i like your preference
exactly like mine. I put the general list because no one bothers to play any of the good old games anymore 
You play Cod 4? I would love to play with you.Computer Science Canada What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
| Author: | Velocity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I just want to see which option people would choose... |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
This is a very strange list. It includes specific franchises, broad companies, every flash and java game ever made, nothing, and everything else. I play Cod 4 and Halo 1 in that list. I also play the Uncharted series, Doom/Quake series', Borderlands, and pretty much any game that runs on my PS3 or laptop that doesn't suck. Also Mario Kart. No specific preference. If the gameplay and controls don't piss me off, and the plot doesn't suck too much, I'll probably play it. But a lot of games have awful plots, and worse gameplay, and piss me off quite a bit. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I chose halo, but not for any particular game, but for the company as a whole. They have brought in many amazing features throughout their franchise, and they try new things. Very few other companies experiment with games as much as they do, but bungie really liked tinkering with the game, and seeing what different things made the game better and worse. I only hope 343 continues on the legacy. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
i like your preference exactly like mine. I put the general list because no one bothers to play any of the good old games anymore You play Cod 4? I would love to play with you. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
mirhagk, nice choice, i like the way you elaborated your choice, that is very true but with halo, i kind of think they are going on with it way too far. I thought it was going to be over in Halo 3, the final mission really made it seem like the end... the world was collapsing (2012) and then they made another one and now Halo 1 all over again but upgraded... I kind of think bungie doesnt really care about there consumers, only the money. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
On a related note, do you think PS4 and 720 are coming out soon? According to wikipedia, Halo 5 and 6 are coming out on the next console, while Halo 4 is coming out on the 360. If halo sticks to it's regular release cycle, that means the 720 is coming out in 2-4 years from now. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
but all in all, its a beautiful gaming experience. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Yeah, but at least they didn't just make the same games over and over. ODST was an entirely different style, reach kinda went in a different direction, and Halo 4-6 are focusing on the forerunners with a different playing style then halo 3 was. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Quote: I chose halo, but not for any particular game, but for the company as a whole.
If I'm allowed to pick a developer, Naughty Dog takes the cake. Most developers have some definition of 'good enough', but Naughty Dog does not. All of the Uncharted games have great plots, nearly flawless animations and graphics, brilliant innovative gameplay (especially the multiplayer in Drake's Deception), smooth controls and great dialogue (and hollywood voice actors to read them). They push every aspect. I dunno who heads Naughty Dog, but I assume it's a (slightly less temperamental) Steve Jobs looking over peoples' shoulders saying "That's not good enough. Fix that". |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Allow me to start the war, where is Battlefield? The FPS game superior to CoD. As for my choice, I play strictly PC for quite some time now and I normally play FPS, 3rd Person Shooters, Open World or something new and unique. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Allow me to contribute...    
I did a double take when I saw COD4 being referred to as a "good old game". Anyway, I chose Blizzard because of StarCraft. |
|
| Author: | Aange10 [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Psssh I chose Blizzard because I like Blizzard. Good developers, great customer service. I wish Blizzard would buy out Nexon. Then I'd be happy. |
|
| Author: | RandomLetters [ Mon Dec 19, 2011 11:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Blizzard, all of them. Except that really old racing game of some sort. Other than that it's just niche historical games. A tank is still cooler than whatever fancy knife or gun you've got. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
As someone who's played the Battlefield series since BF1942 and the CoD series since CoD1, let me just say: what the hell, modern iterations of beloved series? In MW3, they've somehow made the graphics even worse than they were in MW2, which are even worse than they were in MW1. The plot is disintegrating even harder, as is any pretension of making sense (Russia pulls a full scale invasion of--for some reason--the Eastern US seaboard, then within weeks invades all of Western Europe? Seriously?). Your squad members are still dumber than dirt; they could probably lose a gun battle with the storm troopers. For some reason, you still can't destroy buildings or drive vehicles, and the multiplayer is like paintball with cheaters. In BF3, they made an incredible engine that was totally underutilized by everyone who had to use it. They render this lovely on-rails sequence where you follow a pilot up to the flight deck of a carrier. There, you see this incredible F/A-18 model, bristling with missiles and generally looking deadly. Then, in a move equivalent to pooping in the souffl?, they have you climb into the gunner's seat, for a shoddy on-rails flight experience. The whole thing is nearly perfectly executed except you can't fly the airplane, which is easily the most incredible part of the entire single-player sequence. On the multiplayer side, they released with the same ridiculous lag issues and terrible damage model that every Battlefield game since Vietnam (the first one) has suffered from. If a new FPS game is going to impress me, it's probably either going to have to be an MMOFPS (preferably with realistic command structure, and a strategic game layered on top of the FPS play), or a game that takes you on an educational tour through warfare. There's a lot of incredible knowledge and stories waiting to be told there--we don't need to invent them. And if we do invent them, please let them be organic: let me be inventing awesome strategies against other humans. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
All of the FPS games are essentially the same. Sure, over the years (through the advance of hardware, engines, and larger economic investments) we got more realistic looking games... better sense of immersion. But fundamentally COD4 doesn't play all that different from the original DOOM from 1993. Quote: But Tony, DOOM didn't have the technology of chest-high walls! Yeah, you can ask Yahtzee how unique and original _that_ is in modern games. 
It is incredibly narrow-minded to list 3 FPS games by title and then lump everything else into "Internet Games". Doesn't COD play over Internet as well, or were you talking about single-player campaign only? How about non-internet non-FPS games? CaveStory+ is all kinds of amazing. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
okay so ... @ mirhagk : I think that ps4 will be coming out sooner than xbox720 for one fact mainly because microsoft and sony are the number one competitors on the market but sony is already down low since i think we have all heard how sony PSN had that security breach and it got shut down for a couple of days or weeks, then they caught the guy who hacked it and he was getting sued by sony and then microsoft stepped in, helped him out with the lawsuit and hired him to work for them as the lead security and network specialist, which gave sony the hands down so they had to start making progress fast especially when they had a small breakthrough opportunity when microsoft introduced the concept of the 720 that it was going to be a cloud based concept, and well people didnt like that idea so microsoft saw the data on their polls and ofcourse they had to make up a new idea. This gave sony a chance to push through... To sum it up, i think the ps4 will be released sometime in 2012 and xbox720 sometime in the next 2 - 4 years as you preseumed. I too think the same as you do with the whole halo thing and well halo did enter big in the market before cod so it is an original and bungie always trys to make something new every release and i think they care about their gameplay that the users will enjoy much more than the cod series because eversince MW1 the game in that trend of the series were all so similar with the smallest updates ever and obviously the new campaign but it followed the same course. So entertainment wise i would go with halo (more of a long term thing) but with addiction i would go with cod, but that is just my personal opinion. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ ProgrammingFun : I agree with you entirely, im re edit that and add battlefield in, because it definetly deserves a spot, in all its glory and its marvelous online experience. Oh, and if your interested in a third person shooter thats new and unique you should check out this game called : Lost Planet. Okay, its not new (it was released in 2006) but it is very unique and sci-fi packed, i guarantee you will be hooked on it as much as i was. And the multiplayer experience is outstanding that game at times really makes you feel really powerful. Once you understand how it works, you will love it. Well atleast i did. On the xbox i hold the number 6 spot on the all time leaderboard (last time i checked) its just very addictive once you get the hang of it. Check it out : Lost Planet |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ Gandalf starcraft is amazing especially if you played it on ladder, that is one of my favorite aswell, as i may have told you before i play starcraft im not too shabby but i used to be diamond 2500+ untill i stopped playing and got back to diablo (my love) but you still never told me your name i would love to play with you once. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ Aange if blizzard would buy out nexon the no one would ever play another game although... Maplestory is pretty addictive. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ DemonWasp Again i agree with you 110% as i was saying before cod game developers dont care although their games are extremely addicting they dont even care anymore they just know consumers will buy so they thats why they make a new one every year, they just care about the money. If you want to see a developer that really cares the customer check out bethesda's oblivion (games that take 5 years of hard time and care to build) |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ Tony : Your are absolutely right, games like, quake, or doom are and should be considered better than the current ones in the market becuase if it wasnt for games like that, the original of originals games that appear nowadays wouldnt have been available to us, since the originals for like the roots of the tree the seed of a imaginary plant just waiting to spur new ideas. |
|
| Author: | Aange10 [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Velocity @ 20/12/2011, 12:24 am wrote: @ Aange if blizzard would buy out nexon the no one would ever play another game although... Maplestory is pretty addictive.
Come on now, WoW is having an expansion about Pandas. Pandas. I don't think having an amazing game would hurt them that bad haha. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
well yea, but i mean its WoW... then again. Haha, i suppose you are right. That was one of the main factors that brought me away from buying it. |
|
| Author: | smool [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
umm....missing Valve games?? TF2, Half Life, Portal, L4D |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I think I popped a vein when I saw Velocity's 6 consecutive posts. You do know there's an edit button, right? Posting in off-topic doesn't increase your post or bit count. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
im not trying to get posts if i wanted to do that i would spam the normal help forums (yet i am not) i was just trying to make it organized |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Well, you're going about it the wrong way. Reply to everyone in the same post, like everyone else does. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@Demonwasp, actually I want to do something useful with an FPS, like show what it means to be in combat. I want to make a FPS based on current missions and warfare. It won't really matter how well you can sneak around, or shoot everyone in a room, rather it will be important to select your target quickly, from a group of civilians who all look similar, and determine the best course of action to minimize the amount of civilian causalities. I want a game where you aren't a dick head, where you are a soldier, struggling to follow the rules that the geneva convention set out. A soldier struggling to survive the war, to stop an enemy that could be anyone. What would you guys think of a game like this? |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I totally agree mirhagk. It's like movies that glorify war and make it look badass and crazy awesome (300, Troy, can't think of any gun-erra movies at the moment), vs movies that illustrate the horror and chaos (Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, The Pacific). I want a game where gunfire drowns out everything (as opposed to being severely muted so you can hear dialogue and orders). I want a game where people don't die in one hit, but lay (lie?) screeming for hours in pools of their own blood, reaching to you for help, and calling your character by name. I want a game where the characters are too terrified jump out of cover. Where the player makes the choice of risking death to help a squadmate, or leaving the squadmate to die to save his own skin. Not because I'm a bloodthirsty killer. Today's games create bloodthirsty killers. I want a game that will take a 12-year-old CoD fanboy, and make him never want to play a shooter again. A game that respects war for what it is, not a game that exploits it for entertainment. |
|
| Author: | DemonWasp [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@mirhagk: Also a completely great idea. Unfortunately, on its own, it would be a great piece of art but not a terribly popular game. I think it would be incredible if MW4 was that game, though (and that would definitely secure my purchase). Edit: Triple points if death or failure doesn't result in a respawn. Instead, you continue playing as the next guy in your squad. If you are completely eliminated, you keep playing; however, the consequences of that failure are played out, no matter how much they suck. Further edit: @Insectoid: I'd like a game where you're an unarmed combat medic for at least one mission; where your success depends on how well you treat your patients (and not based on quick-time events, please). |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
"well you guys are pro, how about we all get together and make our own fps and make it to our wildest dreams" - philosopher |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ Insectoid if you want a game all inclusive (blood, gore, gunfire, drowning in blood) your looking a game like Gears Of War, its all inclusive |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Yes those are all great ideas. I want to do a modern warfare/peacekeeping game first, then I want to recreate the horror of the world wars. I want to do things in them, such as include vimy ridge, where you lose, but you still must try and win. As for the current game, Demonwasp, your own death will be the least of your worries. The game will be centered around stopping a group of extremists from committing a massive genocide. You must ensure not only that you save the civilians, but you treat the enemies as the geneva convention states. There will be an easy mode that will remind you of injured enemies that you must carry back to safety and so on, and then there will be a hardcore mode where you aren't given a HUD with markers for geneva convention rules, and you must follow them on your own. Death will result in an automatic failure, yes, but more importantly, if you commit a war crime, you will recieve an audit, and if they determine your guilty (after like 3 audits or if you break a lot of rules at once), then you lose the entire game. And demonwasp, your idea for respawning, that's what I'm going to do with the world war version. Failing a mission will mean having to regroup, and assualt the same place again. It will mean that the Nazi's stay in power for longer, and more people are exterminated. I will also include statistics that will make people realize how awful the battles were. There will be a ft per death counter, which tells you how much ground you've covered per life lost. You can't redo any missions, the game just continues until you get to Berlin. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Velocity @ Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:56 am wrote: @ Insectoid if you want a game all inclusive (blood, gore, gunfire, drowning in blood) your looking a game like Gears Of War, its all inclusive
You miss my point. Gears is gory for 'awesome factor'. I want gore for 'terror factor'. Rather than "Omg did you see that guy explode" I want "oh my god...I can't believe they did that". The strogification scene in Quake 4, for example, is a "Holy crap...that's awful" moment. It almost makes me sick. It creates a very real emotional response to the strogg. You're no longer fighting aliens. You're fighting monsters. You're not just saving the human race. You're stopping these vile acts. The fact that it's happening to YOU, in the first person, makes the effect that much more powerful than just watching it happen to other characters. Most games that include naked corpses conveniently hide (or simply don't include) genitalia. This takes away from the realism, so you don't really care about them. It's a small thing, but you no longer identify those corpses as people, so you don't really exhibit an emotional response. Amnesia: The Dark Descent's corpses hid nothing, and you're quite literally horrified when you see these things. They take things one step further so these things are no longer cool, they're terrible. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Well it's an option to get together and make this game, however I like using XNA and C#, and I'm not sure if anything else likes using that. If anyone does and wants to work on a project like this, PM me. Since the point of the game is not necessarily to be fun, but rather to show you what war is actually like, I might look into contacting the Legion and seeing if we could get something together where we get their seal of approval, and can interview and get help from them, and in return we donate profits from the game to them. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Haha, I'd love to help out, but not if you're using XNA, due to cross-platform issues. It's an ambitious project, for sure. I'd look into free game engines. id tech 4 (Doom 3 engine) has just been released under OpenGL, is cross-platform and fairly modern. I dunno how documented it is though. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Yeah, I figured as much. I really don't like using game engines as I prefer to make sure that the engine is designed perfectly for the game. It's pretty simple to design your own 3D engine in XNA, and it will allow me to make sure that the engine exceeds at drawing certain things. Probably the most important thing in a game like this is to make sure that things are truly horrifying, to make sure blood reacts as it should, and make sure that bodies never disappear, and you can't move through them. Many things that would be vitally important to this game would be not very high priority in game engines, and many things high priority in game engines would be near useless in this. I want to stick with XNA also because I want sell it on the Xbox as well, and short of getting a contract with a console maker, it's the only way it'll get on a console. |
|
| Author: | Insectoid [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Quote: make sure that bodies never disappear, and you can't move through them.
I've always wanted to see this in an RTS, as a strategy for scaling walls. Just keep sending troops to the wall until they pile up high enough to climb over. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I think it's an integral part of this game, having to climb over the hundreds of other bodies. The collision detection for each will have to be simplified, either that or bodies will morph into one once they stay on the ground for long enough. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
In this spirit, I will release the script I wrote for SNIPERDUDE since he didn't use it anyways...once I find it. EDIT: It's a script for FPS, is anyone interested? |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ Insectoid what about F.E.A.R - Project Origin |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I might be interested in seeing it. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
mirhagk @ Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:37 pm wrote: I might be interested in seeing it.
Posted here: http://mcode.ca/2011/12/21/a-hopefully-creative-story/ Wow, that came out looking bad, I need to completely redesign my site. This theme was used due to laziness. |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
the best and hardest game in the world and also most realistic will give you one life and if you die and try to click play again the game will tell you off and say you wanted a realistic game, well you got one, no restarts or respawns, hence i think battlefield isnt realistic at all... Dont even give me that crap in real life you dont respawn. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Velocity @ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:18 am wrote: the best and hardest game in the world and also most realistic will give you one life and if you die and try to click play again the game will tell you off and say you wanted a realistic game, well you got one, no restarts or respawns, hence i think battlefield isnt realistic at all... Dont even give me that crap in real life you dont respawn. Since no-one will buy such a game, realism in video games is relative to other games and how much they mimic reality. Realism in Battlefield is more obvious then in CoD because a real battlefield (pun intended) does have destructible environments and vehicles. Therefore, since Battlefield incorporates more aspects of reality then CoD, hence it is more "realistic". An even more realistic (in another way) game is Metal Gear Solid because it has no such things as checkpoints so missions have to be played from start to end successfully.
However, if I was to add on to your point, such a game would also have to completely brick your console as well to provide a more "realistic" sense of disappointment and frustration.  |
|
| Author: | Velocity [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
lol so if you die and try to play again it will ''dammit humans dont come back to life although you got lucky... Please try again in 2 months while your soldier is in surgery'' and also i would love a game add on to battle where like if you get hit by a grenade or something depending on the angle it would rip off your leg or arm or something like that.. Just a little more realistic gore wise. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Grenades usually blow you up completely |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
@ProgrammingFun actually usually they don't. only if grenades are close enough will they will blow you up completely, mostly they are kicked away, or the person can get far enough away to just lose limbs, although they often bleed out anyways. Cooking grenades in real life is highly dangerous and nearly every army tells it's soldiers not to do it. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
mirhagk @ Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:54 pm wrote: @ProgrammingFun actually usually they don't. only if grenades are close enough will they will blow you up completely, mostly they are kicked away, or the person can get far enough away to just lose limbs, although they often bleed out anyways. Cooking grenades in real life is highly dangerous and nearly every army tells it's soldiers not to do it. Sure, but it would still be redundant in a game because then you have to lie around for a) someone to heal you or b) an enemy to kill you.
In that scenario, most people would probably suicide since teamwork has become very rare in FPS games thanks to CoD. Also, I wasn't referring to cooked grenades  |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I was actually talking about this with my friend, we were talking about star wars battlefront 2, and how I always play by myself rather than online. Someone asked me why, and I commented on the fact that AI's are built for teamwork and to help me out. People online are just jerks lol. |
|
| Author: | ProgrammingFun [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
mirhagk @ Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:49 pm wrote: I was actually talking about this with my friend, we were talking about star wars battlefront 2, and how I always play by myself rather than online. Someone asked me why, and I commented on the fact that AI's are built for teamwork and to help me out. People online are just jerks lol.
I eventually got really tired of playing by myself in single-player and went online
Whenever you do witness actual teamwork, it just feels awesome and one of the reasons I play Battlefield is that it's one of the games that I was able to find that had much more teamwork then other, similar games. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Games should reward teamwork a lot more, I think that was the biggest problem with CoD is the Kill Death Ratio, where people feel they must play alone basically to get the maximum number of kills, rather than just winning. |
|
| Author: | ThunderBlaze [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I?d prefer call of duty, I play this very often and it?s probably the best. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
I've been trying to figure out a way to reward players for teamwork, to encourage it. The only ways I can think of are class based systems (which don't really end up with teamwork, because the classes that can play independently do, and the support classes are just expected to bend to the whims of the assaulting classes). The other way would be to somehow remove all 12 year olds, so making it unappealing to them. |
|
| Author: | Raknarg [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Actually, if you balance it, it works well. For instance, in TF2, every class is just as important and all are useful in different scenarios. It all depends on what abilities you give to the different classes and how powerful you make them. If you do it class based, you just need to make sure each class has a specific talent that makes them useful in at least some scenarios (or all, if possible) I've played quite a few games where the teams ended up being about 2:3 in men, but I worked with a team that worked together and we still won. |
|
| Author: | mirhagk [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Yeah. And I was thinking perhaps there can only be one of every class on a team (although people might fight for the popular roles) |
|
| Author: | Raknarg [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Or you could make it so only a certain amount of each class... It depends on the amount of players involved and the amount of classes availible. |
|
| Author: | Beastinonyou [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: What do you rather prefer? (Gaming) |
Just to give an example, M.A.G for the Ps3 had a somewhat unique approach to rewarding people for teamwork. It was as simple as giving more experience for completing objectives in your squads. Sure, you still get experience for killing people, but you get significantly more experience for completing objectives and being support classes, such as the Engineers, or the Medics. Heck, I was barely ever an "Assault" soldier... I'm normally a sniper, because I don't like to "Run N' Gun", but being a Medic and healing people was far more rewarding than running around and killing people. Being the engineer, I would keep repairing bunkers, vehicles, etc., to earn more experience. It was really fun too. It was also cool how they had users divided into eight-player squads, with four squads forming a platoon, and four platoons forming a company.. (not to mention the "up-to-256-player" online. I never experienced lag... ). |
|