Unfortunately, it seems to be a lot easier to complain and blame Activision than to understand these basic concepts.
megadeth1117
The thing is, these aren't basic concepts. It's just Occam's Razor for disgruntled gamers.
modern military shooters in a nutshell
This topic is locked from further discussion.
lol u die same way in crysis original on pc if u run too fast you trip and die.killerflopHello heewee. Still doing the same thing you've been doing for how many years now?
Well, PC shooters haven't been as influenced as console shooters were but there always good standouts like Bioshock and Borderlands. I believe it's more of issue of who the publisher is and whether or not they are trying to get the CoD audience. It's like that audience is such a goldmine to them they're willing to dumb down FPS's or make them cater more to them even though that audience is more interested in CoD then their game. Battlefield 3 might have been better off if EA wasn't trying so hard to compete with Activision and CoD and now from them we see Battlefield and MoH become a more yearly entry rather than be a good game that comes out when ready. Overstrike, which looked interesting, now changed to Fuse which looks generic. Dead Space 3 looks to be losing more of its horror and going for more action. I dunno, these issues here seem more in line with EA but nothing good doesn't seem to come when publishers and devs try to take that audience than make their own audience.[QUOTE="game_masta14"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I would believe that, but then I realize Firefall, Planetside 2, ArmA 3, Metro Last Light, Painkiller Hell & Damnation, and Bioshock Infinite are coming out and games like Tribes Ascend, Borderlands 2, Nexus, Counter Strike Global Offensive, Darkness 2, Serious Sam 3... all of those are out and are relativly new.
CoD has had way less of an influence than people want to admit.
Wasdie
The second you say "dumb down" you literally discredit yourself (not to offend you). There is no "dumbing down", there is simply making a game for a different market.
You're looking at big budget games trying appeal to the broadest audiences possible, of course you're going to be disapointed. It's like trying to find story and character development in a Michael Bay flick. It's just not there.
Games get popular, their budgets get bigger as the publisher expects higher returns, they need to appeal to broader audiences to make those higher returns. I'll be willing to bet Dead Space 3 is more expensive than Dead Space 1 and 2 combined. You cannot just bank on the existing audiences to carry your game to higher sales. It is a recipe for disaster. If you don't have any room for horizontal growth, you won't have any extra profit. You can keep making gmaes in the series but if they don't appeal to a new audience, you'll just bleed consumers until you aren't making money and are forced to lower the game's budget.
Is it bad for the fans? Of course. Fans love to see the same thing over and over and over depsite what they post on the forums. The real issue is that developers need to stop pumping millions and millions into game series that don't have room for horizontal growth (good example is Ace Combat, they pumped a lot of extra money trying to appeal to a new audience and then the game just flopped hard and didn't make up the money becuase the game had no horizontal grow potential). This has nothing to do with CoD, rather the publisher's mentality that they need to grow their fanbase no matter what the source material is. Nothing more. If you try to milk the existing customers over and over while increasing the budget, you'll make less money. Thus you need to appeal to greater audiences.
In the end it's people trying to make a lot of money off of popular ideas. That's all it is. Yes it does contribute to radically changing franchises, but at the same time it's not the death of gaming. There are always new games and new ideas despite whatever the big publishers are doing. So in the end it doesn't matter.
Hmm, interesting point. It does seem to be case where these franchises are getting bigger and bigger budgets but they have to also appeal to new audiences to obtain the desired return and profit from sales. I suppose this issue more in the lines of the publishers than the genre itself.[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
He's complaining about nothing. He wants to backtrack. That's it.
Wasdie
This.
I really don't understand why people feel the need to "explore" in every single game.
Really. Listen to his arguments. They don't exist. he's just complaining to complain and he knows that every disgruntled PC gamer will just agree with him out of spite.
Here's an awesome truth, FPS gaming has changed very little over the years. Probably the least of any genre. The basic principle haven't changed at all. Just the technical details.
Even more hilarious is how pointless it is. There are dozens of shooters that are radcially different than military shooters. On my PC I have ArmA 2, Nexus, Stalker, Metro, Mirror's Edge, CoD MW3, Battlefield 3, MoH Warfighter, Serious Sam 3, Red Orchestra 2, Crysis, Day of Defeat Source, CS Global ops...
Tell me straight, is the FPS genre nothing but modern military shooters? No. They freaken arn't. This guy is full of himself and wants hits on his youtube channel.
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
This.
I really don't understand why people feel the need to "explore" in every single game.
Ly_the_Fairy
Really. Listen to his arguments. They don't exist. he's just complaining to complain and he knows that every disgruntled PC gamer will just agree with him out of spite.
Here's an awesome truth, FPS gaming has changed very little over the years. Probably the least of any genre. The basic principle haven't changed at all. Just the technical details.
Even more hilarious is how pointless it is. There are dozens of shooters that are radcially different than military shooters. On my PC I have ArmA 2, Nexus, Stalker, Metro, Mirror's Edge, CoD MW3, Battlefield 3, MoH Warfighter, Serious Sam 3, Red Orchestra 2, Crysis, Day of Defeat Source, CS Global ops...
Tell me straight, is the FPS genre nothing but modern military shooters? No. They freaken arn't. This guy is full of himself and wants hits on his youtube channel.
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
He's basically complaining that theres a sub-genera of FPS that isn't developed with his tastes in mind. It's like he's b*tching Twilight wasn't a good vampire movie because there was too much melodrama. Not saying I'm defending MoH or Twilight, but damnit people, get a clue.
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
Ly_the_Fairy
And what's making him play them?
I don't play fighters because I hate pretty much everything about them. That doesn't make them crappy and worthy of me complaining about them on youtube. I just don't play them.
I also don't play heavy APM RTS like Starcraft 2 nor do I play competitive MobA games because I don't like certain aspects of the games. That doesn't make them bad.
Here he is complaining that a sub-genre of FPSs sucks because he simply doesn't like them. That's it.
He's complaining about nothing. He wants to backtrack. That's it.
What's the difference between Doom and MoH Warfighter? Not much. You go into room, kill things, and move on. Nothing special, no exploration, nothing. He made a video that will be agreed upon by every angry PC fanboy on the internet. That's all.
He struck while the iron is hot. Nothing to really see here.
He's speaking like a politican. An entire video and he doesn't actually say anything.
Wasdie
You just mocked TotalBiscut. The cynicalist of all brits.
You sir deserve a @#$%ing Medal of Honor. (No pun intended)
They should bring back Vietcong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XOEvw4y9hc
That was a cool shooter with an actually good single-player mode and a interesting story/cut scenes (if somewhat buggy and laggy).
[QUOTE="Z-Fatalis"]
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]pretty funny but people need to stop whining about modern military shooters. there are plenty of other fps games out there if you dont like cod or battlefield type gamesGOGOGOGURT
Agreed, try giving other shooters a go, best one would probably be Killzone 2
Um, HALO.
Using caps will not make it better than Killzone 2 :cool:
The sad thing is we got people defending MOH, just look how pathetic and bad it is. Sad thing is this will sell more than far superior FPS. AAA shooters are getting dumbed down thanks to the people who buy into this crap.
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
Wasdie
And what's making him play them?
I don't play fighters because I hate pretty much everything about them. That doesn't make them crappy and worthy of me complaining about them on youtube. I just don't play them.
I also don't play heavy APM RTS like Starcraft 2 nor do I play competitive MobA games because I don't like certain aspects of the games. That doesn't make them bad.
Here he is complaining that a sub-genre of FPSs sucks because he simply doesn't like them. That's it.
Why are you even defending MOH? Being critical=him doesnt like the enitre genre:roll: Just look how bad it is, thats not complaining its him being critical. He hates how they have influenced the AAA fps market, and what its doing to them, getting dumbed down for this type of audience. Compare crysis 1 to 2.
He is right though. And we shouldn't stop whining when they don't stop praising. And it has gotten worse over time, it's not a matter of playing the wrong genre or games.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
ultimate-k
And what's making him play them?
I don't play fighters because I hate pretty much everything about them. That doesn't make them crappy and worthy of me complaining about them on youtube. I just don't play them.
I also don't play heavy APM RTS like Starcraft 2 nor do I play competitive MobA games because I don't like certain aspects of the games. That doesn't make them bad.
Here he is complaining that a sub-genre of FPSs sucks because he simply doesn't like them. That's it.
Why are you even defending MOH? Being critical=him doesnt like the enitre genre:roll: Just look how bad it is, thats not complaining its him being critical. He hates how they have influenced the AAA fps market, and what its doing to them, getting dumbed down for this type of audience. Compare crysis 1 to 2.
Using the term "dumb down" is the quickest way to invalidate your opinion.
[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
And what's making him play them?
I don't play fighters because I hate pretty much everything about them. That doesn't make them crappy and worthy of me complaining about them on youtube. I just don't play them.
I also don't play heavy APM RTS like Starcraft 2 nor do I play competitive MobA games because I don't like certain aspects of the games. That doesn't make them bad.
Here he is complaining that a sub-genre of FPSs sucks because he simply doesn't like them. That's it.
megadeth1117
Why are you even defending MOH? Being critical=him doesnt like the enitre genre:roll: Just look how bad it is, thats not complaining its him being critical. He hates how they have influenced the AAA fps market, and what its doing to them, getting dumbed down for this type of audience. Compare crysis 1 to 2.
Using the term "dumb down" is the quickest way to invalidate your opinion.
Please care to explain?
The FPS genre may be more than just modern military shooters but you have to admit that the modern military shooter today (mainly from CoD) has been influencing other FPS's over the past few years. The one I remember that really pains me the most that got the full effect was Resistance 2 (I enjoyed the series, haters can hate all they want) which completely got an overhaul in the worst way where it felt like I was playing CoD with aliens. First game gave you an arsenal of weapons to play with and a pretty open battlefield to tackle your objective in. Second makes it feel more linear than it should and only lets you have two weapons and regenerative health. I'm glad to see games like Dishonored changing things up a bit, but military shooters like MoH Warfighter need to do more to be an overall good game.[QUOTE="game_masta14"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Really. Listen to his arguments. They don't exist. he's just complaining to complain and he knows that every disgruntled PC gamer will just agree with him out of spite.
Here's an awesome truth, FPS gaming has changed very little over the years. Probably the least of any genre. The basic principle haven't changed at all. Just the technical details.
Even more hilarious is how pointless it is. There are dozens of shooters that are radcially different than military shooters. On my PC I have ArmA 2, Nexus, Stalker, Metro, Mirror's Edge, CoD MW3, Battlefield 3, MoH Warfighter, Serious Sam 3, Red Orchestra 2, Crysis, Day of Defeat Source, CS Global ops...
Tell me straight, is the FPS genre nothing but modern military shooters? No. They freaken arn't. This guy is full of himself and wants hits on his youtube channel.
Wasdie
I would believe that, but then I realize Firefall, Planetside 2, ArmA 3, Metro Last Light, Painkiller Hell & Damnation, and Bioshock Infinite are coming out and games like Tribes Ascend, Borderlands 2, Nexus, Counter Strike Global Offensive, Darkness 2, Serious Sam 3... all of those are out and are relativly new.
CoD has had way less of an influence than people want to admit.
You can't deny it has had a huge influence though. Almost every multiplayer FPS these days has a weapon unlock system in the style of Modern Warfare.
How many recent online FPS do you know where you can get access to all the weapons from the getgo like Day of Defeat or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault ?
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]
Why are you even defending MOH? Being critical=him doesnt like the enitre genre:roll: Just look how bad it is, thats not complaining its him being critical. He hates how they have influenced the AAA fps market, and what its doing to them, getting dumbed down for this type of audience. Compare crysis 1 to 2.
ultimate-k
Using the term "dumb down" is the quickest way to invalidate your opinion.
Please care to explain?
Are you somehow suggesting that previous FPS games were "smart"?
The second you say "dumb down" you literally discredit yourself ...You're looking at big budget games trying appeal to the broadest audiences possible,
Wasdie
LOL! How exactly is that NOT dumbing down? You may nto like the term, fo r some reason or another, but it's spot on.
Theya re dumbing down the experience IN ORDER to appeal to a larger demographic.
He's complaining about nothing. He wants to backtrack. That's it.
What's the difference between Doom and MoH Warfighter? Not much. You go into room, kill things, and move on. Nothing special, no exploration, nothing. He made a video that will be agreed upon by every angry PC fanboy on the internet. That's all.
He struck while the iron is hot. Nothing to really see here.
He's speaking like a politican. An entire video and he doesn't actually say anything.
Wasdie
There's a crap ton of exploration in Doom though, each level contains a number of secret areas filled with bonus stuff, so if you feel like it, you explore the environments to find them and so it rewards exploration. And since Doom has a lot of levels, thus my point of 'crap ton' ..
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]
I don't think the guy ever said the FPS genre is nothing, but military shooters.
He's just saying that in recent years the "Modern Military Shooter" has taken on it's own form, and has essentially seperated itself from the genre of FPS by being so drastically different than what FPS games used to be, and what some continue to still be.
ultimate-k
And what's making him play them?
I don't play fighters because I hate pretty much everything about them. That doesn't make them crappy and worthy of me complaining about them on youtube. I just don't play them.
I also don't play heavy APM RTS like Starcraft 2 nor do I play competitive MobA games because I don't like certain aspects of the games. That doesn't make them bad.
Here he is complaining that a sub-genre of FPSs sucks because he simply doesn't like them. That's it.
Why are you even defending MOH? Being critical=him doesnt like the enitre genre:roll: Just look how bad it is, thats not complaining its him being critical. He hates how they have influenced the AAA fps market, and what its doing to them, getting dumbed down for this type of audience. Compare crysis 1 to 2.
Crysis 2 is a horrible example. Crytek forced by EA to put out a game in half the time they had to work on Crysis 1 with all while rebuilding a new game engine for the consoles. They did what they could with what they had.
If they were dumbing down the games so much, why did they port Crysis 1? Isn't that game too "hardcore" for non-PC games?
You can't deny it has had a huge influence though. Almost every multiplayer FPS these days has a weapon unlock system in the style of Modern Warfare.
How many recent online FPS do you know where you can get access to all the weapons from the getgo like Day of Defeat or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault ?R4gn4r0k
DoD:S and Medal of Honor AA also have a fraction of the weapons to choose from. It's just different today. Now there are progressive unlocks that give people more insentive to play longer. It's less about just fighting match to match and more about personal advancement.
It's not bad, it's just different. You still have access to a sniper rifle, SMG, assault rifle, shotgun, and LMG at the start of the majority of these shooters just like you did back in Allied Assault or Day of Defeat (of course using WWII weapons). Now you just have a lot of sidegrades where you can swap your LMG for something with some different properties and a different look/feel after you've played for a bit.
[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]
[QUOTE="megadeth1117"]
Using the term "dumb down" is the quickest way to invalidate your opinion.
megadeth1117
Please care to explain?
Are you somehow suggesting that previous FPS games were "smart"?
WOT?
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
[QUOTE="game_masta14"]The FPS genre may be more than just modern military shooters but you have to admit that the modern military shooter today (mainly from CoD) has been influencing other FPS's over the past few years. The one I remember that really pains me the most that got the full effect was Resistance 2 (I enjoyed the series, haters can hate all they want) which completely got an overhaul in the worst way where it felt like I was playing CoD with aliens. First game gave you an arsenal of weapons to play with and a pretty open battlefield to tackle your objective in. Second makes it feel more linear than it should and only lets you have two weapons and regenerative health. I'm glad to see games like Dishonored changing things up a bit, but military shooters like MoH Warfighter need to do more to be an overall good game. R4gn4r0k
I would believe that, but then I realize Firefall, Planetside 2, ArmA 3, Metro Last Light, Painkiller Hell & Damnation, and Bioshock Infinite are coming out and games like Tribes Ascend, Borderlands 2, Nexus, Counter Strike Global Offensive, Darkness 2, Serious Sam 3... all of those are out and are relativly new.
CoD has had way less of an influence than people want to admit.
You can't deny it has had a huge influence though. Almost every multiplayer FPS these days has a weapon unlock system in the style of Modern Warfare.
How many recent online FPS do you know where you can get access to all the weapons from the getgo like Day of Defeat or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault ?
[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
I would believe that, but then I realize Firefall, Planetside 2, ArmA 3, Metro Last Light, Painkiller Hell & Damnation, and Bioshock Infinite are coming out and games like Tribes Ascend, Borderlands 2, Nexus, Counter Strike Global Offensive, Darkness 2, Serious Sam 3... all of those are out and are relativly new.
CoD has had way less of an influence than people want to admit.
lowe0
You can't deny it has had a huge influence though. Almost every multiplayer FPS these days has a weapon unlock system in the style of Modern Warfare.
How many recent online FPS do you know where you can get access to all the weapons from the getgo like Day of Defeat or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault ?
DoD:S and Medal of Honor AA also have a fraction of the weapons to choose from. It's just different today. Now there are progressive unlocks that give people more insentive to play longer. It's less about just fighting match to match and more about personal advancement.
It's not bad, it's just different. You still have access to a sniper rifle, SMG, assault rifle, shotgun, and LMG at the start of the majority of these shooters just like you did back in Allied Assault or Day of Defeat (of course using WWII weapons). Now you just have a lot of sidegrades where you can swap your LMG for something with some different properties and a different look/feel after you've played for a bit.
Wasdie
But it is bad in a way that it gives people an advantage over others.
Me with an AK74 with zero unlocks will have a harder time hitting you from afar than you with an AK74 and 4x scope in Battlefield 3 to give an example
The old system is much more fair in my opinion because it all comes down to skill when everyone has everything unlocked from the getgo.
Oh and Tribes: Ascend even had its most iconic weapon locked :(
Technically, unlock systems were Battlefield 2's fault.lowe0
But Modern Warfare made them even more popular :P
[I think Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory had them before that, too.PannicAtackNo. They were more perks. Every gun was available depending on your class.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][I think Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory had them before that, too.freedomfreakNo. They were more perks. Every gun was available depending on your class. Hm. I just recall things like the Medic class getting something like a self-used adrenaline syringe and the covert ops class getting dual-wield on the pistols... Man. I miss that game. I wonder if anyone still plays it... probably overrun by hackers at this point.
[QUOTE="freedomfreak"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"][I think Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory had them before that, too.PannicAtackNo. They were more perks. Every gun was available depending on your class. Hm. I just recall things like the Medic class getting something like a self-used adrenaline syringe and the covert ops class getting dual-wield on the pistols... Man. I miss that game. I wonder if anyone still plays it... probably overrun by hackers at this point. You did,but I would consider them as perks. Although yeah, dual wield is kind of a weapon unlock. Yup, ET was Godlike. I haven't played it in years but you're probably right.
[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]
You can't deny it has had a huge influence though. Almost every multiplayer FPS these days has a weapon unlock system in the style of Modern Warfare.
How many recent online FPS do you know where you can get access to all the weapons from the getgo like Day of Defeat or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault ?Wasdie
DoD:S and Medal of Honor AA also have a fraction of the weapons to choose from. It's just different today. Now there are progressive unlocks that give people more insentive to play longer. It's less about just fighting match to match and more about personal advancement.
It's not bad, it's just different. You still have access to a sniper rifle, SMG, assault rifle, shotgun, and LMG at the start of the majority of these shooters just like you did back in Allied Assault or Day of Defeat (of course using WWII weapons). Now you just have a lot of sidegrades where you can swap your LMG for something with some different properties and a different look/feel after you've played for a bit.
I played Day of Defeat for years, unlocks weren't necessary because the weapons were lethal to start with, All the large caliber rifles and MG's could happily one shot kill anyone, the only the Garand needed 2 if you didn't get a head or chest hit (balanced like that because of semi-auto fire). Even the sub machine guns, MP40 and Thompson killed with 3 or 4 rounds.
Another major factor in the success and longevity of games like DoD was the mapping community, there are literally thousands of maps. Some excellent and some absolutely rotten but all completely free.
A much harder game for a different generation of gamers and one I get all nostalgic about, after playing for so long. There's still plenty of folks playing DoD:Source and a handlful playing 1.3, 12 years after release. There will not be a server online for Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 in 5 years time, even with all the perks and upgrades
I played Day of Defeat for years, unlocks weren't necessary because the weapons were lethal to start with, All the large caliber rifles and MG's could happily one shot kill anyone, the only the Garand needed 2 if you didn't get a head or chest hit (balanced like that because of semi-auto fire). Even the sub machine guns, MP40 and Thompson killed with 3 or 4 rounds.
Another major factor in the success and longevity of games like DoD was the mapping community, there are literally thousands of maps. Some excellent and some absolutely rotten but all completely free.
A much harder game for a different generation of gamers and one I get all nostalgic about, after playing for so long. There's still plenty of folks playing DoD:Source and a handlful playing 1.3, 12 years after release. There will not be a server online for Modern Warfare 3 or Battlefield 3 in 5 years time, even with all the perks and upgrades
GarGx1
I agree completely. Even with a fraction of the weapons to choose from those old multiplayer FPS had longer lasting communities than modern FPS where it seems to be all about jumping on the next big thing.
And if you really need insentive to play longer than I'm sorry but your game wasn't that good to begin with.
And than there are the people that soley play for unlocks and they just quit playing when they've unlocked everything :|
No. I would be all for going back to the old system. Even if that meant having less weapons/variety.
They should bring back Vietcong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XOEvw4y9hc
That was a cool shooter with an actually good single-player mode and a interesting story/cut scenes (if somewhat buggy and laggy).
nameless12345
I loved that game. Both the singleplayer and multiplayer were top notch!
Fist alpha was great too but I heard the second one wasn't any good.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]
The second you say "dumb down" you literally discredit yourself ...You're looking at big budget games trying appeal to the broadest audiences possible,
Kinthalis
LOL! How exactly is that NOT dumbing down? You may nto like the term, fo r some reason or another, but it's spot on.
Theya re dumbing down the experience IN ORDER to appeal to a larger demographic.
TB was standing out in the open, that sniper fired about 25-30 shots that missed and only 8 actually hit him plus he had regenerating health so it wasn't even something to worry about, that's WAAAAAYYY to freaking casual
[QUOTE="Liquid_"][QUOTE="jessejay420"] what the? :? no response i see. oh well.jessejay420
regurgitated space sci fi shooter vs generic modern shooter..
easier to get immersed into something that could happen
what do you mean by "its easier to get immersed by something that could happen" ? im not trying to argue with you or anything,im just curious.you do realize halo is fictional, right?
TB was standing out in the open, that sniper fired about 25-30 shots that missed and only 8 actually hit him plus he had regenerating health so it wasn't even something to worry about, that's WAAAAAYYY to freaking casual
NoodleFighter
Call of Duty, Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor singleplayer campaigns follow exactly the same gameplay concept: get Black Hawk Down cinematic experience.
Call of Duty 4 brought exactly that, polished it to perfection and became a template, a benchmark "modern military shooter".
The basics of the MMS is to get action packed, cinematic, fast, adrenaline filled and very scripted gameplay experience. If you lose that and suddenly start giving people more freedom, more level exploration abilities, more "Crysis", you will lose the cinematic experience.
The Cynical Brit guy knew that all along. He knew he will get a heavily scripted game, but at the same time he complained he wasn't able to get through a level on his own way, ignoring the current game objective. And that is just plain stupid reason for complaining if you ask me. He is just an attention whore.
what do you mean by "its easier to get immersed by something that could happen" ? im not trying to argue with you or anything,im just curious.[QUOTE="jessejay420"][QUOTE="Liquid_"]
regurgitated space sci fi shooter vs generic modern shooter..
easier to get immersed into something that could happen
Liquid_
you do realize halo is fictional, right?
That response actually made me :lol:
Wasdie, what exactly is wrong with playing a style of game, disliking it, and explaining why the chilches bother you?
It just seems to me you're carrying the "Well you don't have to play it" a bit farther than neccesary.
What's wrong about complaining about specific cliches in a grenre? Listen, I love linear shooters. But there is such a thing as taking it too far, ie that sniper scene showed in the video. That is taking linearity too far IMO. Does that mean I want all linear shooters to be as open ended and large as Far Cry? Hell no! But this idea that since I don't have to play something implying that it's stupid to complain about it is just heinous.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment