PDA

View Full Version : The Contrarian Corner - Smashing Modern Warfare 2



ClockHand
04-25-2011, 04:57 PM
This is "The Contrarian Corner" where you post your contrary opinion against the popular one about video games.

Example:

I found Modern Warfare II multiplayer gameplay awful.
Rewarding the winners is the worst way to make unbalanced gameplay in a shooter, and even more the rewards also incentive people to camp (nothing against it, unless everyone does it).


I found the new Mortal Kombat bad.
Some moves are stupids, the game play is awful, the teleports are stupid, and it's not for casual gamers anymore (you need to practice, and you practice in a not serious game).

So tell your opinion.

Fenn
04-25-2011, 05:06 PM
So its the Gen. Discussion's unpopular opinions thread, video-game style?

I disagree with MW2. The core mechanics of the game are so addicting. Plus it had plenty of customization options and ways of taking down killstreaks.

Okay, Red Faction Guerilla deserves to be a top-played online game right now. Amazing weapon balance and super fun mechanics.

Same with Blur. People couldn't get past their own super-specific demands as to how that game should function. It was mad fun and strategic.

ClockHand
04-25-2011, 05:14 PM
The addiction of the game play doesn't make the game good, only popular. MW2 is bad, you can't tale serious a game that reward winners to keep winning, is stupid.

I have played and is easy to kill anyone, it's so easy that even a kid can kill you (there is not technique behind killing). I have proved this, playing against experimented players (I don't play this game at all), and I have not only kill'd them, but also I have win.

After that little experiment, I threw the control away a I did a oath to never play that game again.

Arashi500
04-26-2011, 01:19 AM
The addiction of the game play doesn't make the game good, only popular. MW2 is bad, you can't tale serious a game that reward winners to keep winning, is stupid.

I have played and is easy to kill anyone, it's so easy that even a kid can kill you (there is not technique behind killing). I have proved this, playing against experimented players (I don't play this game at all), and I have not only kill'd them, but also I have win.

After that little experiment, I threw the control away a I did a oath to never play that game again.

So age automaticaly makes someone inferior at games? But I agree on how it's stupid to reward players for being good, but reawrding them for being bad is even worse.

ClockHand
04-26-2011, 06:44 AM
its not a matter of age (age is just an example to show how silly the game is), its a matter that the gave doesn't need you to think to much, and rewarding players is bad, it doesn't matter if they are winning or losing, but it take away the interaction of real skills to manage the game.

Example: I play halo reach and I love it (it has his flaws but I'm going to keep with the example), and many times my team has been losing for 20 points and in some way we manage to turn it upside down and we won the matches (using the power up with strategy and working as a team). Now think how silly this would be if the other team would have been rewarded, while my team, for being losing, has no rewards. The game become impossible to turn it upside down, and not even that, skills and tactics become something less important than the killer streak (which obviously if you start winning, you are going to keep winning). And also, the weapons on the maps (which are always powerful and some kind of bully weapons) are easy to stop, its not like there is going to be a missile that I can't stop and is directed to my ass, and if there is one, I still have my armor lock, so fuck you invisible over powerful missile.

A nice example of how you can reward players and keep the competition serious, is Counter Strike (I grew up with that fps), this is because you are rewarding by winning with cash (which is used to buy weapons), but you to know how to spend it. When you start you can buy a Desert Eagle, a great gun, but doing that is going to let you without money for the next round, and if you don't buy it and you win, you have enough money for a AK-47 which is damn good. But you need to win. I'm rewarded for winning, but I have to know how to use this reward.

Arashi500
04-26-2011, 05:21 PM
Halo and the old school(pick-up power weapons on map style) in general is probably the best way to handle the rewards, as winning, and map control give you access to power weapons, making winning easier, but not guaranteed, and the rewards can be taken from you if you die. Seriously, there need to be more old-school style shooters.

Fenn
04-26-2011, 06:06 PM
I made a reply but it failed :( I lost everything.

Basically is said COD killstreaks work because most people who play COD play like individuals, not teams, so KSs boost their enjoyment.

jubeh
04-26-2011, 06:12 PM
So killstreaks work because it promotes hiding in a bush while the rest of your team actually tries to accomplish objectives. In a team based shooter.

Outcast
04-26-2011, 06:17 PM
And the inexperienced get fucked over...

ClockHand
04-26-2011, 06:22 PM
Ayashi@ more than old school shooter, old school shooter which respect a balanced game play (I don't say to take away powerful weapons, but that those weapons can be stopped if you play the game correctly) and team work. I think Gears of War 3 new team vs team mode is kinda going to the right direction, where every team has a equal amount of respawns at the beginning but of course when the respawns run out you lose.

I would combine that with small tasks in the match, which can gave you extra respawns. Example: Your team has 4 respawns left, the other team has 10 respawns left. You can go to kill the other team with the respawns you have left, or you can do a small task that the map gave you (example: carry the grenade launcher for 30 seconds or move something from place to other) and if you accomplish you can have 2 respawns extra. This make the game to reward team players and good strategy but its work for both teams (so everyone can use it and can back fire you). Also it would focus the clash of the team in entire map and not just a section (and will force teams to move on). Also this is because with the respawn system, no one is going to want to play with less skilled players (and there is always going to be a carmein in the group), but if we add this, maybe having a carmine might not be such a big weight.

Fenn
04-26-2011, 09:09 PM
So killstreaks work because it promotes hiding in a bush while the rest of your team actually tries to accomplish objectives. In a team based shooter.

The only reason that works is because the other 90% of players can't beat "sit in a corner." It's the players not the game. A team that cooperates will always beat a team of individualist killstreak campers.

Like I said, COD is a game best used for showing off and casual "I'll boot up the ol' Xbox 360 for some shoot'em up." It fills that role beautifully. Getting an 11 killstreak against good players working together is NOT easy. If you think it is you're good.

jubeh
04-26-2011, 09:20 PM
The only reason that works is because the other 90% of players can't beat "sit in a corner."

When the best tactic in a game is to sit in a corner that game sucks ass. Unless it's called "Grandma's Rocking Chair Simulator 2011."


It's the players not the game.

You're claiming everyone just sucks at beating campers, when in reality camping is the single strongest tactic in the game. Yeah, people can't beat campers because they are not playing correctly. They should also be camping. And now we just have high stakes hide and go seek.


A team that cooperates will always beat a team of individualist killstreak campers.

That is a pretty bold claim in a game with a nuke. Also absolutes? Really?


Like I said, COD is a game best used for showing off and casual "I'll boot up the ol' Xbox 360 for some shoot'em up." It fills that role beautifully. Getting an 11 killstreak against good players working together is NOT easy. If you think it is you're good.

Okay this has nothing to do with your argument but I hate it when people call first person shooting games "shoot'em'ups" when the genre are nothing alike. You know, aside form the shooting part.

Also you could say that about any game. It's also totally false because booting up COD for me is a painful and frustrating experience and an exercise in patience.

Ozzaharwood
04-26-2011, 10:11 PM
This thread should be changed to the "Hate on MW2 Thread".

The thing about CoD is that it's severely unbalanced. The players that are higher level have an advantage as they have access to more weapons, a lot being outrageously overpowered, and this starts a chain. The newer players will start using weapons like the UMP45 and abuse it. They will also start NoobTubing, a lot of the times across the map, and they will start to camp. This causes the other team to get angry and do the same, and it just goes back and forth. The "One Man Army" perk also asks the higher level players to NoobTube across the map and switch their classes, or just continually NoobTube from one position. I have a friend who has gotten 7-8 nukes on Wasteland just because he throws stuns over the hedge, and if he gets a hitmarker he will throw a semtex, one man army, and repeat. He gets quads all the time using that technique, especially on Ground War. It's game of "Let's use any way possible, even if the other team doesn't have a chance at all to get a good K/D ratio!" Which is why it's bad. FPS's like BFBC 1/2 get rid of this by not including a K/D ratio, balancing most guns, and giving the players solid objectives in which they WANT to follow and work together to complete. If the players don't care about winning and only care about kills, this will always happen. Games like Halo and Gears of War balance this out by not including a ranking up system that gives you advantages over other players, and scattering weapons across the map, therefore giving the teams equal chance to get guns and kills.

Hate on CoD all you want, but you should know by now that Treyarch/Warhammer and InfinityWard/Respawn will always follow the same rules in making multiplayer games because a crapload of people buy them. If they are selling and people are playing, they are happy. People buy CoD because it IS a good game, and a fun game, it just gets old quick when you get spawn killed by Chopper Gunners and NoobTubers in 80% of the games.

Fenn
04-27-2011, 04:42 PM
Jubeh, your whole argument is that camping is the best tactic and I challenge that.

Are you seriously going to tell me that a team of randoms without mics camps, and another team uses mics and teamwork, that the campers will win? Fine, I'll revoke the "always" but most games the team working together will win.

In reality, against a good team a camper will not get more than one/two kills from a spot, because the first person to die will call the spot out. Whoever enters the area next can flashbang, semtex, grenade launcher, or flat out rush the spot using ghost, lightweight, or other anti-camp perks. Maybe the camper gets one more kill. If he gets any more without moving, it's the other team's fault. If he does move, then guess what, he's not camping! Not to mention a full team of campers puts zero pressure on the opposing team. They can take their time communicating and planning out how to clear out the map.

This will never happen because of the players that populate public matches. It's not the game's fault.

ClockHand
04-27-2011, 04:51 PM
You are making a comparison between team with different conditions. Your prove need to be done under both teams under the same conductions (both team work and with mics).

jubeh
04-27-2011, 04:54 PM
Jubeh, your whole argument is that camping is the best tactic and I challenge that.

AHHHHH


Are you seriously going to tell me that a team of randoms without mics camps, and another team uses mics and teamwork, that the campers will win? Fine, I'll revoke the "always" but most games the team working together will win.

Not if the mic'd team is camping.


In reality, against a good team a camper will not get more than one/two kills from a spot, because the first person to die will call the spot out. Whoever enters the area next can flashbang, semtex, grenade launcher, or flat out rush the spot using ghost, lightweight, or other anti-camp perks. Maybe the camper gets one more kill. If he gets any more without moving, it's the other team's fault. If he does move, then guess what, he's not camping!

If you move once you're not camping?


Not to mention a full team of campers puts zero pressure on the opposing team.

Not if the campers are winning. I mean that is literally the whole reason you camp. You get the lead, you hide, the other guys get frustrated and walk into stupid set ups.


They can take their time communicating and planning out how to clear out the map.

Thats what I want as a camper. I want to run the clock.


This will never happen because of the players that populate public matches. It's not the game's fault.

"Never."

"Always."

Fenn
04-28-2011, 06:50 PM
Not if the mic'd team is camping.

I don't care if it's a clan camping. If you can't move a person from a single spot that is your fault.


If you move once you're not camping?

If they only move once, they should only get 1-2 more kills max before they die/have to move again. This is not camping.


Not if the campers are winning. I mean that is literally the whole reason you camp. You get the lead, you hide, the other guys get frustrated and walk into stupid set ups.

Thats what I want as a camper. I want to run the clock.

Sure, but that entails getting the lead first. The other team just needs a few quick kills to take the advantageous spots from the camper(s) and force them to change their strategy.


"Never."

"Always."

Damn it jubeh. T_T

Hayashida
04-28-2011, 07:16 PM
I don't care if it's a clan camping. If you can't move a person from a single spot that is your fault.

Are you saying that if some guy is hiding behind some rock where you can't get them from behind and is barely visible and there's only one direction to get this guy AND he's got it covered... If someone can't beat that, its their fault? Don't you realize how retarded that is?

Fenn
04-28-2011, 07:32 PM
Are you saying that if some guy is hiding behind some rock where you can't get them from behind and is barely visible and there's only one direction to get this guy AND he's got it covered... If someone can't beat that, its their fault? Don't you realize how retarded that is?

Can't get them from behind: yes, this is an advantage

Is barely visible: only matters for one, maybe two kills if the team is communicating. Also, good players will be aware of most of these spots; there aren't THAT many.

Their's only one direction to get to this guy: and only one direction for him to get you.

AND he's got it covered: explosives? flash bangs? ghost?

Do you think the situation you described is a typical camping spot? That sure sounds like an incredible piece of real estate on the map that should be highly prioritized by both teams.

LVUER
04-28-2011, 08:33 PM
I'm not playing MW2 multiplayer (I only play BF2 multiplayer). Couldn't you flush that campers with some concentrated firepower? Grenades? RPGs? Or anything you have in MW2? In BF2 we have grenade launchers, tanks, artillery barrages, or even an attack chopper if there's one in the map.

I also play CS multiplayer and usually we get information about campers location from dead teammates, so the remaining alive teammates could pick that campers easily (it's very convenient when you know enemy's location... and you're pretty sure he won't move from that spot).

jubeh
04-28-2011, 11:57 PM
I don't care if it's a clan camping. If you can't move a person from a single spot that is your fault.

Will touch on this.


If they only move once, they should only get 1-2 more kills max before they die/have to move again. This is not camping.

Camping involves moving, especially when killcams exist. Whenever I would camp manor I'd chill in the bedroom or whatever and kill a guy. Whenever he came back to get me I'd be in the bathroom. Rinse repeat I never had to leave the house. I wasn't camping?


Sure, but that entails getting the lead first. The other team just needs a few quick kills to take the advantageous spots from the camper(s) and force them to change their strategy.

Yeah the good team needs to get the lead and then start camping. We agree.


Damn it jubeh. T_T

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

In response to your post responding to john:

Your fictional team scenario works because its a team against one dude. Even if the campers aren't cooperating as a team they still have the same goal. Kill mans. And so if they see some bumblefuck team struggling really hard to kill one dude behind a rock, they can start picking these guys off from afar. See that, I made up some ridiculous scenario that puts me on top. Its super easy.

The actual issue is that this rock exists.

The game designers created the unbeatable rock.

And once again we agree that the good team should control the rock and camp at it. We aren't so different.

Ozzaharwood
04-30-2011, 02:57 AM
This is exactly why CoD4 was so good.
1) Camping wasn't well known
2) Using overkill w/ noobtubes with 3 frags was epicly fun even if you died all the time and got like a 0.2 k/d
3) It was second to CoD2 for best multi because people played it to have fun not get 4 k/d ratios

Fenn
04-30-2011, 11:04 AM
Will touch on this.

Camping involves moving, especially when killcams exist. Whenever I would camp manor I'd chill in the bedroom or whatever and kill a guy. Whenever he came back to get me I'd be in the bathroom. Rinse repeat I never had to leave the house. I wasn't camping?

That guy is terrible. Just terrible. Once you know someone's up there they have few options. First off, you can enter the second floor from the front or the back (up the logs). Either way, he should have popped a flashbang or stun inside/in front of the bathroom. If you're there he gets a hit marker, he knows you're there, and he can kill you easy. If you aren't there, he know's you've either left the spot or are camping somewhere else on that floor. The rest of that floor can be approached from more than one angle, and you would not know where he was, so if he checked his corners well he could get you before you could react and realign.


Yeah the good team needs to get the lead and then start camping. We agree.

Only the sith deal in absolutes.

In response to your post responding to john:

Your fictional team scenario works because its a team against one dude. Even if the campers aren't cooperating as a team they still have the same goal. Kill mans. And so if they see some bumblefuck team struggling really hard to kill one dude behind a rock, they can start picking these guys off from afar. See that, I made up some ridiculous scenario that puts me on top. Its super easy.

Not if they are all camping. Most camping spots give you a very narrow view of the battlefield; you're either in a building or looking down a straightaway most times. Especially on bigger maps, having an entire team sitting in their little campgrounds will not usually give them perfect coverage of each other. All it takes is one stealth player to creep past an opening and your team is done. You make it sound as though the spots are designed into the map so each spot covers another spot, creating this inpenatrable formation.

The main point of me including a whole team aspect is because most campers get kills sitting in one spot, get one kill, and then another because the guy behind the first was too stupid to realize "hey my buddy just got killed as he ran in." You only need one person to beat a camper, but warning your team of their location helps prevent others from falling into the same trap you did.


The actual issue is that this rock exists.

The game designers created the unbeatable rock.

And once again we agree that the good team should control the rock and camp at it. We aren't so different.

Sorry, but that was not what I was implying. I said the scenario you gave me made it sound like (a) the rock is unbeatable and (b) these rocks are abundant. There is not unbeatable rock. Nowhere. Name one spot, anywhere in any map of MW2, that cannot be beaten by an opposing player. Even one. I guarantee you I'll give you at least two options for taking down that camper without the aid of teammates.

ClockHand
04-30-2011, 05:13 PM
The main point of me including a whole team aspect is because most campers get kills sitting in one spot, get one kill, and then another because the guy behind the first was too stupid to realize "hey my buddy just got killed as he ran in." You only need one person to beat a camper, but warning your team of their location helps prevent others from falling into the same trap you did.


Again, you are still talking like only one enemy is camping. If you put 2 or 3 enemies camping, and covering each other weak points, then the rush team die, just because the others are playing better according to the game design.

Fenn
04-30-2011, 06:26 PM
Again, you are still talking like only one enemy is camping. If you put 2 or 3 enemies camping, and covering each other weak points, then the rush team die, just because the others are playing better according to the game design.

Read the paragraph above that. For your convenience...


Not if they are all camping. Most camping spots give you a very narrow view of the battlefield; you're either in a building or looking down a straightaway most times. Especially on bigger maps, having an entire team sitting in their little campgrounds will not usually give them perfect coverage of each other. All it takes is one stealth player to creep past an opening and your team is done. You make it sound as though the spots are designed into the map so each spot covers another spot, creating this inpenatrable formation.

jubeh
04-30-2011, 06:44 PM
That guy is terrible. Just terrible. Once you know someone's up there they have few options. First off, you can enter the second floor from the front or the back (up the logs). Either way, he should have popped a flashbang or stun inside/in front of the bathroom. If you're there he gets a hit marker, he knows you're there, and he can kill you easy. If you aren't there, he know's you've either left the spot or are camping somewhere else on that floor. The rest of that floor can be approached from more than one angle, and you would not know where he was, so if he checked his corners well he could get you before you could react and realign.

There are a couple issues with this theory-gaming scenario. One is apparently you don't have sound on and can't hear people coming. Two is you're assuming that I apparently really suck and have no idea how people can enter the manor. A huge part of multiplayer gaming is the ability to read your opponent. This applies to the guy inside and the guy trying to get in. I could just as easily guess a guy will come up through the back stairs and throw a flash bomb. Really it's inconsequential.

Also, and I mean this genuinely, you missed the point of what I was saying. Was a camping or was I not? That's what I was asking.


Not if they are all camping. Most camping spots give you a very narrow view of the battlefield; you're either in a building or looking down a straightaway most times. Especially on bigger maps, having an entire team sitting in their little campgrounds will not usually give them perfect coverage of each other. All it takes is one stealth player to creep past an opening and your team is done. You make it sound as though the spots are designed into the map so each spot covers another spot, creating this inpenatrable formation.

Coming up with good setups like this is a huge part of the game. I'm not sure what we're even arguing anymore here. If a dude creeps through your setup falls apart and you should change your plans. Are campers also really stupid and unable to adapt? Please tell me more about these mysterious creatures.


The main point of me including a whole team aspect is because most campers get kills sitting in one spot, get one kill, and then another because the guy behind the first was too stupid to realize "hey my buddy just got killed as he ran in."

I would submit most campers get kills because they know the maps really well and can exploit predictable patterns that they notice the other team exhibits. Really this doesn't matter.


You only need one person to beat a camper, but warning your team of their location helps prevent others from falling into the same trap you did.

Sometimes that's part of the trap. Often if I see two dudes together and I manage to kill one, I'll run away and find a vantage point that gives me a shot to my prior camping spot. When dude 2 comes to avenge his friend, I'm not there but I've got a good shot. Sometimes it's a waste of time. Either way I'm on top.


Sorry, but that was not what I was implying. I said the scenario you gave me made it sound like (a) the rock is unbeatable and (b) these rocks are abundant. There is not unbeatable rock. Nowhere. Name one spot, anywhere in any map of MW2, that cannot be beaten by an opposing player. Even one. I guarantee you I'll give you at least two options for taking down that camper without the aid of teammates.

This is a good challenge but once again misses the point. The "unbeatable rock" is just a symptom of how the game is designed. Also you even admit no matter what I say you'll come up with a fictional scenario where your team comes out on top regardless of how divorced it is from practice. It's not helping your argument. If you can show me how the game doesn't promote camping then I'm all ears.

CypressDahlia
04-30-2011, 08:23 PM
So killstreaks work because it promotes hiding in a bush while the rest of your team actually tries to accomplish objectives. In a team based shooter.

This is basically what people who are 'good' by relative standards do all the time. If you notice that there's someone leading your time by a huge margin of kills, then this is likely what he's doing. Observe yourself, then observe the rest of your team...he is probably nowhere in that bunch. He is hiding somewhere, either KSing or getting a vantage point while the rest of his team acts as a decoy.

Granted, this only works if not everyone does it. You kind of have to feed off your teammates': 1.) inexperience or 2.) charity, in that they'll rush in order to move the game forward and actually make it fun at their own expense.

jubeh
04-30-2011, 08:32 PM
Its funny because when bad company 2 came out you'd get these dudes straight from modern warfare so your team would be like 20 snipers all sitting at the base sniping from afar while you had maybe 3 dudes going for the objective. It just breeds the boring and useless kind of player.

Though fenn's argument is right in a sense. I mean not when applied to modern warfare, but to other games that try to get people to cooperate but just fall flat in practice like MAG. Until that shit is hard-wired into the game it's just not going to work.

Fenn
05-01-2011, 10:43 AM
Okay jubeh, you did a good job making clear, concise points so instead of replying per paragraph I'll reply to it generally. First, let's restate your argument, as I understand it: COD is a bad game because camping is the best tactic and most encouraged by the game.

Now, my argument: camping is promoted primarily as a result of the average IQ of the gaming community, not because of the mechanics.

Regarding your manor scenario, I did not catch what you were trying to do. I would say you are camping, but to clarify, it is a much different form than the majority of campers in this game. You were actually moving, however slightly, and holding down the entire area, and using your prediction and awareness skills to cut off his options. At first you made it sound like you sat still in the bathroom (spot A), with on hand on the controller with your finger over RT waiting, got a kill, moved mechanically to spot B, put finger over RT, kill, repeat. There's no way you could do that against an equally skilled player, who would know to equip a ninja class, flashbangs, and some explosives to facilitate flushing you out. It would turn into a battle of wits and experience, which is what competition is supposed to be. Am I missing something? I'd like to pose a new argument: is your kind of camping so bad for gameplay?

I also think a lot of this confusion is that I'm assuming campers are all idiots, and you're assuming all rushers are idiots, but I could be wrong.

However, to you next point: does COD promote camping or not? Yes, but not to so great a level as you suggest. A skilled camper, like yes. Moving from spot-to-spot, ambushing, yes. That is certainly A (but not THE) strong tactic. Chilling in a single corner for 10 minutes stationary, as the majority of randoms do in matchmaking, most definitely not. That is the fault of the players.

And, here's how it does't: flashbangs/stuns, RPGs, ninja pro, , semtex/frag, Danger Close, SitRep, mics (this works both ways actually) and most of all the grenade launcher. In fact, I'm surprised no one's mentions OMA/DC GLs yet; I found that much more game-breaking than camping.

CypressDahlia
05-01-2011, 03:07 PM
Camping is the best tactic. Let's not talk about this like it's just camper vs. a team full of rushdown folk. Let's say it's a camper with an okay team of balanced players vs. another balanced team. The camper controls one major point on the map where one is either required to pass through or will inevitably end up due to the flow of that particular map (say, the rocky cliff in Jungle [BlackOps ref]). As the member of the second team, you simply don't have the resource of time to sit there and scout out a camper, carefully approach him, and take him out, especially since you have the entire rest of his team to worry about. And every failed attempt is points lost to the other team. That is the biggest advantage of being a camper: drawing attention away from yourself, knowing well that the other teams' members cannot focus on you at the risk of losing momentum in the game. Camping is the only tactic that has this advantage. It's really just...a glorified distraction in the large scale of things.

jubeh
05-01-2011, 04:13 PM
COD is a bad game because camping is the best tactic and most encouraged by the game.

No that's just one reason. There are others.

As for the rest of your post we obviously don't agree on what camping means. I believe its a skill like any other. A bad camper will stay in one spot and die eventually or fall asleep because nobody walks by, and a good one adapts to different situations.

And the game promotes camping explicitly. Don't act like it kinda does. First off, it's very difficult to turn on somebody who shoots you from behind assuming their aim is decent. Second, instant kill melee attacks. Third, you are rewarded for not dying but you are very rarely rewarded for taking risks. For instance capturing objectives does not add to your killstreak, therefore if you are playing solely for skills capturing has no value. Assists don't add to your killstreak, so just chase kills. There is no room for assist play.

The perks and weapons you mention are powerful too but available to both parties. So its not like if a guy gets tubed he's going to be confused and wondering what the hell just happened. And regardless the one kill you get on the camper most likely cost your team several deaths in order to find him first. Also I want to clarify that camping isn't game breaking. It just makes the game boring. There is a massive difference.

And yes I believe rushing is inherently stupid in a game where camping is so powerful. I'm sure some stuff has been patched, but when MW2 first came out the only viable way to rush was with a knife and all the speed skills.

And yes my type of camping is super boring if that's what the game boils down to. I remember you said you liked monday night combat and one of my favorite things about that game was the number of options. So when I camp in MNC it's not as bad because not everyone else has to do that. Due to the nature of the classes and the way the tide of battle tends to shift, most people are filling wildly different roles. In COD we are all doing the same thing and it becomes high stakes musical chairs.

Fenn
05-01-2011, 06:27 PM
No that's just one reason. There are others.

As for the rest of your post we obviously don't agree on what camping means. I believe its a skill like any other. A bad camper will stay in one spot and die eventually or fall asleep because nobody walks by, and a good one adapts to different situations.

And the game promotes camping explicitly. Don't act like it kinda does. First off, it's very difficult to turn on somebody who shoots you from behind assuming their aim is decent. Second, instant kill melee attacks. Third, you are rewarded for not dying but you are very rarely rewarded for taking risks. For instance capturing objectives does not add to your killstreak, therefore if you are playing solely for skills capturing has no value. Assists don't add to your killstreak, so just chase kills. There is no room for assist play.

I disagree with all three reasons (big surprise huh?). First off, you should not be able to win against someone who just shot you in the back, whether a camper or rusher.

Instant kill melee helps rushers as much as campers. If a camper knifed you chances are they could have just shot you with the same result.

The third I agree with you for the most part. It was far too easy to farm kills in objective matches for killstreaks. But how does this relate to camping exactly?
As for assists, in a game where 5 shots max gets a kill, "assist play" wouldn't make sense anyway. Assists function as a consolation if someone kill steals. Also isn't chasing kills counterintuitive to camping?


The perks and weapons you mention are powerful too but available to both parties. So its not like if a guy gets tubed he's going to be confused and wondering what the hell just happened. And regardless the one kill you get on the camper most likely cost your team several deaths in order to find him first. Also I want to clarify that camping isn't game breaking. It just makes the game boring. There is a massive difference.

And yes I believe rushing is inherently stupid in a game where camping is so powerful. I'm sure some stuff has been patched, but when MW2 first came out the only viable way to rush was with a knife and all the speed skills.

I mentioned those perks and weapons because they all function as anti-camp tools. Think: You have two grenade types, C4, and multiple explosive weapons, along with perks that give you infinite of these as well as increased blast radius. If you can't flush out a camper with those, something is wrong with your team's playstyle.

Plus, if you have mics, as I keep saying, you can identify the approximate location of every camper on the opposing team after a single kill, thus avoiding the several deaths you mentioned.


And yes my type of camping is super boring if that's what the game boils down to. I remember you said you liked monday night combat and one of my favorite things about that game was the number of options. So when I camp in MNC it's not as bad because not everyone else has to do that. Due to the nature of the classes and the way the tide of battle tends to shift, most people are filling wildly different roles. In COD we are all doing the same thing and it becomes high stakes musical chairs.

I do love MNC, and it's much more diverse than COD, absolutely. I just disagree that COD boils down to camping because of the numerous anti-camp options available. Experienced players will know the maps. They will know the popular camping spots, like the bathroom/bedroom in manor, the bunker in Wasteland, etc., and always check those locations. Armed with the knowledge of the prime camping spots, you can actually kill campers, even good ones, without losing a single life, and force them to camp in less favorable spots with more angles to cover.

Rushing is stupid. Sprinting around the map, however fun, will most likely not work. However, moving rapidly from spot to spot, aware of the common camp spots, and pressuring the opposing team is a completely viable strategy.

If you're tired of this conversation I'm up for moving on to a different game, but if you're enjoying this discussion I'm down with continuing.

jubeh
05-01-2011, 07:12 PM
I forgot to mention regenerating health. Anyways.


I disagree with all three reasons (big surprise huh?). First off, you should not be able to win against someone who just shot you in the back, whether a camper or rusher.

If anything you should at least be able to retreat.


Instant kill melee helps rushers as much as campers. If a camper knifed you chances are they could have just shot you with the same result.

I'm sure you're familiar with running into a room, realizing somebody is there, shooting them because they're like 10 years away and then getting stabbed in the nuts.


The third I agree with you for the most part. It was far too easy to farm kills in objective matches for killstreaks. But how does this relate to camping exactly?

Since campbro sees no value in capturing objectives they can hide around shooting anyone stupid enough to actually play the game.


As for assists, in a game where 5 shots max gets a kill, "assist play" wouldn't make sense anyway. Assists function as a consolation if someone kill steals.

As an assist player I'm p upset that you feel assists are consolations for ks's. It's true that it doesn't matter in COD specifically due to the shooting mechanics, but assist play existing in the game promotes sacrifice in return for victory.

A person hiding in a bush trying to get a harrier has no reason to pop out and fire at a guy he can't kill, softening him up for a teammate. The risk is too high.


Also isn't chasing kills counterintuitive to camping?

Sorry I dont mean people who literally chase other people around. When I say that I mean people in team games who care more about k/d then the victory conditions. The game is all about that.


I mentioned those perks and weapons because they all function as anti-camp tools. Think: You have two grenade types, C4, and multiple explosive weapons, along with perks that give you infinite of these as well as increased blast radius. If you can't flush out a camper with those, something is wrong with your team's playstyle.

So I'm guessing you just make an educated guess about where the dude is or something.


Plus, if you have mics, as I keep saying, you can identify the approximate location of every camper on the opposing team after a single kill, thus avoiding the several deaths you mentioned.

Are you referring to dying and seeing the killcam? Because I think we talked about this.


I do love MNC, and it's much more diverse than COD, absolutely. I just disagree that COD boils down to camping because of the numerous anti-camp options available. Experienced players will know the maps. They will know the popular camping spots, like the bathroom/bedroom in manor, the bunker in Wasteland, etc., and always check those locations. Armed with the knowledge of the prime camping spots, you can actually kill campers, even good ones, without losing a single life, and force them to camp in less favorable spots with more angles to cover.

You realize that if camping weren't so strong that there wouldn't need to be any reason to label prime camping spots. In a game not designed around camping with better maps you would never have to say I bet there is a dude behind that rock there is always a dude behind that rock.

It's cool you're trying to find a way to make your game fun but you shouldn't have to.


Rushing is stupid. Sprinting around the map, however fun, will most likely not work. However, moving rapidly from spot to spot, aware of the common camp spots, and pressuring the opposing team is a completely viable strategy.

I'll take your word for it.


If you're tired of this conversation I'm up for moving on to a different game, but if you're enjoying this discussion I'm down with continuing.

We didn't even talk about the skinner box bs and positive feedback loops but whatever.

Outcast
05-01-2011, 08:24 PM
I always loved how the vast majority of matches I was in revolved around both teams fighting over camping spots and then camping those spots until the other team drove them out, rinse, repeat.

CypressDahlia
05-02-2011, 06:56 AM
lol @ fighting over camping spots. "Objective: capture missile base." "Fuck the missile base, I want this dark corner!" "NO, I WANT THE DARK CORNER!" - War breaks out -

Fenn
05-02-2011, 04:17 PM
Okay jubeh, you've provided enough evidence to convince me. I guess I just enjoy the struggle of defeating campers, so I didn't share your view on the game being boring.


New opinion: more games need splitscreen. I'm willing to sacrifice a graphics drop since for me, splitscreen is more about who you are playing with than what you are playing.

Evil_Cake
05-02-2011, 04:22 PM
ya I want split screen

jubeh
05-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Nobody is going to disagree with split screen. This thread is supposed to be about minority opinions.

ClockHand
05-02-2011, 07:29 PM
I find this new Mortal Kombat (9) a piece of shit. It has a 8,6 in Metacritic and the users have rated it in 8,0. So I don't only ask "WTF" to NetherRealm Studios, but also to the insane people who gave a good rate to a obvious absurd and awful game.

The art and design is awful (is full retarded), the characters still moves like crabs, some combos/teleports/attacks are stupid and for some reason people told me when the Demo was out that the game was "the shit" (in a good sense).

Even you can read in some articles how some people want the game to be good. You don't want a game to be good, the game is or not, stop trying to be nice with it.


PS: Any other suggestion for a contrarie corner subject is welcome.

Fenn
05-02-2011, 09:46 PM
Nobody is going to disagree with split screen. This thread is supposed to be about minority opinions.

Really? Oh wow. My impression was devs stopped including it because most people just wanted online.

jubeh
05-02-2011, 09:50 PM
Naw split screen destroys framerate.

ClockHand
05-11-2011, 07:49 PM
A Article about what people would like in MW3.
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1167635p1.html

With this I'm proving that most gamers known shit. As you can see most of the comments are about: having sci-fi futuristic combat (halo?), with aliens (halo?), balance killstreak (against rewards?) and beta test by gamers (who love rewards).

Basically people want a Halo game with rewards (to make it more unfair).

Fenn
05-11-2011, 09:57 PM
I don't really see how a sci-fi esque future shooter would even classify as COD. I can see a game set in a more contemporary future (oxymoron?) with protptype weapons and a little suspended reality, but aliens? We have a whole genre of games like that already.

Outcast
05-12-2011, 09:55 AM
I don't really see how a sci-fi esque future shooter would even classify as COD. I can see a game set in a more contemporary future (oxymoron?) with protptype weapons and a little suspended reality, but aliens? We have a whole genre of games like that already.

Isn't that pretty much what black ops is?

Fenn
05-12-2011, 11:45 AM
Isn't that pretty much what black ops is?

Eh, it's a bit post-modern but they could push the envelop a little more. Once we start using full out blasters and phasers with UFO airstrikes it ceases to be COD.

jubeh
05-12-2011, 04:41 PM
So brink is pretty close to my ideal fps. It doesnt even have team death match. You have to play objectives.

Matt
05-13-2011, 01:50 PM
I was actually slightly opposed to the MW games moving away from reality, but they handled it fairly well by not going too far from reality (except for zombies, which I did not like). If MW3 has aliens and energy weapons, I'll buy it, because I can finally have Halo on a PS3. I won't think of it as Call of Duty anymore..

I'm all for splitscreen gaming. I hate how there are so many online exclusive games being sold. Starcraft 2? Single player ONLY for campaign, with an Internet connection required to play? An excellent game, but all the single player stands as is a tutorial for the multiplayer. A game with single player should be able to stand on its single player. PC games getting splitscreen wouldn't work in a lot of cases, but at least give us some in console games. Uncharted 2 in splitscreen would have been amazing.

Delphinus
05-13-2011, 06:33 PM
I'm all for splitscreen gaming. I hate how there are so many online exclusive games being sold. Starcraft 2? Single player ONLY for campaign, with an Internet connection required to play? An excellent game, but all the single player stands as is a tutorial for the multiplayer. A game with single player should be able to stand on its single player. PC games getting splitscreen wouldn't work in a lot of cases, but at least give us some in console games. Uncharted 2 in splitscreen would have been amazing.

Splitscreen is too resources expensive. You want 1337 graphics, which are the most important thing? No splitscreen for you. And anyway nobody who plays those games has any IRL friends, so internet is a better option than LAN or splitscreen 99% of the time.

PWhit
05-13-2011, 07:17 PM
Call of Duty is overrated in my opinion. At least Halo Reach had more things to do and a good balance on most things. If MW3 is like Halo in any way, no sale for me.

Fenn
05-14-2011, 10:02 AM
I'm all for splitscreen gaming. I hate how there are so many online exclusive games being sold. Starcraft 2? Single player ONLY for campaign, with an Internet connection required to play? An excellent game, but all the single player stands as is a tutorial for the multiplayer. A game with single player should be able to stand on its single player. PC games getting splitscreen wouldn't work in a lot of cases, but at least give us some in console games. Uncharted 2 in splitscreen would have been amazing.

I agree and disagree. I agree that the online exclusives are a pain, mostly because almost ALL of them are and sometimes I want to sit next to the person I'm playing.

However, I don't agree that a game with a single player mode needs to be worth it just for the single player. That kind of mentality would lead to developers simply removing single player alltogether from a multiplayer-oriented game.


Splitscreen is too resources expensive. You want 1337 graphics, which are the most important thing? No splitscreen for you. And anyway nobody who plays those games has any IRL friends, so internet is a better option than LAN or splitscreen 99% of the time.

1337 graphics have never been the most important thing for any splitscreen gamer I've played with. The two most important things, for me, are (1) who you are playing with and (2) how flexible the splitscreen is a.k.a how many options, modes, changeable factors are there.

I could go on but it would simply be my word versus yours.

CypressDahlia
05-17-2011, 01:09 PM
I disagree that FF Tactics is the end-all-to-be-all SRPG. In fact, FF Tactics is trite and redundant in a lot of ways considering Tactics Ogre was out for the SNES long before and it is all-around superior. Beyond that there were plenty of SPRGs to come before FFT that were far superior in terms of gameplay. Treasure Hunter G and Bahamut Lagoon are two such SRPGs.

Matt
05-17-2011, 02:11 PM
I don't care about graphics, and apparently, neither do 80% of gamers. The Wii has the worst graphics this generation, but its total sales are pretty close to the Xbox360 and PS3 combined. I can take a graphical cut on splitscreen. The N64 could do it with almost all of its games, and the thing had freaking 4MB of RAM.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 02:32 PM
Wii use the Ipad paradox of selling. It has bad graphic, bad games, bad gameplay, bad everything, still, it sells more than xbox360 and ps3.

CypressDahlia
05-17-2011, 02:43 PM
The Wii has bad games? W-w-what? And Nintendo is one of the companies who have never been billed with "bad gameplay". That's because they don't spend 3/4ths of their development time fiddling with Unreal Engine and worry about gameplay, innovation and balance.

Delphinus
05-17-2011, 02:56 PM
Wii all know the reason it's got more sales than its competitors; it's a hipster thing.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 03:35 PM
The Wii has bad games? W-w-what? And Nintendo is one of the companies who have never been billed with "bad gameplay". That's because they don't spend 3/4ths of their development time fiddling with Unreal Engine and worry about gameplay, innovation and balance.

Good Wii Games:
-Mario Galaxy (1 & 2)
-Metroid
-Monser Hunter

Nothing else.

The deal is that the Wii has no good games, you can name Donkey Kong, Smash Bros Brawl, New Super Mario Bros, Mickey Epic Journey and many others, but all those games are not good or mediocre, and for some reason (manly because is Nintedo) it always have good reviews, despite the fact that most of these games have poor design.
Examples of this are: Donkey Kong which has no challenge, and the difficulty on the stages was retarded (I'm in the last stage and is equally hard that the one in the second stage). Smash Bros Brawl is one of the worst smash bros (even the designers think this). New Super Mario Bros has multiplayer problems (and if you don't play multiplayer it doesn't bring anything new to what it is a mario game). Mickey Epic Journeys was no epic at all with his camera problems. And so many other Wii games have problems that makes them mediocre games.

There are also games from other consoles to Wii, like Resident Evil 4 and Dead Space, but we can't say they are Wii games.

When a friend bought his Wii we were playing every day, until we finished Metroid, Mario Galaxy and some other games, after that we found that there was nothing else to play on the Wii, and so his Wii become a dust collector as many other Wiis.

I haven't meet any person in real life that has been using his Wii for more than a year.

Matt
05-17-2011, 03:44 PM
Nintendo did a few things right:

1. They marketed their console and games to casual gamers as well as hardcore gamers (though not so much the latter).
2. The majority of their games are rated E, therefore grabbing the audience that MW2, GTA4, etc. could not.
3. They don't spend too long on their graphics and focus more on, like Cyp said, innovation, gameplay, and balance.
4. They make TONS of games you can play with your friends and family in the same room.
5. Not all of their games are based on online components, therefore making the Wii the best console for people who don't have enough money for high speed Internet, or live in an area where it's not available.

Online gaming is awesome, but I don't think the industry should center itself on it for a number of reasons. I'll bring that up later, but it'd get this post too off-topic.

Haters gonna hate, but in the end, it's Nintendo making the most money. Also, they've announced their next-gen console, projected for release in 2012.

EDIT:
@Clockhand - I've had my Wii and used it for about two years now.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 04:24 PM
1. They marketed their console and games to casual gamers as well as hardcore gamers (though not so much the latter).

Name a game of Wii for hardcore gamers.



2. The majority of their games are rated E, therefore grabbing the audience that MW2, GTA4, etc. could not.

Many kids play GTA4 or MW2. And neither making games rated E make them good games.



3. They don't spend too long on their graphics and focus more on, like Cyp said, innovation, gameplay, and balance.

They don't spend too long on their graphics and neither in their games. As I pointed before most of the Wii games are bad or worst than it console predecessor. There are camera problems (Mickey), curve of difficulty problems (donkey kong), design problems, etc.



4. They make TONS of games you can play with your friends and family in the same room.

They make tons of games I'm not going to play and are just a waste. We are talking about good games.



5. Not all of their games are based on online components, therefore making the Wii the best console for people who don't have enough money for high speed Internet, or live in an area where it's not available.

I don't know about internet, only about the games.



@Clockhand - I've had my Wii and used it for about two years now.

That is sad.

The sad true is that the Wii have been a big step back for the industry and also the games. Now they are with proyect cafe, which it can be good or another step back, because if the difference with xbox360 and ps3 are not significantly enough, then when the next xbox or ps come to the market the Wii2 its going to end as its predecessor.

Matt
05-17-2011, 05:11 PM
Name a game of Wii for hardcore gamers.
Redsteel 2, Smash Bros. Brawl. There aren't that many, honestly, but they exist.


Many kids play GTA4 or MW2. And neither making games rated E make them good games.
You misread my post. I said that their games captured the audience that GTA4 and MW2 couldn't. I said nothing about kids. You'd be surprised at the number of people who actually don't buy that type of game; families and young kids are only part of it (granted, a fairly big part). Also, I never said making games rated E makes them good. It just makes younger kids and parents more likely to buy them.


They don't spend too long on their graphics and neither in their games. As I pointed before most of the Wii games are bad or worst than it console predecessor. There are camera problems (Mickey), curve of difficulty problems (donkey kong), design problems, etc.
There are camera problems, difficulty problems, and design problems in any console. I'm guessing you mean that the Wii is ridden with them, but be honest with yourself: how many games have you played that are absolutely flawless? For one, I know plenty of time was spent on the latest Smash Bros. game. The balance of characters in tiers was well-done, especially for such a big roster. There were barely any bugs and the difficulty and fighting mechanics made it accessible to any level of player. This is just one example.


They make tons of games I'm not going to play and are just a waste. We are talking about good games.
Then don't play them. It doesn't change the facts. More people still play the Wii than any other console. Also, Sony and Microsoft's systems have tons of games I'm not gonna play and are just a waste. Besides, I didn't say anything about those games being good or bad.


That is sad.
Why? There are games I enjoy on it (Fire Emblem, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Wii Sports Resort, just to name a few), and there are games the rest of my family enjoys on it. Do you cry at the thought of a family playing games together?

It doesn't matter how much you hate it. It's still this generation's leading console.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Redsteel 2, Smash Bros. Brawl. There aren't that many, honestly, but they exist.

Redsteel has a lot of problem and smash bros brawl it's a bad smash bros. Most people would agree that Mele was the best (and it was).



You misread my post. I said that their games captured the audience that GTA4 and MW2 couldn't. I said nothing about kids. You'd be surprised at the number of people who actually don't buy that type of game; families and young kids are only part of it (granted, a fairly big part). Also, I never said making games rated E makes them good. It just makes younger kids and parents more likely to buy them.

Then you are not discussing about Wii having good games, but having good marketing techniques.



There are camera problems, difficulty problems, and design problems in any console. I'm guessing you mean that the Wii is ridden with them, but be honest with yourself: how many games have you played that are absolutely flawless? For one, I know plenty of time was spent on the latest Smash Bros. game. The balance of characters in tiers was well-done, especially for such a big roster. There were barely any bugs and the difficulty and fighting mechanics made it accessible to any level of player. This is just one example.

Many games have problems but when you have games with bad graphic and more than 2 problems then you can't say you have a great or good game. Red Dead Redemption was a game with many flaws and bugs, but the game was amazing, in both graphic, game play and story. If we related to a good Wii game, how many can have their flaws and also have all the other? I named 3 games of Wii that are good and even more great, but outside them the games are pretty bad and doesn't show the "focus in game, not the graphics".



Then don't play them. It doesn't change the facts. More people still play the Wii than any other console. Also, Sony and Microsoft's systems have tons of games I'm not gonna play and are just a waste. Besides, I didn't say anything about those games being good or bad.

I'm don't play he bad games (only to see how they are and make a judgment), and this discussion is not about if I should or not play those games, is about Wii having bad games. I agree that Xbox360 (I'm not going to name Microsoft, because then it would add Window and you know that it can kick most asses alone) and Sony have bad games. The deal is the amount of good games on the Wii is extremely small.


Why? There are games I enjoy on it (Fire Emblem, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Wii Sports Resort, just to name a few), and there are games the rest of my family enjoys on it. Do you cry at the thought of a family playing games together?

I want you to name me, all the GOOD games of the Wii. And I can start telling you that Smash Bros is not one of it.


It doesn't matter how much you hate it. It's still this generation's leading console.

When the Wii was considered a console of this generation?


Designers Agree that Mele was the sharpest.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/113/1139263p1.html

Also look reviews and which one has more competitive stage and you are going to see that Mele is still the best.

Matt
05-17-2011, 07:13 PM
I'm not gonna argue with you, Clockhand. It's a waste of time and arguments on this forum never get anywhere to begin with. I agree with you when you say Melee was the best, though.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 07:15 PM
I'm not gonna argue with you, Clockhand. It's a waste of time and arguments on this forum never get anywhere to begin with. I agree with you when you say Melee was the best, though.

Then why are you posting on this thread? which is about discussions about video games.

Matt
05-17-2011, 08:38 PM
The dictionary definition of discussion is a debate using logical information and unbiased facts.

What we would have gotten into is an argument: a debate using opinions and bias.

I originally posted what Nintendo did that other companies didn't, stating facts. You returned with opinions, and so did I. An argument was inevitable. I choose to back out.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 08:42 PM
Posting what Nintendo did as a company doesn't back up the argument that Wii games are good (or destroy the idea that are bad).

CypressDahlia
05-17-2011, 08:59 PM
Lol. Saying "the Wii has bad games" is pointless. It's like saying "the 360 has bad games" or "the Ps3 has bad games". My response to that is: DUH. Every system has horrible games, a large majority of mediocre games and very few good ones. That's the typical game dynamic of any console.

But to say Wii exclusives are bad is just...bad. Brawl may not be as good as Melee (and, let's be honest, this is an opinion only shared by hardcore "the last game was better" elitists), but that doesn't make it a bad game. It's still a Wii exclusive and a good game. Also, the various Marios, crossover games, Sonic Colors, various Zelda games, various Wii-related games (oh, I wonder where they got the idea for Kinect!), Trauma Team, Mario Karts, Metroids, NBA Jam, Red Steel, Lost in Shadow, Sin & Punishment, No More Heroes, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, Epic Yarn, Okami, Monster Hunter--should I go on? And Donkey Kong is obv. not targeted at us. I own the original three DK's on the original SNES and I love them for their hardcore platforming essence, but I saw the trailer for the new DK and knew immediately that it wasn't for me. If you bought it, then I'm sorry lol.

And, in closing, I'd like to say more people playing = more people enjoying. People enjoy the Wii more. It was built for a broader range of people to enjoy it in more than one way. If you're evaluating all Wii games from the perspective of a hardcore gamer, of course the games seem unappealing. That's because Wii is not targeted entirely at us; it has found success in more frontiers than just catering to gamer types. /shrug

jubeh
05-17-2011, 10:07 PM
Lol at clock using the term "hardcore games." Really?

Fenn
05-17-2011, 10:12 PM
Clock, "bad" is far too vague of a term to judge any form of art, media, or person. "Bad" can mean anything. "Bad" can mean boring, too easy, poor-selling, the list goes on and on.

Furthermore, "bad" can never be determined by one person. If you say the games are "bad," and more people say they are "good," what makes you right still? Since "bad" has no definition, you can't use facts to support your claim, thus we must rely on the consensus, which for the Wii happens to be "good" IF WE USE SALES AS AN INDICATOR.

Yes, yes, and yes, by this definition Justin Bieber and Hanna Montana are "good" artists. This only stands, however, until you define bad. Once you create a definition, like "has no talent" or "relies on marketing and appearance," you can support the fact that they are bad.

Remember, however, that outside of a specific debate your definition of bad will be different than others.

ClockHand
05-17-2011, 11:11 PM
Bad Game: Articulation of poor story line, poor design, poor game play, bad sound effect/music and poor presentation.

Why I'm saying most Wii games are Bad? Because you can name some good games, but the amount of good games its incredible inferior against the bad games.

We have:
-Valhalla Knights: Eldar Saga
-Naruto Shippuden: Dragon Blade Chronicles
-Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow part.1
-Top Spin 4.
-Far Cry: Vengeance
-Alone in the Dark
-Castlevania Judgment
-DiRT 2
-Obscure: The Aftermath
-Sonic and the Black Knight
-Sonic and the Secret Rings
-Red Steel (yeah, if you are named the good one, that is the 2)
-GT Pro Series
-Tony Hawk: Rid
-Just Dance
-Target: Terror

Of course I'm biased because for my a good game is not a platform game with infinite lifes (kirby epic yarn), a platform with no challenge (donkey kong), games that force me to do silly moves (wii sports and many others) or even games that force me to have a good control (which for a weird reason Nintendo have never gave me). The deal is, Nintendo have a big pile of game that no one wants to play, and the ones that people really want to play are between some 20's.

The only thing I love of the wii, is that I can play old school games, but those are not "Wii games" are old games done for Wii.


Also I might got spoiled by Fall out 3, RDR, Bioshock (I and II), GTAV, AC (I, II, Brotherhood), Mass effect, Bayonetta, Alan Wake, GoW, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dead Space (1 and 2), Portals, Halo, The Darkness, Eternal Sonata, Darksider, and others (damn, even Top Spin 4, and I'm not a sport gamer).

jubeh
05-17-2011, 11:37 PM
By your logic PC is the worst console ever. Look at all those bad games.

CypressDahlia
05-18-2011, 02:32 PM
Okay. I can name just as many "bad" games for the PS3 and XBox. o_O Again, what's your point?

And to say you're spoiled by Fallout 3 as opposed to bad gameplay is weird because FO3 had one of the worst battle systems I'd ever seen. All the GTA games are pretty much identical. Ever since Vice City, Rockstar has just been selling us the same game over and over (ahemHaloahem). Oh, except you could pick up hookers in SA (because that is a legit gameplay feature, amirite). I have no idea what people love so much about GoW. It's a typical shooter in every possible way. Unless you mean God of War, which is just Devil May Cry, but WORSE in every way. Tell me again what's so special about Darksiders?

Arkham Asylum was awesome graphically, but that was all ruined by their shit physics engine. You had body parts flying through enemies, Batman gliding around on the floor during melee combat, awkward hitboxes. I liked playing, but I couldn't bear looking at it. Dead Space is Doom 3 in third person. I've played Portal 2. Not only is it extremely short but it's 100% easier than its predecessor. Turrets are so retarded now. Assassin's Creed has one of the most awkward control setups I've ever seen. Mass Effect bores the shit out of me. Bayonetta was DMC with a chick. And even then, DMC 2-4 were significantly better.

I can tell you why the games you listed are "bad" to me. But you're going to tell me the Wii is bad because you have to move around? It's a console BUILT around motion detection, dude. What do you expect? That's like buying Cooking Mama and saying it sucks because you don't like cooking. And honestly, you are a grown ass man playing Epic Yarn. What do you expect: the most hardcore platformer ever? Little kids and moms also play Epic Yarn. Do you think they would like a game with Contra-level difficulty? srsly, though, it's ironic that you would complain about moving around for Wii when you totally splurged over the idea of Kinect and even said Starcraft (which would require an insane amount of movement) would make a great Kinect game...

Anyway, how can you say nobody wants to play Wii games? Wii sells better than the two other consoles by far. o_O Lol.

Fenn
05-18-2011, 11:10 PM
Fall out 3, RDR, Bioshock (I and II), GTAV, AC (I, II, Brotherhood), Mass effect, Bayonetta, Alan Wake, GoW, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Dead Space (1 and 2), Portals, Halo, The Darkness, Eternal Sonata, Darksider

Just clarifying; these are all Xbox 360 exclusives yes?

Evil_Cake
05-18-2011, 11:48 PM
no

Fenn
05-19-2011, 11:15 AM
no

Then the games list does not support Clock's argument at all because he left out multiplatform games like Resident Evil from the Wii's collection.

CypressDahlia
05-19-2011, 01:49 PM
I think Clockhand just doesn't like the Wii. But, for some reason, he thinks the Kinect is going to be aweessooommee~

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100812175545/degrassi/images/7/70/Awesome_face_bigger_1886.png


Also: I picked up Earthbound again after like 7-8 years. I remember this game being...better... I can't say I'm really enjoying it as much as the hype suggests. Also, Golden Sun's graphics looked a lot better on the GBA 7 years ago.

ClockHand
05-20-2011, 03:41 PM
Haha. I have never said I like Kinect, I do find it a interesting piece of technology to experiment, but as something new and nice for gamers, its pretty far away.

Also the Wii wasn't the first in using motion sensors and camera, this technology was firstly used in movies and video games development. And Nintendo changes little (for not say nothing) to this technology.

I post games which are not exclusives of Wii to show you this: Games of this generation of consoles can be played in both 360 or ps3, but not in the Wii. The Wii only can run games of older generations as playstation 2 or older. Relaunching a game of ps2 or 64 to the Wii doesn't make it a Wii game or a game that pretend to be games of next gen.


Cyp@
The gameplay of Fallout 3 is because of its origins. Fallout was a rpg, and so the designers chose to make the way focused in that and not a fps. I don't hate Fallout3 game play (if I saw it as a rpg), because it's rpg and because I would have to nag Vagrant Story (which has pretty much the same gameplay but in rpg camera).

I agree, GTA is the same game with different number.

People love GOW (gears of war) because its a typical shooter, what is wrong to play a typical shooter that works? (not talking about GOW 2)

By your comment on Bayonetta I assume you didn't play it. Bayonetta it looks like a DMC, but the innovations in gameplay of the beat'm up was great, it wasn't anymore about smashing buttons, but there was use of analog sticks, trigger buttons and others. It was a game trying to innovate the beat'm up games.

Mass Effect is a excellent game. If you tell me you get bored with it, then it's sadly. A friend use to get bored with the game to, all the time I was playing he was telling me "dude you have been playing 2 hours and you have just being talking". Now he finished Mass Effect 2, apparently he gave the game a second chance and he end loving it.

How you can't bear looking Batman Arkham Asylum, but you can bear looking at this:
http://www.eslaultima.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/red_steel2_07.jpg

Are you saying that when I first played Donkey Kong I was to little to manage the difficulty of the game? because if I remember well I finish'd the game. The difficulty of the games I use to play which were made for kids, was way more harder than the new remakes/versions made for Wii, which don't even have a curve of difficulty (which makes that you never get or need to get better).

Wii has good games (I don't fight that), but most of his good games have also many big problems, example: Metroid Prime is a excellent Wii game, but it has a big problem on the story. You have knowledge of many events that were recorded, but its stupid how the character never use them to know who is killing people. Also nintendo needs to stop doing Nega versions of the Hero, is retarded at this point. Also these "good games" are not to many, and you can't play them to many times (how many times did you played Metroid?). Having bad multiplayer online option also affects.

If we analyze Wii games as game of this gen of consoles (360 and ps3), do you really think are going to be as good as they are? There is a obvious mentality when you play a Wii game, which is only comparable to old gen consoles, but if you put them with the next gen the games are obviously less good.


Other reason why I don't like the Wii, its because its a ps2 with apple skin. It doesn't play DVDs (even if it is a dvd player). If it is a motion control console, then why launch games as smash bros or donkey kong? (the control is obviously killing the experience on playing those games). The Wii needs to much electricity (it keeps sucking energy even if its off). Someone said Third party?


Sorry me late, now I have tendinitis in my right hand and little time )=

jubeh
05-20-2011, 03:46 PM
Bayonetta was DMC with a chick. And even then, DMC 2-4 were significantly better.


Man you've said some off the wall stuff but never have you been so wrong. Just wow.

ClockHand
05-20-2011, 04:00 PM
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1169425p1.html

Oh yeah, I want to post this to keep showing how COD its a campers game.

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 05:08 PM
I own Bayonetta on the 360 lawl. I found all the witches' hearts (well, except one, but too lazy to backtrack and find it) and everything, so to say I haven't played it is meh. I also own every Devil May Cry ever released. If you're buttonmashing through DMC, you're doing something wrong. The combo system and style switch exists so that you can't buttonmash if you want the best ratings. /shrug I mean, it really depends how you want to play. If you want to play in a boring way, feel free. But the game gives you the option to string together some insane combos and make the experience as involving as possible. Actually, it doesn't just give you the option, it recommends it. And the trigger commands in Bayo were stupid, IMO. I hate when games focus more on the theatrics than the fights (God of War). You basically just play through a short cinematic. Also, what's up with having to finish every boss with a trigger command? Really, now.

Also, with the lack of style switch and a much more lenient combo system, Bayonetta is inherently more buttonmashy than DMC. Not to mention you get "clincher" moves that just involve you repeatedly mashing a single button until the enemy gets OHKO'd. I mean, c'mon. And really, "Witch Time?" You mean "cheap and otherwise inexplicable way to make the game easier," amirite?

jubeh
05-20-2011, 05:17 PM
Um no you are not rite

Elaboration edit:


If you're buttonmashing through DMC, you're doing something wrong. The combo system and style switch exists so that you can't buttonmash if you want the best ratings.

The only way to mash and get max rank in bayo is to yby but the dmcs had stuff just as stupid as that. Plus the only people who hate on button mashing are anti-accessibility neckbeards. Who cares if somebody is mashing through a game. Plust it's obvious the game is about dodging and maximizing damage much like godhand.


/shrug I mean, it really depends how you want to play. If you want to play in a boring way, feel free. But the game gives you the option to string together some insane combos and make the experience as involving as possible. Actually, it doesn't just give you the option, it recommends it.

Um bayonetta does this too?


And the trigger commands in Bayo were stupid, IMO. I hate when games focus more on the theatrics than the fights (God of War). You basically just play through a short cinematic. Also, what's up with having to finish every boss with a trigger command? Really, now.

This is something I have though long and hard about. I would rather finish off the fight in a flashy way even if it involves stupid quick time events as opposed to whittling a boss's health down and repeating the same pattern for 6 hours.


And really, "Witch Time?" You mean "cheap and otherwise inexplicable way to make the game easier," amirite?

Um devil trigger? And the hardest diffuculty doesn't even let you use witch time.

CypressDahlia
05-20-2011, 05:36 PM
And the hardest difficulty in DMC kills you in 3 hits (one hit, essentially, but with three lives). And the combo thing was in reply to Clock who said DMC was buttonmashy. I know Bayonetta has a combo system, too. But it's FAR more lenient than DMC's. And the Devil Trigger was never particularly useful in DMC games unless playing on a high difficulty, in which case its usefulness is only slight. Besides, it's just that: a hyper mode. Witch time is available all the time. It's basically a: "here, kill these enemies for free" button.

And to say Bayonetta is about dodging is hardly true. I rarely had to dodge aside from very few instances (talk about wasted feature) or use Witch Time to begin with. The combos in this game are so easy and infinite that pinning down your opponents for extended periods of time is child's play, so dodging rarely becomes an issue. And DMC had a couple of easy loops, but the tiny damage and how much it bogged down your combo meter was so severe that playing this way took more effort than actually learning the game. The only thing I'd say was cheap is Nero's grab, which OHKO's on Normal difficult. But that's hardly the case on higher ones.

jubeh
05-20-2011, 06:27 PM
And the hardest difficulty in DMC kills you in 3 hits (one hit, essentially, but with three lives).

Yeah and so does everybody else. Heaven or hell just required persistence. Also I dont see how it's relevant at all. I was just stating that you aren't allowed witch time in the hardest difficulty which imo is the real game.


And the combo thing was in reply to Clock who said DMC was buttonmashy. I know Bayonetta has a combo system, too. But it's FAR more lenient than DMC's.

I didn't see clock's post so my bad. But once again, who cares how lenient it is? Doing the craziest of things in bayo still requires a lot of focus. There is nothing wrong with accessibility and it doesn't take anything away form the game.


And the Devil Trigger was never particularly useful in DMC games unless playing on a high difficulty, in which case its usefulness is only slight. Besides, it's just that: a hyper mode.

No dt is always useful against bosses with the exception of the one hit kill difficulties. Anything that lets you do more damage is useful, I don't see how that is even debatable. Especially when the bosses have unreasonably long health bars. DMC4 was p good about having decently paced boss fights but its hard to say that about the other 3.


Witch time is available all the time. It's basically a: "here, kill these enemies for free" button.

So is dmc3 time lag.

Witch time is awesome for what it is but these games are always about moving up to higher difficulties. Witch time is like a set of training wheels.


And to say Bayonetta is about dodging is hardly true. I rarely had to dodge aside from very few instances (talk about wasted feature) or use Witch Time to begin with. The combos in this game are so easy and infinite that pinning down your opponents for extended periods of time is child's play, so dodging rarely becomes an issue.

Except when you are fighting enemies that can't be put into hitstun easily. Which is almost all of them except the mooks. So no, you have to dodge to do well.

Hell you have to dodge to use offset attacks. Dodging's a wasted feature. Really?

Otherwise you can parry in which case its just a game about parrying but you can't feasibly do that all the time since enemies are designed to try and attack you while you're comboing their friends especially with gaze of despair.


And DMC had a couple of easy loops, but the tiny damage and how much it bogged down your combo meter was so severe that playing this way took more effort than actually learning the game. The only thing I'd say was cheap is Nero's grab, which OHKO's on Normal difficult. But that's hardly the case on higher ones.

Yeah but you can't mash bayo to pure platinum either except for a couple exceptions. When fighting couples, if you're using the katana you can yby and dodge and get platinum if you're quick enough but outside of that situation you have options that are a lot better.

CypressDahlia
05-21-2011, 01:29 AM
Also I dont see how it's relevant at all. I was just stating that you aren't allowed witch time in the hardest difficulty which imo is the real game.

I thought we were comparing the two, my bad.


But once again, who cares how lenient it is?

Again, this was just to debunk clock's statement that "Bayonetta, unlike DMC, is not buttonmashy." Of course Bayonetta isn't pure buttonmashing, but as I said, it's not as combo intensive as DMC.


Anything that lets you do more damage is useful.

Yeah, I guess. But it's not as "useful" as Witch Time, which is what I'm saying.


Witch time is like a set of training wheels.

Okay, so we agree on witch time being easy-mode.


So no, you have to dodge to do well.

Never been an issue for me. But I guess we play differently.

jubeh
05-21-2011, 01:47 AM
I just find that hard to believe since if you don't offset attack you will inevitably drop a combo when somebody swings at you.

CypressDahlia
05-21-2011, 02:15 AM
More lenient combo system = matters less when you drop combos. Unlike DMC, where you're Smokin' and you drop it and you're like

http://bluntobject.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ffffuuuu.jpg

esp. considering the consequence for dropping the combo is like -1 life if you're playing on Hell or Hell.

jubeh
05-21-2011, 02:19 AM
Im assuming you're going for pure platinum. I guess if you were just trying to make it through the stage it wouldn't be a big deal.

Fenn
05-21-2011, 11:01 AM
Okay Clock, I very much agree with what you said about the Wii now. But this...


http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1169425p1.html

Oh yeah, I want to post this to keep showing how COD its a campers game.

You call THIS camping? You call THIS boring, cheap gameplay?

First of all, he was moving the entire time. He chose an area and guarded it. Second, the players he was facing were garbage: the sprinted everywhere which made them vulnerable, and their aim and reaction times were pretty poor. Third, there were plenty of ways to counter his strategy:

- it relied heavily on watching his UAV. One Ghost user could have beaten him easily.
- A slower, more deliberate approach would have made his kills tougher (notice how almost all his kills were from behind because no one bothered to check corners?)
- Once he lost his camping spot he didn't do much until he got it back.
- Someone using a mic could have warned everyone of his spot after kill #1

Let me ask you a question: what kind of gameplay DO you want in COD? People running laps around the map chasing each other with SMGs? Guys diving off cliffs and strafing in the open? This seemed pretty fun to me; it was only boring because his opponents were terrible.

ClockHand
05-22-2011, 03:37 PM
Camping:
-Stay in one part of the map.
-Kill people who cross there and don't notice you.

Video:
-He stay in one part of the map (he move, but only in that part).
-He Kill people who cross there and don't notice him

I don't know it seems like he was camping.

COD was developed to be a camping game, isn't my fault that the game was made for this and has successes.

"- Once he lost his camping spot he didn't do much until he got it back."

Arashi500
05-23-2011, 12:38 AM
Camping is more not moving AT ALL(corners, convenient cover, etc.), moving within a set area is just part of map control. CoD is in fact geared towards camping, but if you don't like that don't play it. I know I sure don't.

jubeh
05-23-2011, 12:39 AM
I use map control but I always considered myself a camper.

Fenn
05-23-2011, 09:27 AM
Camping:
-Stay in one part of the map.
-Kill people who cross there and don't notice you.

To say what you have defined is negative is to suggest that unless every player is sprinting through the entire map all game, the game is boring and terrible.


Video:
-He stay in one part of the map (he move, but only in that part).
-He Kill people who cross there and don't notice him

Yeah, he killed lifeless rushing noobs with no idea what they were doing. Not the game's fault. I listed four ways they could have easily neutralized his strategy above.


I don't know it seems like he was camping.
COD was developed to be a camping game, isn't my fault that the game was made for this and has successes.

No, COD developed into a camping game when a few players realized the other 99% of people never learn from their mistakes or bother to stop sprinting long enough to check around the corner.


"- Once he lost his camping spot he didn't do much until he got it back."

I was keeping it consistent. You referred to it as camping, so I was using your definition. To me that is not camping, just defensive gameplay.

Matt
05-23-2011, 09:44 AM
So, I played Black Ops just yesterday. Online, for the first time ever, I proned on a side of the map so that I could see a lot of stuff. I laid there and shot anyone who got into my field of vision. This worked for three kills, then a grenade flew over the fence and landed about an inch in front of me. I died, and never held that spot again.

That, people, is camping.

In the next match, I stuck with my friend (playing spiltscreen online). I trailed behind him a few times, and when he died, I knew where an an enemy was, and could usually take him out pretty easily. The game was more fun like this, and my ending score was a lot higher. I didn't get my friend's 3.00+ KDRs, but I scored a lot better than 1.00 that time.

So, adding it all up, I agree with Fenn. Camping really only works if you're going against new players or players who are just bad at the game. I scored higher and had more fun when I didn't camp, and we owned all of the two campers we came across.

Ozzaharwood
05-24-2011, 05:38 AM
Camping is a skill that needs to be practiced in order to get good at. I know because I started with the first CoD, and in MW1 all I did was camp for high K/D. You need to find a good spot, not necessarily a single spot where you can lay down, but a spot where you can hold a position by moving into different corners and waiting for the enemies to come to you. If you do it this way, since you are always moving into different corners, they'll never know which one you'll be in. There are many other ways of doing it, but I liked this technique best because it pissed people off a lot. (I don't do this anymore, this was in the first Modern Warfare)

Also, camping varies depending on your match mode. If you play SnD, almost everyone camps. If there is a sniper in SnD, they are most likely sitting in a house somewhere packed with claymores and waiting for someone to come down a path and "BOOM!" headshot. TBH though, if you know how to play the game and know commonly used camping spots, you can VERY EASILY predict the enemy position. If you take it slow, play with friends (who are good and communicate well) and you coordinate your efforts, you can overcome a camping team in a heartbeat. (I know this from experience)

There is one thing you have to know while playing CoD. There will be campers, and you will be killed by them. Don't let anger or revenge rule your thoughts, and remember all of the commonly used camping spots. Check your corners and be cautious, and most importantly always check on your radar. Even though a lot of people use ghost, they may not be using silencers. And even if they are using both, there are almost always people who aren't. I rely on my radar more than I rely on my gun. I'll probably be looking at my radar more of the time in a single game then at the actual screen. It's an amazing tool, and surprisingly not a lot of people use it.

CypressDahlia
05-29-2011, 06:00 AM
Despite enjoying Chrono Trigger, I think the Active Time Battle system is the worst. It's a battle system that pressures players to mash through menus. Menu-based combat should never be real-time, given the ultimate outcomes of your actions are decided by stats. So it's not like reflex actually plays a role in anything. IMO, FFX was the best modern FF //because// it didn't have the ATB, allowing for more intelligent battles given you weren't over-leveled. FF7 - 9 were basically tests of how well you dedicated each character's menus to muscle memory.

jubeh
05-29-2011, 12:33 PM
Yeah I hate atb in any game.

CypressDahlia
05-29-2011, 07:58 PM
There is no unanimous opinion on this, but I will say: Blitzball sucks.

There is so much wrong with this mini-game that it's a wonder people actually like it. I'm guessing it's the same crowd of people who severely overlevel through RPGs because that is pretty much the only way to win in Blitzball; juice your team with unholy high stats. I've read a lot of "Blitzball will become fun when you get better teammates/stats" and that's like saying "Final Fantasy X gets better when you level up."

jubeh
05-29-2011, 08:21 PM
Yeah I wish they would have fixed blitzed ball in x-2 but they made it even worse.

Problems --
1) Goalie can fall asleep. WHAT THE FUCK
2) Impossible to score on the al bhed in the early game with exploiting
3) Really, shooting at all seems completely random. Probably because it is.
4) After stats even out in the end game its all about status effects all of which are bullshit

CypressDahlia
05-29-2011, 08:50 PM
The fact that you can poison/sleep drug people during a live sports game bothers me. Then I realized that Blitzball has no actual referees, or rules for that matter. o_O Also, Tidus is supposed to be the star player of the Zanarkand Abes, but has like some of the shittiest stats. He has a Passing Accuracy of 3, an AT of 3 and 5 Endurance. How the hell is that a "star player"? That's worse than most of Wakka's goons.

And the random stat factor really defeats the purpose of such an overly-convoluted stat-based system. I mean, why bother having stats when the actual value could be +/- 1 or more points to the value shown? In essence, people are receiving like 20% stat buffs or nerfs at random. That's stupid as hell.

jubeh
05-29-2011, 08:53 PM
Yeah in the endgame you don't even need tidus. In the beginning he doesn't live up to his reputation at all.

neogenstru
05-29-2011, 09:03 PM
CoD just got torn a new one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfrrAp1blaM

CypressDahlia
05-29-2011, 09:04 PM
Yeah. Some of the players you draft make Tidus look like a nub. It sucks because the game starts off all inspirational like the beginning of a Mighty Ducks underdog-type movie. Like you're supposed to bring the Aurochs to the top. But when they hit the top, they aren't even the Aurochs anymore, just a bunch of guys you drafted...

I'm on my second playthrough and I'm trying to beat the Goers (cuz I didn't the first time). Stacked game.

jubeh
05-29-2011, 09:06 PM
Cool man I just played 10 not even a month ago. It's my favorite final fantasy since the combat doesn't demand me sweating my way through menus trying to find shit really fast. There are some plot holes but overall its a great game.

CypressDahlia
05-29-2011, 09:20 PM
Cool, cool. FFX doesn't do a great job of suspending disbelief, but the battle system is great so I'm not complaining.

Also, I wonder where we're going to draw a line on realism for FPSs. Most people just assume: "the more realistic, the better the FPS" But look at CoD. Most of the people who dislike it dislike it for its more "realistic" aspects. Like dying in half a second. Which promotes camping. Because you die before you can fight back.

BozeSG
05-30-2011, 06:32 AM
Half Life is the best as an FPS game IMO, everything in it is just perfect...

Delphinus
05-30-2011, 08:16 AM
^ lolwut

Team Fortress 2 is betterer.

BozeSG
05-30-2011, 04:23 PM
What's the difference? they're basically the same game, only that team fortress is online...

ClockHand
05-30-2011, 04:58 PM
Cool, cool. FFX doesn't do a great job of suspending disbelief, but the battle system is great so I'm not complaining.

Also, I wonder where we're going to draw a line on realism for FPSs. Most people just assume: "the more realistic, the better the FPS" But look at CoD. Most of the people who dislike it dislike it for its more "realistic" aspects. Like dying in half a second. Which promotes camping. Because you die before you can fight back.

Long time ago I play'd AA. After that I can say "Fuck Realistic FPS!". Lets be honest, no one want to die in one shot, neither want to wait a entire round to play again. Then why someone would want a realistic fps?

I think people who want a realistic fps hasn't play a realistic fps, because if they do, they are going to see how boring they are.

BozeSG
05-30-2011, 05:37 PM
Something tells me you're not going to like Operation Flashpoint... if you haven't played it yet that is...

Rio
05-30-2011, 05:48 PM
Also, Golden Sun's graphics looked a lot better on the GBA 7 years ago.That's like comparing apples with oranges. The older GS games were all done in sprites. To compare it with the new 3D graphics is not the same. I just wish the newest GS game was longer. It'll probably take them another 10 years to make the next sequel. =_=;

CypressDahlia
05-30-2011, 05:57 PM
Well, it kind of is the same because they used pre-rendered sprites from simple 3d models. And that looked better than actual 3d models, IMO.

-----

And whoa whoa whoa. I was skimming through the thread and realized that Clockhand compared Fallout 3 to Vagrant Story. NEVER AGAIN. Vagrant Story had a battle system that was smooth and polished and worked well as both an action and RPG variant. Fallout 3's battle system is a messy clash of ideas. I mean, c'mon, it's an RPG that plays like an FPS but uses an auto-aim system as the main focus of battle. It's like playing the most expensive aimbot simulator ever.

Borderlands was everything Fallout 3 should've been, minus 7 bazillion pointless sidequests. System Shock 2 almost perfected the FPS/RPG hybrid 10 years ago.