StarDestroyer.Net BBS

CaptHawkeye wrote:Their are ways around the "cover" system to create a highly defensive action game atmosphere. America's Army used a system of "suppression" where in your soldier's ability to aim and perform was quickly degraded by the mere presence of bullets flying within your vicinity.

The "suppression" system still allows a game to be played in a CS manner though. It just encourages players to be more careful and less twitchy. Hitting the target isn't as important as finding it and pinning it down.

AA (2 or 3?) isn't the only game to use suppression effects; the Project Reality total conversion for Battlefield 2 definitely does, and I believe ArmA/ArmA 2 or their corresponding Advanced Combat Environment mods use this as well.

I do have to agree though -- with the speed of play and bullet penetration, sticky cover isn't suited; the only advantage it would have would be if it allowed for blindfire without letting the player see past the cover they're stuck to.

Make a modified version of the Medal Of Honor: Airborne system: A full pull of the ADS trigger (speaking from an XB360 player) makes you ADS as normal, a half pull makes you stand static and lean/crouch while you ADS.

I think that the fan base for MW2 expects a fast-paced, movement-intensive game. As with CounterStrike, those who try to sit it out and snipe are constantly derided for camping. The maps are built to minimize locations in which one is not exposed in two directions at once.

Unlike Battlefield 2, the CoD community is also virulently opposed to the inclusion of vehicles, which, it is claimed, utterly imbalance gameplay and remove the "skill" element. I disagree; I think that Battlefield: Vietnam managed to make vehicular combat both fun and fair. However, Battlefield 2 is just an undignified rout for anybody with a decent joystick and access to one of the aircraft.

Axis Kast wrote:I think that the fan base for MW2 expects a fast-paced, movement-intensive game. As with CounterStrike, those who try to sit it out and snipe are constantly derided for camping. The maps are built to minimize locations in which one is not exposed in two directions at once.

Unlike Battlefield 2, the CoD community is also virulently opposed to the inclusion of vehicles, which, it is claimed, utterly imbalance gameplay and remove the "skill" element. I disagree; I think that Battlefield: Vietnam managed to make vehicular combat both fun and fair. However, Battlefield 2 is just an undignified rout for anybody with a decent joystick and access to one of the aircraft.

Hell, the most fun CoD game is games where tanks and vehicles are really essential to the gameplay, such as COD:UO. It's really annoying that most of the console fanboys thinks that vehicles will not work when they didn't even tried out COD:UO.

Got any evidence that it's 'console fanboys' and not just people who like Counterstrike? Aside from lethality and tactical aid the game flow of MW is very similar to Counterstrike and the other 'tacticool' twitch shooters of the 90s. Plenty of console FPS games have vehicles, and plenty of PC ones don't.

As Axis says, the game emphasises speed, twitch players HATE cover systems, and the way movement works makes cover irrelevant anyway. Including it in a meaningful way would involve changing the game into something else. Contextual crouch wouldn't really affect gameplay but probably wouldn't be worth the effort for most of the playerbase.

Infinity Ward ARE the guys so stupid they can't fix bunnyhopping in 2009. That's worth remembering. They have no intention of making an innovative game; simply capturing the existing audience for modern twitch shooters.

Stark wrote:Infinity Ward ARE the guys so stupid they can't fix bunnyhopping in 2009.

I remember playing my Grenadier Class (SCAR-H w/203, Thumper, Scavenger/Danger Closer/Scrambler Pro, Semtex, and flash), a dude bunny hopped my 203... how do you bunny hop a 40mm grenade underneath you?

Stark wrote:Got any evidence that it's 'console fanboys' and not just people who like Counterstrike? Aside from lethality and tactical aid the game flow of MW is very similar to Counterstrike and the other 'tacticool' twitch shooters of the 90s. Plenty of console FPS games have vehicles, and plenty of PC ones don't.

As Axis says, the game emphasises speed, twitch players HATE cover systems, and the way movement works makes cover irrelevant anyway. Including it in a meaningful way would involve changing the game into something else. Contextual crouch wouldn't really affect gameplay but probably wouldn't be worth the effort for most of the playerbase.

Infinity Ward ARE the guys so stupid they can't fix bunnyhopping in 2009. That's worth remembering. They have no intention of making an innovative game; simply capturing the existing audience for modern twitch shooters.

I'm not talking about fanboys who likes console in general, but the call of duty fans that had only played the series on console.

Stark wrote:In any high-speed game, Vietcong 'contextual crouch' makes more sense. Set the crouch height to just lower than the nearby cover, when aiming pop up, etc.

Medal of Honor: Airborne Assault had a system that I liked. When aiming down your sights, you could use the left stick to move your body in all directions, so you could take cover behind lower objects and then quickly pop up and down to shoot without leaving your sights.

Edit: Damn me for not looking. A few posts up talked about the same thing.

Sorry if it's been said, but Killzone2 had a pretty interesting cover system. All the cover was in first person and it seemed more fluid and easier to use than medal of honor's.

How did the cover system work in Killzone2? Damn, the more I hear about this game the more I wish I had a PS3.

From what I hear it was Vietcong contextual crouch. So... a decade old.

The benefit of contextual crouch over the MoHAA system is it works 'by itself', since your character isn't an idiot. When you crouch you're always fully behind cover and when you aim you're always aiming, whereas from what people are saying in MOHAA you have to 'steer' yourself up and down. It's more flexible, but fiddlier and I think less useful in MW2 context.

If you want to play KZ2 go play it at a mates place, realise it's average and forget about it.

Stark wrote:From what I hear it was Vietcong contextual crouch. So... a decade old.

Seemed more to me to be like a first-person version of R6: Vegas' cover system.

Stark wrote:From what I hear it was Vietcong contextual crouch. So... a decade old.

The benefit of contextual crouch over the MoHAA system is it works 'by itself', since your character isn't an idiot. When you crouch you're always fully behind cover and when you aim you're always aiming, whereas from what people are saying in MOHAA you have to 'steer' yourself up and down. It's more flexible, but fiddlier and I think less useful in MW2 context.

Often in design less is more.

[/quote]
If you want to play KZ2 go play it at a mates place, realise it's average and forget about it.[/quote]

None of my regular buddies own a playstation, they're mostly direhard xbox fanboys.

I like Call of Duty generally but don't feel their worth buying without a Russian campaign so the last one I bought was World at War and tried out the others at lan parties.

"No Russian" was probably the ballsiest move by a gaming company in recent history.

Now between MW1 and MW2 what did they fix?

Blayne wrote:
"No Russian" was probably the ballsiest move by a gaming company in recent history.

It isn't really when you realize their have already been game series that allow players to run around whole cities, killing innocents and cops.

Now between MW1 and MW2 what did they fix?

Nothing, more or less. Enemy spawning isn't unlimited any more, but the AI's behavior is still reliant on zerg spam and linear whack a mole tactics. So it doesn't really feel much different.

Well "Nyt Russkie" is alot more ballsy if you consider 9/11 of you know shooting up an airport as part as a deliberate false flag terrorist attack and having you the play I think having a choice to partake in it is what is causing alot of the hooplah, if what GameOverThinker is anything to go by.

Blayne wrote:Now between MW1 and MW2 what did they fix?

I suppose that you can no longer get insta killed at the start of a round by the enemy team throwing/shooting an M-203 just right. So in that respect the MP maps are better designed.

Air support has been depowered. Yes, I do argue this point very much. In MW1, a single helicopter was unstoppable, very hard to kill, and forced people to hide.

For the SP. Hmm, the infinite enemy "monster closets" are gone, which makes sniping viable. The checkpoints seem much more generous and well placed. Otherwise, the SP really seems to have taken a step back compared to MW1. The setpieces are not as cool, there are fewer "quiet" moments in missions ('All Ghilled Up' is much cooler than the snow mission in MW2). And your night vision is actually worse than MW1.

Pulp Hero wrote:I suppose that you can no longer get insta killed at the start of a round by the enemy team throwing/shooting an M-203 just right. So in that respect the MP maps are better designed.

In exchange we get wall and elevator glitches in nearly every map, a weapon mod that lets you kill people you can't even see (akimbo shotguns), and until recently a glitch where killing someone set off an explosion at their feet.

Thats normal for games until a few dozen patches though.

Hey, I never said it was better. MW2 has more problems than the Palin family, but the start of round grenade kills are indeed gone, which is a +1.

Pulp Hero wrote:Hey, I never said it was better. MW2 has more problems than the Palin family, but the start of round grenade kills are indeed gone, which is a +1.

It's just sad that they had to fix it at all. Seriously, this was a problem in games in 2001. It was fixed. Why do developers never look at other games to see problems and solutions? Anyone who played a variety of 'tactical quake' games like CS etc should have seen it coming.

But IW aren't out to innovate.

Pulp Hero wrote:Air support has been depowered. Yes, I do argue this point very much. In MW1, a single helicopter was unstoppable, very hard to kill, and forced people to hide.

Nonsense. I've killed dozens of helicopters in MW1 using an M249.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Pulp Hero wrote:Air support has been depowered. Yes, I do argue this point very much. In MW1, a single helicopter was unstoppable, very hard to kill, and forced people to hide.

Nonsense. I've killed dozens of helicopters in MW1 using an M249.

Yes, but with Stingers and other such weapons, it is far easier to kill air support in MW2. Most of the time when I played MW1, helicopters could be expected to rack up 10+ kills before going down. In MW2, they're lucky if they get 2 or 3.

The Vortex Empire wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Pulp Hero wrote:Air support has been depowered. Yes, I do argue this point very much. In MW1, a single helicopter was unstoppable, very hard to kill, and forced people to hide.

Nonsense. I've killed dozens of helicopters in MW1 using an M249.

Yes, but with Stingers and other such weapons, it is far easier to kill air support in MW2. Most of the time when I played MW1, helicopters could be expected to rack up 10+ kills before going down. In MW2, they're lucky if they get 2 or 3.

True. I haven't really played enough to get to the point where I've had useful AA capability.

The Vortex Empire wrote:In MW2, they're lucky if they get 2 or 3.

Whatever, I can't recount the number of Groundwar matches I've been in where out of nine people on our team I'm the only guy with a fucking AT4/Stinger/Javelin. This makes it impossible to take down a Spectre and a bit aggravating to deal with Pave Lows and Chopper Gunners. It's like everyone is too preoccupied with having both an ACR and akimbo shotguns to think, 'What if I run into a Harrier?'