FPS template". You just found a link between a few good games (the only real example being gears) and used its gameplay as a based for your arguement.
besides, TPS and FPS are different games :| A game were you can see your body is great for cover, how the hell are you supposed to have a cover system in a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. you'd be staring at the wall the whole while.
so you cant compare them ,and by this logic, the only FPS from your list is Rainbow 6 and like i said, that is a tactical shooter, not "teh cover system"
Good God. Ok, I'll say this again, distilled down to the basics: I was NOT just referring to cover systems! I was saying that shooters nowadays need to show some kind of advancement to get AAA. So far NO shooter IN THE LAST YEAR that has relied on the old templates has received a AAA score, AND Halo 3, as much hype as it will get for its name, doesn't seem to be showing any advancement either, besides graphically. 
. Contribute or GTFO. 
Log in to comment