Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Venture Beat)   One in four Black Ops II players plan to call in sick on Call of Duty release day   (venturebeat.com) divider line 99
    More: Amusing, collective responsibility, Wii U, THQ, Modern Warfare 3, downloadable content, controllers  
•       •       •

1099 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Nov 2012 at 8:14 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 06:49:39 AM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: A question that's been haunting me for a while now is if I'm just getting too old to enjoy gaming. I've sorta decided that no, new games just suck. There are a few good ones, don't get me wrong. But so much of the magic that existed in the '90s and '00s was lost and forgotten.


As I said upthread, I get a lot of mileage out of Battlefield Play4Free. I prefer it to BF3 in fact, which seems to have been post-processed to the point of being unplayable. I don't think dirty camera glare and having the screen jostle around like I'm a nearsighted bobblehead adds anything to the game. I also enjoy Left 4 Dead, ArmA 2, Serious Sam, Painkiller and I'm eagerly anticipating Planetside 2.

/shout out to Dwarf Fortress

WOO
The planned features are interesting and all, but I wish Toady would fix what's there - like reorganizing the workshops and making all the jobs do something.
 
2012-11-13 06:53:08 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I just always find it amusing that twelve years ago, Serious Sam required the player to effectively manage a dozen useful weapons in real-time, and now, even games like Bulletstorm and Vanquish give you three at-the-most. (And while both of those are excellent games, it's absolutely shameful that those represent the more complex brand of shooter coming onto the market these days.)


The fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to create an easy full loadout for nearly a dozen weapons on a console controller makes the reduction in the number of weapons available unsurprising. Perhaps with the special controller of the WiiU, it would be possible to actually have a console game that can give you easy access to a full suite of 10 or so weapons.
 
2012-11-13 07:20:25 AM  
Meh. I have COD 1 (you know, WW2, hold the bridge, Stalingrad, etc....) and that is about as far as I got with the series.

/get back to having his ass handed to him in XCOM
//Turn based games are easier to play then FPS while holding a baby
 
2012-11-13 07:34:39 AM  
StoPPeRmobile : It ended with...

Haven't bought a COD game since the whole Infinity Ward exodus.

The people went off and formed Respawn while Activision retained the COD name.

When the co-founders are ousted, and nearly half of the employees resign shortly after, all you have left is the soulless automatons that will churn out whatever Kotick wills.
 
2012-11-13 08:15:56 AM  
People play online man-shoots that aren't TF2?

Weird. News to me.
 
2012-11-13 08:17:12 AM  

Benni K Rok: Mike_LowELL: I just always find it amusing that twelve years ago, Serious Sam required the player to effectively manage a dozen useful weapons in real-time, and now, even games like Bulletstorm and Vanquish give you three at-the-most. (And while both of those are excellent games, it's absolutely shameful that those represent the more complex brand of shooter coming onto the market these days.)

The fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to create an easy full loadout for nearly a dozen weapons on a console controller makes the reduction in the number of weapons available unsurprising. Perhaps with the special controller of the WiiU, it would be possible to actually have a console game that can give you easy access to a full suite of 10 or so weapons.


I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's impossible to carry 10 weapons in real life than the fact that they cannot have weapon switching done well on console controls.
 
2012-11-13 08:17:26 AM  

Benni K Rok: Mike_LowELL: I just always find it amusing that twelve years ago, Serious Sam required the player to effectively manage a dozen useful weapons in real-time, and now, even games like Bulletstorm and Vanquish give you three at-the-most. (And while both of those are excellent games, it's absolutely shameful that those represent the more complex brand of shooter coming onto the market these days.)

The fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to create an easy full loadout for nearly a dozen weapons on a console controller makes the reduction in the number of weapons available unsurprising. Perhaps with the special controller of the WiiU, it would be possible to actually have a console game that can give you easy access to a full suite of 10 or so weapons.


Eight position gun wheel bound to an analog stick.

Merry Christmas.
 
2012-11-13 08:20:49 AM  
You mean only the competent employees will be working at McDonald's today? SCORE!
 
2012-11-13 09:22:58 AM  
considering how difficult the game is to play I doubt the automated toll booth will miss them...
 
2012-11-13 09:46:19 AM  

sadbad: People play online man-shoots that aren't TF2?

Weird. News to me.


The last time I jumped in TF2 the voice chat was more obnoxious than any other in game VOIP I've ever used. People hooking up their MP3 players and blasting music to everyone on their team, your usual racist and homophobic screaming fits, and then the tourettes kids that just whooped and hollered at nothing in particular.

Couple that with the wall sprays of porn and gore, I've had no interest in going back to interactive 4Chan any time soon.
 
2012-11-13 10:18:43 AM  
I use this site to find BF2 games.

I played Battlefield Play4Free, but never really got into it. The majority of the time is on BF2 (I really hated BF3, the more I played it, the less I liked it), but I still fire up Desert Combat every once in a while.
 
2012-11-13 10:20:06 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I love gaming too, but holy sh*t...PRIORITIES, ASSHOLES.

Yeah, call in sick when you have a hangover, assholes.


Not sure if snarky but that's weaksauce too.
 
2012-11-13 10:22:43 AM  

MightyPez: Couple that with the wall sprays of porn and gore, I've had no interest in going back to interactive 4Chan any time soon.


Surely the glorious PC gaming master race would never act like the proles on consoles.
 
2012-11-13 10:24:27 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Liars.

It ended with...
[old.postworthy.com image 700x254]


The original Black Ops was actually pretty solid and felt pretty much in line with the "real" (i.e., not MW2 or MW3) CoD games. Quick-scoping was pretty much impossible, matches weren't solely defined by killstreaks, etc. Which of course pissed off the cheesers to no end, causing a lot of them to return to MW2, which was just FANTASTIC for everyone else.

Word is Black Ops 2 might be bringing back some of the cheesiness than Black Ops was missing. I sure as hell hope not. I have no problem with killstreaks and the like, as long as the bulk of success is dictated by fundamental gunplay.
 
2012-11-13 10:26:25 AM  

Egoy3k: MightyPez: Couple that with the wall sprays of porn and gore, I've had no interest in going back to interactive 4Chan any time soon.

Surely the glorious PC gaming master race would never act like the proles on consoles.


No. They're far more obnoxious.
 
2012-11-13 10:36:47 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: The original Black Ops was actually pretty solid and felt pretty much in line with the "real" (i.e., not MW2 or MW3) CoD games. Quick-scoping was pretty much impossible, matches weren't solely defined by killstreaks, etc. Which of course pissed off the cheesers to no end, causing a lot of them to return to MW2, which was just FANTASTIC for everyone else.


Yeah I enjoyed black-ops, but my biggest issue with all of COD and most modern shooters is the stupidity. Oh hey there are 5 guys over there but I'm going to run in with a pistol and ruin their day and hell if I get two of them before I die That counts as a win. If I just get killed it's no big because, hey instant respawns!

I tend to play mostly hardcore S&D in COD at least then people are somewhat afraid of getting shot. It feels at least a little more realistic.

/I am enjoying the new game mode in Halo 4 where you build the bases though.
 
2012-11-13 11:00:00 AM  
I'm at work. My pre-order is at the store. I'll be leaving early.

/Flame on; I get my work done.
 
2012-11-13 12:47:16 PM  

Egoy3k: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: The original Black Ops was actually pretty solid and felt pretty much in line with the "real" (i.e., not MW2 or MW3) CoD games. Quick-scoping was pretty much impossible, matches weren't solely defined by killstreaks, etc. Which of course pissed off the cheesers to no end, causing a lot of them to return to MW2, which was just FANTASTIC for everyone else.

Yeah I enjoyed black-ops, but my biggest issue with all of COD and most modern shooters is the stupidity. Oh hey there are 5 guys over there but I'm going to run in with a pistol and ruin their day and hell if I get two of them before I die That counts as a win. If I just get killed it's no big because, hey instant respawns!

I tend to play mostly hardcore S&D in COD at least then people are somewhat afraid of getting shot. It feels at least a little more realistic.

/I am enjoying the new game mode in Halo 4 where you build the bases though.


I only play them for the online, and to me they're more-and-more becoming arcade shooters ala Halo. If I want some modicum of realism, there's the Battlefield games (which although unrealistic in their own ways, at least punish the unholy fark out of run-n-gunners).
 
2012-11-13 01:14:54 PM  
Egoy3k: I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's impossible to carry 10 weapons in real life

10 weapons? Man, back in the days of quake 2 mods, you weren't a man unless you were carrying at least 30 different weapons.

Why at one point, I had every letter on the keyboard mapped to toggle or switch between weapons.
 
2012-11-13 01:22:26 PM  

Egoy3k: Benni K Rok: Mike_LowELL: I just always find it amusing that twelve years ago, Serious Sam required the player to effectively manage a dozen useful weapons in real-time, and now, even games like Bulletstorm and Vanquish give you three at-the-most. (And while both of those are excellent games, it's absolutely shameful that those represent the more complex brand of shooter coming onto the market these days.)

The fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to create an easy full loadout for nearly a dozen weapons on a console controller makes the reduction in the number of weapons available unsurprising. Perhaps with the special controller of the WiiU, it would be possible to actually have a console game that can give you easy access to a full suite of 10 or so weapons.

I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's impossible to carry 10 weapons in real life than the fact that they cannot have weapon switching done well on console controls.


Resistance 1 and 3 had the weapon wheel and it worked just fine. But these days everyone wants a "War Simulator", hence reduced number of weapons.
 
2012-11-13 01:32:17 PM  
I'll get this for Zombies. I could give a fark about multiplayer pvp, but man I love me some black ops zombies with my son. We were ranked top 5000 on most of the original black ops maps for level and score.
 
2012-11-13 01:45:20 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: StoPPeRmobile: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I love gaming too, but holy sh*t...PRIORITIES, ASSHOLES.

Yeah, call in sick when you have a hangover, assholes.

Not sure if snarky but that's weaksauce too.


Why? If you're not feeling well, and you have the sick time to use, go ahead and use it. That's what it's there for.
 
2012-11-13 02:20:11 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: I only play them for the online, and to me they're more-and-more becoming arcade shooters ala Halo. If I want some modicum of realism, there's the Battlefield games (which although unrealistic in their own ways, at least punish the unholy fark out of run-n-gunners


Almost want to favorite you for that. Blops 2 takes the inverse route making camping more difficult and rewarding run and gun. (UAV and associated stealth perks, if you're not moving the perk doesn't hide you).

It was that versitility that CoD got my money for, at least in part. If I wanted to chill with a sniper or long range AR I could do decently well, and while not exactly easy to kill, snipers were no ungodly challenge to find or remove from their nest. The people that will run around the exact same corner 5 times in a row and then had the nerve to complain that they die every time are now the majority(or at least vocal minority), however, and their vote won out.

The series still beats out Halo on weapon performance as it has weapons that are all "headshot enabled" allowing for much more variety and customization. Sure, halo has a bit wider variety with launchers and more predictable grenade tosses(wierd that the stickies bounce now though)..but it's that difference in mechanics that mean the games will never get to be really comparable. Novelty vs practicality. It's why in halo 3 there was no end of people that would do nothing but try to get splatters with the little Mongoose.
 
2012-11-13 02:56:44 PM  

Dafatone: Halo 4's campaign is okay. All the "best halo ever!" reviews are kinda off.

Multiplayer's the same as it always is, which is to say fun. But the CoD style loadouts are annoying. Now everyone has a dmr/battle rifle/midrange gun all the time, which means if you're outnumbered, you're basically toast. And the matchmaking has an annoying habit of allowing 4v3 games. Bah. Also, the ordnance system means if you're losing, you keep losing.


Agreed. Except I think you're actually being a little too kind to the campaign. Every single freaking mission was "we need to push these 3 buttons to activate our defenses" or "we need to activate these 4 terminals to take down their shields," or "we need to take out these 3 relays to re-establish communication." I don't know if I've ever seen a game so padded out. And I don't think there was a single "wow" moment in the whole campaign. Remember in Halo:CE when the covenant were storming your ship? Or storming the beaches on Halo? Or the first time you ran into the flood? Or the last level when the halo was exploding and you had to drive your jeep through the gauntlet to escape? Or in Halo 2 when that giant spider is ransacking New Mombasa? Those were awesome gaming moments. I liked the Cortana stuff but none of those story elements translated to interesting gameplay at all.

I have no idea how Halo 4's campaign got the reviews that it did.
 
2012-11-13 03:18:41 PM  

wiredmaverick: Or the last level when the halo was exploding and you had to drive your jeep through the gauntlet to escape?


In a longer franchise, movies or games or even TV shows, you come to a point where it's all been done before, and anything thrown in for wow factor ends up being really cheesy, like Lost or Heroes.

When wow is natural and flowing it's Ok, when it's forced or a token effort, it feels dirty. At that, there were some moments, the wondering what forerunners were and not knowing for sure if you'd even meet them, what the one living one ended up being, the completely alien forerunner guardians and their weapons. We got to fly a Longsword finally, though not in open space...

At the end of the day, MC is still just a soldier, not a philosopher or a scientist. We carried out the tasks that best fit the moment and environment. Asking for more drama, for the sake of the feeling, in such a game or even in parts of a given story doesn't sit right with me. Sometimes you just need to get shiat done. Now Bungie's mess of a mystery ending is tied up and the slate is relatively clean for a second installment.
 
2012-11-13 04:08:22 PM  

wiredmaverick: Dafatone: Halo 4's campaign is okay. All the "best halo ever!" reviews are kinda off.

Multiplayer's the same as it always is, which is to say fun. But the CoD style loadouts are annoying. Now everyone has a dmr/battle rifle/midrange gun all the time, which means if you're outnumbered, you're basically toast. And the matchmaking has an annoying habit of allowing 4v3 games. Bah. Also, the ordnance system means if you're losing, you keep losing.


Agreed. Except I think you're actually being a little too kind to the campaign. Every single freaking mission was "we need to push these 3 buttons to activate our defenses" or "we need to activate these 4 terminals to take down their shields," or "we need to take out these 3 relays to re-establish communication." I don't know if I've ever seen a game so padded out. And I don't think there was a single "wow" moment in the whole campaign. Remember in Halo:CE when the covenant were storming your ship? Or storming the beaches on Halo? Or the first time you ran into the flood? Or the last level when the halo was exploding and you had to drive your jeep through the gauntlet to escape? Or in Halo 2 when that giant spider is ransacking New Mombasa? Those were awesome gaming moments. I liked the Cortana stuff but none of those story elements translated to interesting gameplay at all.

I have no idea how Halo 4's campaign got the reviews that it did.


The flying stretch of the last mission hit "wow" levels. Maybe a little underdeveloped in terms of what you actually did with it (it's pretty much just a Death Star rip-off). But a really cool one.

that bosnian sniper: Ehh...that latter problem's been endemic with the Halo series. There is rarely a circumstance in which odds don't matter, and in those rare circumstances in which they don't, it's largely thanks to map design or extreme skill disparity between players.


Odds matter. But give me an assault rifle against two people with assault rifles, and I have a fighting chance. A good grenade throw, a timely punch, ducking around the right corner, I feel like that's a situation I can handle.

A BR against two BRs? Doomed. Dooooomed. They WILL get your shields down before you can do much, and one of them WILL land a headshot. End of story.

Also, since assault rifles have such limited range, you're less stuck in a 1v2 situation if they're not on top of you. BRs, not so much.
 
2012-11-13 04:22:18 PM  

Dafatone: Odds matter. But give me an assault rifle against two people with assault rifles, and I have a fighting chance. A good grenade throw, a timely punch, ducking around the right corner, I feel like that's a situation I can handle.

A BR against two BRs? Doomed. Dooooomed. They WILL get your shields down before you can do much, and one of them WILL land a headshot. End of story.


That's the problem with only certain weapons only counting on headshots. If the DMR/BR didn't have headshots, you'd still stand the same chance as the AR VS 2 AR's. They don't need to kill in 1 hit to the head, but some amplified damage for upper torso / /neck / head(after shields) would go a long way towards weapon balance. It's not like you're going to reliably hit with the AR at range unless you're burst firing, and at that it's sloooow.

Halo would have done well to do away with the perks, and make the weapons work a bit more like CoD instead. Not having kill cams for ANY gametypes would cut down on annoyance too. King of the hill has kill cams, and the guy who killed you is almost always actually shooting at your character once, the others hitting the floor at his feet and the walls, meleeing away from you, etc. I know that's not what he saw on his box, but damn if it doesn't get to a person.
 
2012-11-13 04:26:48 PM  

wiredmaverick: Agreed. Except I think you're actually being a little too kind to the campaign. Every single freaking mission was "we need to push these 3 buttons to activate our defenses" or "we need to activate these 4 terminals to take down their shields," or "we need to take out these 3 relays to re-establish communication." I don't know if I've ever seen a game so padded out. And I don't think there was a single "wow" moment in the whole campaign.


Yeah, they really pushed the whole 'Go press this button!' thing a little far. In terms of variety of locations and combat situations, it's pretty good and tries to add more character development than most of the prior Halos. However the button pressing is annoying, there are parts of the campaign that really make the other co-op players feel like fifth wheels, and too much of the plot seems to either need understanding of the books or requires searching out the terminals, which is dumb to me. Show the plot, not make people search for it.

I wouldn't say it's the best Halo campaign ever either. Best looking by far (when playing Solo it's gorgeous) and there's very few weak moments, but I hope they take more chances and broaden the scope for the sequels. It's a good start.
 
2012-11-13 05:20:07 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Show the plot, not make people search for it.


That I agree with. They did do quite a bit with cutscenes this time around, but it could have been better as far as story content. It is kind of a vast story/concept and too much would rub casuals the wrong way, I think. For that reason I'm torn, it's an optional content the way it stands and I'm sort of ok with that because not everyone wants quite that much story in their action based shooter.

Actively hiding it though, blech.
 
2012-11-13 09:41:09 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Yeah, I'm okay with that explanation. I get that impression in a lot of Western games these days, that developers will introduce a bunch of really cool guns or toys into their games, but have fark-all idea of how to design maps that make those weapons more interesting...but God, anything on Blood Gulch in CE was just...forget it.


Oh, absolutely. The only games I can really think of in the last ten years that had varied, innovative, or really interesting in any way map design are the Source engine games, primarily HL2 and TF2. The rest are just...mediocre.

Halo 1 had some great maps that at least my group of friends in undergrad stolidly refused to play, because pistol- or sniper rifle-whoring just wasn't a winning strategy. It was an Herculean undertaking to get anyone I knew to play Wizard, for example, for the fact the AR and shotgun were dominant on that map. The Halo series' map design just got progressively worse from there, especially when it came to remakes of old maps which were designed larger and with more open spaces to emphasize boring-ass BR/DMR/pistol use.

Hell, I remember one time I went into Forge and spent days making a map that I thought was nothing less than a masterpiece. It was kind of like Chiron TL-34 from Halo 1, but with more hidey-holes, more small and tight corridors (including areas you had to crouch-walk through), darker, more emphasis on the vertical axis (i.e. looking up and down), and way more focus on CQC. The entire point of the map was to be patient, sneak around, and ambush other players. It was like an AvP map, adapted to Halo. Almost none of my friends liked it, because surprise surprise, you couldn't pistol/BR whore on it.

Fair enough. Of course, the underlying principle is that they don't have to be good all of the time, you just have to find that very specific use and maximize its potential.

Exactly -- and that is why UT is to this day my favorite FPS. UT required such a broad skill set to be good the game didn't devolve to whoever had the fastest reflexes, best ping, or power weapons winning.
 
2012-11-13 09:55:38 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Dafatone: Odds matter. But give me an assault rifle against two people with assault rifles, and I have a fighting chance. A good grenade throw, a timely punch, ducking around the right corner, I feel like that's a situation I can handle.

A BR against two BRs? Doomed. Dooooomed. They WILL get your shields down before you can do much, and one of them WILL land a headshot. End of story.

That's the problem with only certain weapons only counting on headshots. If the DMR/BR didn't have headshots, you'd still stand the same chance as the AR VS 2 AR's. They don't need to kill in 1 hit to the head, but some amplified damage for upper torso / /neck / head(after shields) would go a long way towards weapon balance. It's not like you're going to reliably hit with the AR at range unless you're burst firing, and at that it's sloooow.

Halo would have done well to do away with the perks, and make the weapons work a bit more like CoD instead. Not having kill cams for ANY gametypes would cut down on annoyance too. King of the hill has kill cams, and the guy who killed you is almost always actually shooting at your character once, the others hitting the floor at his feet and the walls, meleeing away from you, etc. I know that's not what he saw on his box, but damn if it doesn't get to a person.


And now that you can have BR/DMR/etc in your loadout, I'll never have the joy of an AR vs AR fight, EVER AGAIN. Aw.
 
2012-11-13 10:07:24 PM  

Dafatone:
And now that you can have BR/DMR/etc in your loadout, I'll never have the joy of an AR vs AR fight, EVER AGAIN. Aw.


I actually prefer a quick non aim weapon in some circumstances/maps for bruteforcing would be snipers and vehicles up close(plus stickies), and it shows that others do too from what I've seen in matchmaking. There is also the "firepower" perk that allows for 2 primaries.

A bit of new life breathed into that sort of weapon, we'll see how long it lasts though.
 
2012-11-13 10:21:18 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Dafatone:
And now that you can have BR/DMR/etc in your loadout, I'll never have the joy of an AR vs AR fight, EVER AGAIN. Aw.

I actually prefer a quick non aim weapon in some circumstances/maps for bruteforcing would be snipers and vehicles up close(plus stickies), and it shows that others do too from what I've seen in matchmaking. There is also the "firepower" perk that allows for 2 primaries.

A bit of new life breathed into that sort of weapon, we'll see how long it lasts though.


I've been running with a plasma pistol secondary, which along with a punch works okay at short range. I haven't unlocked too many of those perks yet, but I figure that one that gives you extra ammo (for ordnance too) is probably a keeper.
 
2012-11-13 10:32:02 PM  

Dafatone: omeganuepsilon: Dafatone:
And now that you can have BR/DMR/etc in your loadout, I'll never have the joy of an AR vs AR fight, EVER AGAIN. Aw.

I actually prefer a quick non aim weapon in some circumstances/maps for bruteforcing would be snipers and vehicles up close(plus stickies), and it shows that others do too from what I've seen in matchmaking. There is also the "firepower" perk that allows for 2 primaries.

A bit of new life breathed into that sort of weapon, we'll see how long it lasts though.

I've been running with a plasma pistol secondary, which along with a punch works okay at short range. I haven't unlocked too many of those perks yet, but I figure that one that gives you extra ammo (for ordnance too) is probably a keeper.


Ammo would be especially nice with the Plasma Pistol, since charging and holding costs severely(dumb mechanic imo).
I haven't used it though, just can't give up a pistol as a secondary, especially for the AR type of class, works in a pinch, and is good for damage because it fires rapidly. I'd do the boltshot but it's lack of scope hurts.
 
2012-11-13 10:41:15 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Dafatone: omeganuepsilon: Dafatone:
And now that you can have BR/DMR/etc in your loadout, I'll never have the joy of an AR vs AR fight, EVER AGAIN. Aw.

I actually prefer a quick non aim weapon in some circumstances/maps for bruteforcing would be snipers and vehicles up close(plus stickies), and it shows that others do too from what I've seen in matchmaking. There is also the "firepower" perk that allows for 2 primaries.

A bit of new life breathed into that sort of weapon, we'll see how long it lasts though.

I've been running with a plasma pistol secondary, which along with a punch works okay at short range. I haven't unlocked too many of those perks yet, but I figure that one that gives you extra ammo (for ordnance too) is probably a keeper.

Ammo would be especially nice with the Plasma Pistol, since charging and holding costs severely(dumb mechanic imo).
I haven't used it though, just can't give up a pistol as a secondary, especially for the AR type of class, works in a pinch, and is good for damage because it fires rapidly. I'd do the boltshot but it's lack of scope hurts.


Nobody, and I mean nobody, sees you coming with a charged plasma pistol shot.
 
2012-11-13 11:13:57 PM  
Not sure if serious.
 
2012-11-13 11:52:59 PM  

Benni K Rok: The fact that it's difficult, if not impossible to create an easy full loadout for nearly a dozen weapons on a console controller makes the reduction in the number of weapons available unsurprising. Perhaps with the special controller of the WiiU, it would be possible to actually have a console game that can give you easy access to a full suite of 10 or so weapons.


I'll defer to sprawl15 on this one: The weapon wheel (as popularized in Ratchet and Clank) is the way to go. I see absolutely no reason that you can't set up an eight-weapon inventory with an analog stick and adapt it for use in a fast-paced first-person shooter. (You can just have one of the trigger buttons act as a modifier so the analog stick can remain free for movement.)

that bosnian sniper: Hell, I remember one time I went into Forge and spent days making a map that I thought was nothing less than a masterpiece. It was kind of like Chiron TL-34 from Halo 1, but with more hidey-holes, more small and tight corridors (including areas you had to crouch-walk through), darker, more emphasis on the vertical axis (i.e. looking up and down), and way more focus on CQC. The entire point of the map was to be patient, sneak around, and ambush other players. It was like an AvP map, adapted to Halo. Almost none of my friends liked it, because surprise surprise, you couldn't pistol/BR whore on it.


I know that players who don't like change are absolutely nothing new in video games, but I really get the feeling that it's blown up the last couple of years with large numbers of weaker and inexperienced players sticking around to play a single game or franchise for years on end. Long-range combat is the only way those players ever understood how to play Halo and that's how they're going to play it. I'm not going to say that I haven't been a little bit stubborn in my days, but you have access to so much information in the Halo games these days (thanks to Bungie.net) that anyone who wouldn't welcome better maps (as designed to facilitate wider use of various weapons) is a complete moron. It's clear the game is dominated by half-a-dozen weapons, and those half-a-dozen weapons are dominated by the Sniper Rifle and Battle Rifle. But then again, the Halo games appear to have fallen victim to the pro-gaming mentality, where people would rather play a boring variant of Halo, so long as that boring variant is "balanced".

that bosnian sniper: Exactly -- and that is why UT is to this day my favorite FPS. UT required such a broad skill set to be good the game didn't devolve to whoever had the fastest reflexes, best ping, or power weapons winning.


It really is depressing to think that Quake III, Arena, Unreal Tournament, and System Shock 2 all came out in a span of seven months, and we're now where we are.
 
2012-11-14 02:13:48 AM  

Mike_LowELL: so long as that boring variant is "balanced".


I like how you put that in quotes. Balance can mean many things, but to those boring people it's pretty much "nerf every gun except the "real" gun, because I dislike being slaughtered by it due to my lack of skill"

Glad 343 is not listening to that sector as much as Bungie, they really pandered to it.
 
2012-11-14 02:59:34 AM  
These dumbasses have pretty much shown up in every video game community and I'm tired of them. I saw enough of them while I was playing StarCraft II and it was wasted breath trying to explain that the reason they were in Bronze League had nothing to do with the random "overpowered" flavor of the month. For the five people who open this thread before it goes to "Comments Closed", Seth Killian has written an excellent article on the topic. Unfortunately, the scrubs that whine about balance have won out in most of the popular games these days, and it's part of the reason that Call of Duty, League of Legends, and StarCraft II are such lousy games.
 
2012-11-14 12:11:45 PM  
Well, I thought I would hop in this thread and discuss a game that I actually like, instead its a bunch of 13 year old girls biatching about how the game is not their cup of tea. You people need to get a hobby or something...
 
2012-11-14 12:26:40 PM  

Nick Spiceyweiner: Well, I thought I would hop in this thread and discuss a game that I actually like, instead its a bunch of 13 year old girls biatching about how the game is not their cup of tea. You people need to get a hobby or something...


I came to do the same. Was relatively surprised. I went into the next BO2 thinking the same thing, but there was an ME2 talk going on. I won't be so dumb next time.
 
2012-11-14 01:37:59 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Call of Duty


I don't think CoD fails for the same reason, as far as mechanics of different guns go. They're similar but when you get into it, they can be wildly different and support wildly different play styles. Don't know about BO2, but Mw3 was that way, fire rates, bullet damage, etc. They failed in maps, bland balance there, boxy and limiting, at least in the default maps.(some of the dlc maps weren't so bad, but at that, they're dlc and supposed to be optional).

BO the first did have a problem with guns being the same. Same rates of fire, same bullet damage, recoil that was down to almost exactly the same.(Aug and Famas, for example) They had infinitely better maps though, so that made up for a lot of it, allowed people to play in a wide variety of playstyles.

IMO, balance in an FPS means, that a given gun/category of gun should win more often than not within it's given range, or in other words, a given weapon should work as designed and be used in pretty much that range.

In Mw3, the type 95 was "overpowered", because it tossed that theory out the window by having fairly accurate hipfire and killing in a single trigger pull at close range as does a shotgun, even though it's an AR designed for and excells at longer range combat, as do the snipers that hammer out their quickscoping kills.(a full team of the later is pretty tough to overcome on small maps). (for those that don't know, a quickscope in that game often yields a killcam that never actually scopes all the way in, it's a rapid succession of aim and shoot buttons that exploits the game mechanic of aim assist to a degree that is ridiculous, and bypasses the inherent sway in all weapons that have ADS(aim down sights), the sniper suddenly requires no precision, and only being pointed in the general vicinity of another player will net instakills)
It's like playing with instagib turned on in combination with an aimbot.

You can have "balance" and still have plenty of variety and play styles. Forcing people to play in a certain manner by other mechanics is what I don't like. Be it run and gun or camping. I like having every style be a viable option, but not a guaranteed win/kill, that should always be dependent on personal skill/tactics.
 
2012-11-14 05:49:06 PM  

omeganuepsilon: You can have "balance" and still have plenty of variety and play styles. Forcing people to play in a certain manner by other mechanics is what I don't like. Be it run and gun or camping. I like having every style be a viable option, but not a guaranteed win/kill, that should always be dependent on personal skill/tactics.


That model is perfectly okay with me. "Balance" is supposed to mean "good range of choices", not "small number of choices that ensure lack of volatility in outcome". The root of the problem goes back to the fact you can only carry two guns at any single time and the extremely high lethality which, in conjunction with the two-weapon system, lack of meaningful map control, and pick-ups present within most arena shooters, there's no meaningful or interesting way to actually change your playstyle without dying. And even more importantly, death does not act as an impediment to your playstyle. In games like Quake and Unreal Tournament, players could absolutely punish you, since your death yielded initiative and allowed them to take control of the map and all of the goodies that spawn around it. In the modern shooters, you just restart with a whole phalanx of weaponry (from what will likely be a neutral starting position) and you just carry on. So even when we think of "balance" in the way we ideally think about it, the Call of Duty games really don't have much interesting going for them. While I actually did enjoy Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 (which basically play like better versions of Counter-Strike), the game model is just so utterly and painfully white bread that I can't believe anyone pursues it on a year-to-year basis.
 
2012-11-14 05:55:07 PM  

Nick Spiceyweiner: Well, I thought I would hop in this thread and discuss a game that I actually like, instead its a bunch of 13 year old girls biatching about how the game is not their cup of tea. You people need to get a hobby or something...


This is Fark, nearly every thread about a movie/book/game will be biatching about the one in the title.

I like the idea of scorestreaks, but I heard they got rid of deathstreaks. As someone who sucked at the games, I enjoyed the deathstreaks.
 
2012-11-14 09:50:09 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: Nick Spiceyweiner: Well, I thought I would hop in this thread and discuss a game that I actually like, instead its a bunch of 13 year old girls biatching about how the game is not their cup of tea. You people need to get a hobby or something...

This is Fark, nearly every thread about a movie/book/game will be biatching about the one in the title.

I like the idea of scorestreaks, but I heard they got rid of deathstreaks. As someone who sucked at the games, I enjoyed the deathstreaks.


I loved the support killstreaks myself. I'm a definite team player, and once I realized I could set two streaks, UAV and Vests, instead of three, I never looked back.

Definitely miss them on this iteration.
 
2012-11-14 11:55:01 PM  

croesius: Lumbar Puncture: Nick Spiceyweiner: Well, I thought I would hop in this thread and discuss a game that I actually like, instead its a bunch of 13 year old girls biatching about how the game is not their cup of tea. You people need to get a hobby or something...

This is Fark, nearly every thread about a movie/book/game will be biatching about the one in the title.

I like the idea of scorestreaks, but I heard they got rid of deathstreaks. As someone who sucked at the games, I enjoyed the deathstreaks.

I loved the support killstreaks myself. I'm a definite team player, and once I realized I could set two streaks, UAV and Vests, instead of three, I never looked back.

Definitely miss them on this iteration.


I think they shouldn't have abandoned that, to me the next logical progression for this type of XP system would be separate skill trees, and while I wasn't a fan of the last game it felt like they were on the way towards that. Battlefield BC2 was almost like that with the different classes, but it still involved unlocking a bunch of shiat you'd never use.
 
2012-11-15 01:06:34 AM  

Mike_LowELL: e I actually did enjoy Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 (which basically play like better versions of Counter-Strike), the game model is just so utterly and painfully white bread that I can't believe anyone pursues it on a year-to-year basis.


We are in agreement then, it's just that the article was just as guilty of denigrating balance as the other side denigrates variety, it does celebrate their fail but almost takes it to the other extreme in other words.

Mw2 was the best to my recollection(aside from killstreaks, and the odd one off weapon like dual '87s), just talking about weapon mechanics), BO fell a bit, and Mw3 took it back some.(all other things aside like good maps). I didn't play much CoD4 though, and aside from CS/CS source that was my first modern style shooter, so maybe I'm being nostalgic.

I see another trend, each years iteration has more flaws, some passed off as by design, some ignored or even denied. We keep settling for less polish and fewer updates, or we're told "our security will be tighter this time". That's another reason CoD has lost my patronage. Incredibly easy hacks/mods, even on consoles, still using same techniques from CoD4. That's a huge part of why I play on consoles, equal playing field. reach had a few oddball hacks, but by and large, all you saw in all halo's is network manipulation, and that's easy enough to spot.

Mw3 even screwed that up, by providing seemingly seamless gaming, you didn't know for sure if you were in a crap room because players teleporting and such were a rare thing, the connection had to be absolutely terrible.

I guess I'm just burnt on them all as a whole. Unless you're on a PC and on you're own ded server, you're at the whim of some dweeb, and I don't have the time or resources for all that. Consoles also give you variety, hardly play a match with the same people(not the same as a ded server on pc), so you've got to adapt on the fly each and every game.(unless you get in a lobby full of christmas noobs, then it's just a slaughterfest since you've been playing a month or two).

Anyhow, I've been playing Halo 4 a tiny bit(not even sure if I want to re-up my xbl for it, playing on that 14 day trial), but my current addiction is Guild Wars 2 on the PC, played the first one to death, and then beat it with a dead horse.

I know there are other shooters out, but none that have such a large userbase as CoD/Halo, take the good with the bad I guess, but the good isn't quite making up for the gaps any more, imo.
 
2012-11-15 01:17:55 AM  

Lumbar Puncture: Battlefield BC2 was almost like that with the different classes, but it still involved unlocking a bunch of shiat you'd never use.


I loved the gameplay in BC2, but found the same issue. You had so little variety to begin with, and so much of it was useless.

But now that you mention it, a class based hybrid from mmo's may just be something cool. You create an actual character(for one slot of 5-10 or such), pick a sniper/long range class, the only thing that character will ever use is various fitting weapons gear and perks.

Would be an easy way to end run and gun snipers, people SMG sniping(as you occasionally see in CoD games). Though I already dislike the grind factor of modern shooters so I may not pick that up either. No Dev is likely to make everyone happy with such class assignments though, as demonstrated between the battlefields.

The latest battlefield got me before it came out because they switched around the classes, moving ammo and heals to other classes.

/whatever
//just cooling my heels after work before logging into GW2
 
2012-11-15 08:22:31 AM  

omeganuepsilon: Mw2 was the best to my recollection(aside from killstreaks, and the odd one off weapon like dual '87s), just talking about weapon mechanics), BO fell a bit, and Mw3 took it back some.(all other things aside like good maps). I didn't play much CoD4 though, and aside from CS/CS source that was my first modern style shooter, so maybe I'm being nostalgic.


That's the impression I got, although most of my experience with the games is on the personal computer, and I understand that the games play very, very different on the consoles because of the input method. Too much emphasis on memorizing maps on the console versions because of the stunted input. But yeah, CoD4 and MW2 are actually fairly decent games, even if most of the people who despise the series wouldn't want to admit it.

omeganuepsilon: I see another trend, each years iteration has more flaws, some passed off as by design, some ignored or even denied. We keep settling for less polish and fewer updates, or we're told "our security will be tighter this time". That's another reason CoD has lost my patronage. Incredibly easy hacks/mods, even on consoles, still using same techniques from CoD4. That's a huge part of why I play on consoles, equal playing field. reach had a few oddball hacks, but by and large, all you saw in all halo's is network manipulation, and that's easy enough to spot.


It's really ingenious what they did: They originally designed a system where players could micromanage the elimination of hackers and cheaters at the server level. Once they decided on this notion of "intellectual poperty lolz", companies removed the ability for players to administrate their game servers, and I guarantee you they knew full-well that this would be a huge problem on the less profitable personal computers. Now companies like Electronic Arts can white horse their way back in by giving dedicated server control back to their player, but only through "authorized third parties" and all that nonsense, the kind of nonsense where they make sure they get a cut of the profits.

omeganuepsilon: Anyhow, I've been playing Halo 4 a tiny bit(not even sure if I want to re-up my xbl for it, playing on that 14 day trial), but my current addiction is Guild Wars 2 on the PC, played the first one to death, and then beat it with a dead horse.

I know there are other shooters out, but none that have such a large userbase as CoD/Halo, take the good with the bad I guess, but the good isn't quite making up for the gaps any more, imo.


If you're looking for a first-person shooter, I can't offer enough praise for Serious Sam 3: BFE. Awesome, awesome game and you don't have to go online to really get "the experience", so to speak.
 
Displayed 49 of 99 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report