StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh well, I read stuff like "you can use enemies as body shields!" or "you can make combos!" "you can lock blades with an opponent!"..... And, I've seen the video. It is spectacular, but the gameplay features, nice as they are, are not innovative in the sense that they've been done before.

It just irks me how much hype is given to a game just because its target audience isn't old enough to remember previous games that did the very same thing.... And it's not like Splinter Cell, Hitman, Jedi Knight or the Battlefield series are that old...

Yeah, done before in games like Hitman, not shooters. The shooter genre is so stale that all games have to do is be slightly different to count as 'innovative'. I don't see what the game has in common with BF besides 'huge number of hitpoints', however. The difference is a playstyle, like I said; it doesn't really show in useless bullet-point lists (and really, the listed features for Gears2 sound really lame).

I just hope they fixed the cover controls; cover, run and vault being the same button actually IS annoying, now that someone mentioned it to me. It's pretty much the shooter Games Workshop would make if they weren't hell-bent on making shit games.

Remember when 'zomg slo-mo' was 'innovative'? Oh dear...

What I've always wondered is why I can't find a decent realistic shooter that lots of people play. I'm talking like different rounds have different penetration. Getting shot in the legs doesn't kill you, right away. Blood loss. Losing consciousness. Medics actually having to spend time healing certain wounds. Non-dead healed teamates must be kept safe for evac. Body parts realisticly being affected by wounds. No being prone and suddenly running up (honestly my first time tryin that with an M16. Yeah it doesn't happen). Largescale battlefields with distant sound echo (ala Day of Defeat). Instead of spawning, there is already a limited number of soldiers on the map (like company sized) and when you "die" you instead teleport to one who isn't threatened immediately. Going through mud and water can actually slow you down and make your gun more likely to jam because it's dirty. None of this running and reloading at the same speed as you can when sitting down (another RL thing that never translates to games). When changing an empty mag, the bullets don't magically enter your other mags. That would be fuck awesome.

Damn thats actually cool, makes me seriously think about picking up a xbox360.

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:What I've always wondered is why I can't find a decent realistic shooter that lots of people play.

Short version? Because that would be boring, hence not lots of people would play.

I mean, it could work, but you have to make concession to realism to make a game fun. In reality, most of combat is hurry up and wait. Games where you spend half an hour to get to the good part, which is over in five seconds are, quite simply, not fun.

Stark wrote: I just hope they fixed the cover controls; cover, run and vault being the same button actually IS annoying, now that someone mentioned it to me. It's pretty much the shooter Games Workshop would make if they weren't hell-bent on making shit games.

Given the delay between Starcraft and Dawn of War, that means we should be seeing a decent 40k shooter in about 2012...

Vendetta wrote:

Stark wrote: I just hope they fixed the cover controls; cover, run and vault being the same button actually IS annoying, now that someone mentioned it to me. It's pretty much the shooter Games Workshop would make if they weren't hell-bent on making shit games.

Given the delay between Starcraft and Dawn of War, that means we should be seeing a decent 40k shooter in about 2012...

I always thought GoW was what a 40K shooter would look like.

Replace the COG symbols with aquilas, throw a few Imperial proverbs and "For the Emperor!" into the dialogue, change the rifles from firing bullets to lasbeams, and wham, you've got Imperial Guardsmen fighting mutants on some random hellhole planet.

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote:What I've always wondered is why I can't find a decent realistic shooter that lots of people play.

Pick up the demo for ArmA, and you'll see why. Realism is nice in concept, but games have to be fun.

Now, realistic games can work in their niche market (simulators, anyone?), the problem is that you won't be looking at the same sale numbers as the Triple-A games... And since every game company wants to be the next Blizzard, or the next Bungie, we get a whole mess of shitty rehashes that very rarely take off the ground.


Is it very telling that I can fire up the good old Quake 1 and have more action-packed fun than with some of the newer titles?

ArmA could have been fun; they just suck at game design. Hell, Infiltration was a fun 'realistic' UT98 mod, and has features no game I know of ever put in one game again. Turns out shooters are stale.

Stark wrote:The Game Which Shall not be Named could have been fun; they just suck at game design.

TGWSNBN is a prime example of a shitty sim. Ironically, the game ended up being terrible not because of what was done, but largely because of what wasn't done. Their was no evolution in the Flashpoint game design. It was Flashpoint with prettier textures (that broke the game frame rate too!). Wait a second? Since when is Crytek developing Flashpoint?

Stark wrote:And since every game company wants to be the next Blizzard, or the next Bungie, we get a whole mess of shitty rehashes that very rarely take off the ground.

EXACTLY. They all want to be fucking multi million unit sellers and assume the path to that kind of success is ramming super graphix up consumer's asses rather than just, ya know, luck.