Infinity Ward/Bungie + Gears gameplay = GOTY

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Cwagmire21
Cwagmire21

5896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Cwagmire21
Member since 2007 • 5896 Posts

I love the gameplay ideas that Epic has come up with. The campaign and Horde mode are excellent but their multiplayer is a bug-infested, lagfest.

Now whether you like Halo 3 or COD4 or not, you can't say that their online multiplayer isn't high quality. There are almost no exploits, matchmaking is pretty good, and unless there is just a bad host, there is almost never any lag.

Now, FPS is a genre that is just overrun with different choices, more choices than gamers need. However, the third-person strategic shooter (Gears) is almost all by itself. An untapped market.

Just look how much demand there is for a third-person strategic shooter. Even though Epic didn't fix anything in their multiplayer, it still sold record numbers. Gamers are desperate for a Gears-type of gameplay to put up with Epic's utter failure.

For those saying Epic just announced a patch to fix all of what I just mentioned, have you all forgotten what happened after the patch for Gears 1? Either A) it created new glitches or B) only changed the methods of doing the same glitches.

Epic also said they were going to make the netcode for Gears 2 to be "more efficient" but it lags just as bad as Gears 1 (if not worse).

I just hope the developers (Infinity Ward and Bungie especially) have already caught on to this trend and are making a "Gears-killer" as we speak, because honestly - it won't take much effort to topple it.

Avatar image for DarkGamer007
DarkGamer007

6033

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 DarkGamer007
Member since 2008 • 6033 Posts
A Co-Op developed game between Bungie and Infinity Ward would be......well.....I think the universe would explode from the awesomeness that followed.
Avatar image for Toriko42
Toriko42

27562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 45

User Lists: 0

#3 Toriko42
Member since 2006 • 27562 Posts
A Co-Op developed game between Bungie and Infinity Ward would be......well.....I think the universe would explode from the awesomeness that followed.DarkGamer007
Exclusively on Xbox 360 Nirvana achieved
Avatar image for Cwagmire21
Cwagmire21

5896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Cwagmire21
Member since 2007 • 5896 Posts

While if they joined up that would be awesome but I meant for it be read as for Infinity Ward to do this or for Bungie to (or both would make amazing competition).

Avatar image for sharpshooter188
sharpshooter188

4368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 sharpshooter188
Member since 2003 • 4368 Posts

...did you really just say STRATEGIC 3rd person shooter?

...no...just......just no..

They arent anymore strategic then normal fps games.

Though ive come to loathe bungie for H3 and Gear of war was god awful. CoD 4 was the only one i had interest in sticking with long enough to stay top teir.

Gears was too slow and boring AND predictable imo.

Halo 3 was... well you ran as fast as you would if you were jogging in snow/deep mud/molassous or whatever sticky tough treading substance. Not to mention bungie felt it a good idea to keep the sight damn near at chin level so you have to look at the clouds to pull a headshot off. Though we seem to have settled for good games being games that actually FUNCTION without bugs instead of ones that are fun and have options.

Avatar image for Cwagmire21
Cwagmire21

5896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Cwagmire21
Member since 2007 • 5896 Posts

...did you really just say STRATEGIC 3rd person shooter?

...no...just......just no..

They arent anymore strategic then normal fps games.

Though ive come to loathe bungie for H3 and Gear of war was god awful. CoD 4 was the only one i had interest in sticking with long enough to stay top teir.

Gears was too slow and boring AND predictable imo.

Halo 3 was... well you ran as fast as you would if you were jogging in snow/deep mud/molassous or whatever sticky tough treading substance. Not to mention bungie felt it a good idea to keep the sight damn near at chin level so you have to look at the clouds to pull a headshot off. Though we seem to have settled for good games being games that actually FUNCTION without bugs instead of ones that are fun and have options.

sharpshooter188

A lot of people who don't like strategic games claim them to be "too slow."

Besides you kinda missed the point of my post anyways.

Avatar image for thedude78
thedude78

357

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 thedude78
Member since 2008 • 357 Posts
I like this idea.
Avatar image for ForsakenWicked
ForsakenWicked

3745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#8 ForsakenWicked
Member since 2008 • 3745 Posts
That would be awesome.
Avatar image for FuturCAM
FuturCAM

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 FuturCAM
Member since 2009 • 25 Posts

,What, you mean like a Rainbow Six game when you say strategic shooter?

And everyone, for the love of god, stop saying H3 is rubbish, I LOVE IT

Avatar image for Zoso-8
Zoso-8

2047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Zoso-8
Member since 2008 • 2047 Posts
So you mean overblown marketing and failure to deliver? That's all we've seen out of Epic and Bungie lately. Just let Infinity Ward handle it.
Avatar image for John42391
John42391

291

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 John42391
Member since 2006 • 291 Posts

...did you really just say STRATEGIC 3rd person shooter?

...no...just......just no..

They arent anymore strategic then normal fps games.

Though ive come to loathe bungie for H3 and Gear of war was god awful. CoD 4 was the only one i had interest in sticking with long enough to stay top teir.

Gears was too slow and boring AND predictable imo.

Halo 3 was... well you ran as fast as you would if you were jogging in snow/deep mud/molassous or whatever sticky tough treading substance. Not to mention bungie felt it a good idea to keep the sight damn near at chin level so you have to look at the clouds to pull a headshot off. Though we seem to have settled for good games being games that actually FUNCTION without bugs instead of ones that are fun and have options.

sharpshooter188
your just mad because you got own in all three games on live..
Avatar image for Lance_Kalzas
Lance_Kalzas

2135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Lance_Kalzas
Member since 2007 • 2135 Posts
So you mean overblown marketing and failure to deliver? That's all we've seen out of Epic and Bungie lately. Just let Infinity Ward handle it.Zoso-8
Exactly what did Bungie promise that they failed to deliver on? Please educate us. Not once do I recall them promising anything they didn't deliver on so I'd like some examples. I understand that Epic has not delivered on their promises in regards to the MP. I feel they did in regards to Campaign and Horde, which is what I play consistently. I don't really like the Gears 2 style of MP so not really concerned with the bugs anyways.
Avatar image for Dredg11
Dredg11

1266

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 Dredg11
Member since 2008 • 1266 Posts
I don't wanna be the guy who's like "Halo sucks". But personally, I'm not a big fan of Halo anymore. I played Halo: Combat Evolved pretty much religiously, with friends, LAN parties, and online with XBconnect. But I didn't like Halo 2 - even though I played it for about a year, since it's all friends were playing and the best Xbox Live option. But by the time Halo 3 came out, the series just really didn't do it for me anymore. I played Halo 3's campaign with friends online, which was really my only draw to the game. I played online multiplayer for about 2 weeks, but then I got bored of it. The gameplay just doesn't do it for me. Feels shallow, dated. The matchmaking system is great, and all games should use it as an example, but the actual gameplay can use some work. I don't know why, but I think all should should have an "aim" button, to look down sights. Enter COD 4. I have to admit, I hadn't played the series since the original COD, and about an hour of splitscreen multiplayer of COD 2 with friends. But when all the news of COD 4 came out, I thought it easily looked like the best thing yet for the 360. I signed up for the Infinity Ward forums, became part of their community, and got in the beta for COD 4. Right away, I was really impressed with Infinity Ward. The quality of the beta was amazing. Feedback was easy to send, and you even got responses sometimes. Infinity Ward is by far the most responsible developer I've come across. When things need to be address, they inform their community, fast. EPIC, take note. Gears MP was broken since launch, and they responded maybe a couple days ago now...I also beta tested World at War, which had the "under the map" glitches in it...How did those make it into the final version? BTW: Glitches from the COD 4 beta were fixed for the final version. I mean, does COD 4 have glitches? If Infinity Ward were to do a 3rd person shooter that used a cover system like Gears of War, well, I think they'd make us forget about Gears of War. Kinda like a lot of people have forgotten about the Unreal Tournament series (with good reason). Infinity Ward really aren't given enough credit for their gameplay mechanics. COD 4, a lot of people forget, brought in the Perks System. COD 2 and 3 didn't have it, and they were hits. Infinity Ward IMPROVED on something that was already great. Whether we realize it or not, the Perks System is the heart of the COD games now. World at War is being praised right now, but I'd say Infinity Ward still deserves more credit for it than Treyarch does. Treyarch just took IW's great engine and gameplay, and threw a WWII skin on it. Do I think a 3rd person shooter is something Infinity Ward will do? Doubt it. Especially one with a cover system. They've been pretty vocal about cover systems being unnecessary. Maybe something like in Rainbow Six, but I doubt they'll go 3rd person. Believe it or not. COD 4 is actually a lot more tactical than it looks. Just because the majority of a game population plays a game run and gun, with the idea they have a lifebar like Master Chief, doesn't mean it's not tactical. The guys you see going 5-20, or even 20-20 K/D, aren't tactical. But when you're 30-6, 17-1, 43-8 in a game of Team Deathmatch, I'd say you're pretty tactical. Most people just run around with SMGs. Making them really easy to kill from range. Problem is, most people don't take deaths into account. They don't realize "Every time I die, I'm bringing the other team closer to winning". I guess that's a thought that comes into most people's heads around 18 or so...When you play COD 4 with "the pros", or even a decent party of 6, you'll see plenty of tactics. You won't see too many Juggernauts or Martydoms.
Avatar image for Cwagmire21
Cwagmire21

5896

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Cwagmire21
Member since 2007 • 5896 Posts

Game developers are a business. Gears of War is the only game of its kind right now. Why make yet another FPS which will have to compete with say ten games when you can make a third person strategic shooter (like Gears) and only have Gears to compete with. If they can make a stable multiplayer (which they have with their others games, then they will sell like crazy.