Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
The multiplayer looks like Bad Company 2 with Call of Duty physics (hit-scan, no bullet drop-off) in my opinion. :x
E3 is on!
- Thread starter Elader Arkon
- Start date
It's possible I'm less familiar with BC2 than MW2. To compare gameplay elements between them.
* Appears to have instant knife kills
* Temporary blood damage
* Killstreaky things like Predator Missile and Bomber strikes
* Text popping up telling you you've done/earned something every kill
* Level design looks similar to a MW2 Afghanistan level
* Weapon designs look really close (but you really can't avoid this completely in a realistic shooter)
Weapon switching did seem faster than MW2 though it seems like you could do a lot more to distinguish it from the pack.
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
Like not be a broken game with countless glitches and hacks on all three major platforms? 
Omega Amen
Member
As for Medal of Honor multiplayer, I suggest looking at this 11 minute video clip of gameplay to get a better feel without fancy editing, music, or PR people talking: Link
Anyway, let me go through your list.
MW2 has problems... more problems than the 1st MW (COD4). The game is ridiculously unbalanced (twin akimbo shotguns and throwing knives apparently is terrific in modern warfare, lolwut). Hacks and glitches abound. No dedicated servers. They introduced a very juvenile, fratboy attitude in MW2 with marijuana jokes/references and an amazingly stupid plot in the single-player campaign. That seemed very out-of-character when compared to the campaign in COD4.
From my perspective of playing hundreds of hours of COD4 before joining ToJ and playing a lot of hours of BC2, MoH looks like the child of a COD4-BC2 marriage. It is faster and more infantry-focused with denser, elaborate landscape/architecture (COD4), and yet, it still has some of that sweet destructibility/explosions of BC2. And they will have dedicated servers. The single-player campaign is also supposed to be based on a real military operation in Afghanistan, Operation Anaconda (as opposed to that Michael Bay junk in MW2).
Honestly, all the multiplayer videos and the single-player coverage has got me very excited. YMMV.
First, Gerbil, do you know the history between Medal of Honor and Call of Duty? The original Medal of Honor was made by a team that later left EA and became Infinity Ward who then created Call of Duty, which was basically an improved version of Medal of Honor. There has been a lot of back-and-forth one-up-manship between these two franchises on that similar gameplay design template in the early 2000s.
Anyway, let me go through your list.
BC2 has those, and COD4:MW and MW2 as well.The Mighty Gerbil said:
That is actually a COD4:MW thing. In Medal of Honor, it is abstracted to earning points to a threshold so it can reward objective/teamwork actions. In BC2, you have mortar strikes which can only be called down by the Recon class. In MW1, MW2, and MoH, there are no real defined classes.TMG said:
BC2 has that. Actually, I think BF2 had it before COD4:MW first popularized it. (Someone correct me if I am wrong on that last part.)TMG said:
It also looks like the Saudi Arabia level in COD4:MW. BC2 has a couple desert-like maps in South America, but they are more wide open battlefields than dense, labyrinthine levels.TMG said:
Yep.TMG said:
Not sure what you mean. If they go full sim, they will be compared to ArmA. Then there is Counter-Strike on the other end. Armored/flight vehicles and explosions/destruction in open battlefields are in Battlefield. Everything is covered in military shooters by a lot of developers. What matters in this subgenre is execution, gameplay balance and longevity. Whoever does it better/best gets distinguished.The Mighty Gerbil said:
MW2 has problems... more problems than the 1st MW (COD4). The game is ridiculously unbalanced (twin akimbo shotguns and throwing knives apparently is terrific in modern warfare, lolwut). Hacks and glitches abound. No dedicated servers. They introduced a very juvenile, fratboy attitude in MW2 with marijuana jokes/references and an amazingly stupid plot in the single-player campaign. That seemed very out-of-character when compared to the campaign in COD4.
From my perspective of playing hundreds of hours of COD4 before joining ToJ and playing a lot of hours of BC2, MoH looks like the child of a COD4-BC2 marriage. It is faster and more infantry-focused with denser, elaborate landscape/architecture (COD4), and yet, it still has some of that sweet destructibility/explosions of BC2. And they will have dedicated servers. The single-player campaign is also supposed to be based on a real military operation in Afghanistan, Operation Anaconda (as opposed to that Michael Bay junk in MW2).
Honestly, all the multiplayer videos and the single-player coverage has got me very excited. YMMV.
I may be the only one on our forum, but I'd really like to play the 3DS. I doubt I'll buy a first generation model (I tend to wait until a second generation for handhelds), but there's a very good chance I'll buy one eventually.
blackgravity
New Member
Snake Eater = sold
I've only played a few minutes of Metal Gear Solid and I don't have the patience for stealth-based gameplay (i.e. "It's not you, it's me"), but the list of third-party developers already working on 3DS titles makes me want to start saving my pennies now.
Aside from some technical difficulties (which may or may not have been caused by wireless interference) with the new Zelda and a few other low points (Just Dance 2, horf), Nintendo nailed E3 this year.
Ultimately, I think I favored Nintendo's conference the most. No, they didn't pull out WiiHD or anything like that, but the software lineup was sufficient to please me. And I am very much stoked for the 3DS. Remakes of Ocarina of Time and Starfox 64 are definitely sweet, but I'm even more hyped over other little things... like Super Street Fighter IV coming to the system. Yep. That alone is reason for me to buy it. /fanboy
I probably will buy a first gen model... but not until second gen comes out and it's more affordable to buy the old one. /frugal
I probably will buy a first gen model... but not until second gen comes out and it's more affordable to buy the old one. /frugal
Odale
Active Member
I see alot of people copying Nintendo... again. This came to mind:
Is it over yet?
Is it over yet?
Last edited:
Not any time soon.
blackgravity
New Member
i just really hope this motion control thing doesn't become the standard. i would hate to have to stop playing games bc i can't use a pad to do it.
Elader Arkon
Helped Tek test a thing
I have no issue with Sony ripping off Nintendo. If Sony can do it better, more power to them.
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
I wouldn't say Sony copies as much as it "refines". No waggle here, folks.
Now as for casual games, Microsoft overdid themselves. :/
Now as for casual games, Microsoft overdid themselves. :/
blackgravity
New Member
"COME ON! LET'S JUMP AROUND AND TAKE WACKY PICTURES OF OURSELVES!
THIS IS GREAT! OOOOOOWWWWWWWW MY ACL!"
Watched didn't but it didn't really change anything. I've been immune to marketing techniques for quite a while now. When you don't have a lot of money you quickly learn to discern fluff from actual gameplay
.Yeah I thought I remembered reading that at some point. It's still no excuse for unoriginality though.
I'm not talking about a full sim but I really think more could be done to differentiate games. I don't have an intimate knowledge of the realistic shooter genre but I did have a few ideas. Is there any realistic shooter that...
* Temporarily reduces your speed when you are damaged like giving you a limp, forcing you to crawl or leave a blood trail at least for a few seconds? Additional features could allow you to drag wounded teammates out of harms way. I do know of a game that requires you to put a bandage on to stop bleeding at least. I'd like a wounded beast dynamic.
* Requires the establishment of a "base" to enable killstreak type things or perhaps a few seconds on a radio to call in support making you vulnerable in the process? I know MW2 has that Predator Missile laptop but I have not seen much requiring you to give coordinates or request supporting fire in a more realistic manner. Like not under your direct control or from a map view so you could get hurt by your own support fire if you do it incorrectly.
* Requires you to be prone for a couple seconds to fire a sniper rifle with extreme accuracy. IDK if ARMA did it but I'm once again not thinking of a pure sim just something that would slow down those annoyingly uber skilled people who can instantly scope and then headshot you. I don't think sniper rifles have a negative to if it's possible to instant headshot with them.
* Meaningful nightvison/tools. I haven't seen nightvision really used well in multiplayer yet. Destroy the lights/breaker box for a strategic advantage etc. All the tools I've seen are for fast attack run in with the flash bang etc. I'd like more emphasis in strategy and preparation which you can use any time not just in some "special co-op mission".
* Tanks or armored vehicles that feel like tanks. Perhaps my impressions of a tank are wrong, dated to WWII or unrealistic but I'd like one that is more difficult to take down with rpgs. However if you could get up to the hatch or a gun port you could spray bullets into it killing the occupant easily. This would encourage more of a dynamic of infantry and armor needing to protect each other.
* The impression I get watching actual modern combat is quite different than what modern combat games are like. I suggest a new game mode with a hunter/hunted dynamic where one team is trying to get away or survive for X time while the other is trying to catch/kill them X times. It's not an equal sides game mode like what I've seen. You would lean one team towards hiding/stealth abilities and the other towards more powerful combat abilities. Communication would be key to both escape and catch people. It wouldn't be like L4D's gameplay but L4D does show how unequal sides can work.
* Mobile capture points/bases. I've seen the instant spawn in here markers but how about needing to set one up for a base. Before first spawn each person on a team could need to select a point on the map for a base from which to spawn back in. Destroy all the bases people have set up and you win. My point is I haven't seen a game geared towards finding, protecting and destroying arbitrary locations. There is no search out element just destroy in shooters. Capture points are either set up in prefab locations or the game is based on number of kills. It'd be nice to have to have a reason to watch/shadow people and gather intelligence prior to gunning them down.
* Squad bots. You'd still have your regular number of human players but each human player could have a squad of bots to command. A battlefield with huge numbers is something I have not seen in multilayer yet (talking FPS not MMORPG). (This should be possible becuase download speeds are greater than upload speeds on the internet and bots would be server based, right?)
Anyway war games just seem very close in how they play especially considering how many come out. I'm quite certain there are more options out there even if some of my ideas end up having been done. I will give BF2 points for the destructibility emphasis changing things up though.
Last edited:
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
As for the whole Sony/MS copying Nintendo thing...PS move goes back to ~2001 (this video was made in 2004, some of it had been done in 2001):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNdkm9s8AY
You can see the obvious Sorcery and other Eye game precursors here as well.
Not saying Sony doesn't copy (trophies, etc), but honestly this is a business where everybody borrows from each other. And I do believe that when they do copy, they aren't simply derivative, they improve...IE: I like the trophy system much better than achievements with the bronze/silver/gold/plat levels.
I do love that Nintendo tries new things, and really do feel they are an innovator. Motion control wasn't new, but the idea of a cheap, low graphic, motion-controlled system when the Wii was announced was so counter-intuitive to what the rest of the industry was doing, and we have all benefitted from it....despite how much I complain about them. We can argue about which system is better, but I don't think anybody would argue which of the 3 companies has the smartest businessmen this time around.
Unfortunately, I've had very few good experiences with Wii motion control outside of Sports/Sports Resort. Zelda should be good, but that's at least another year out? DQ Swords was pretty fun, and well worth the $10 I paid.
I don't care who copied who (arguably Kinect is the biggest copy of all); I only care that come September, I expect to have fun with the Move.
Or maybe I'll just be disappointed again.
EDIT: Just read Dead Space 2 will not only feature move support, but also come with DS: Extraction on the PS3 as a pack-in. Possibility of my disappointment just approached zero. Time to sell my Wii copy (unless someone here wants it on the cheap). Just be warned the camera is kinda shaky (adds suspense?) but so were my Wii Motes. Very fun on-rails game though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpNdkm9s8AY
You can see the obvious Sorcery and other Eye game precursors here as well.
Not saying Sony doesn't copy (trophies, etc), but honestly this is a business where everybody borrows from each other. And I do believe that when they do copy, they aren't simply derivative, they improve...IE: I like the trophy system much better than achievements with the bronze/silver/gold/plat levels.
I do love that Nintendo tries new things, and really do feel they are an innovator. Motion control wasn't new, but the idea of a cheap, low graphic, motion-controlled system when the Wii was announced was so counter-intuitive to what the rest of the industry was doing, and we have all benefitted from it....despite how much I complain about them. We can argue about which system is better, but I don't think anybody would argue which of the 3 companies has the smartest businessmen this time around.
Unfortunately, I've had very few good experiences with Wii motion control outside of Sports/Sports Resort. Zelda should be good, but that's at least another year out? DQ Swords was pretty fun, and well worth the $10 I paid.
I don't care who copied who (arguably Kinect is the biggest copy of all); I only care that come September, I expect to have fun with the Move.
Or maybe I'll just be disappointed again.
EDIT: Just read Dead Space 2 will not only feature move support, but also come with DS: Extraction on the PS3 as a pack-in. Possibility of my disappointment just approached zero. Time to sell my Wii copy (unless someone here wants it on the cheap). Just be warned the camera is kinda shaky (adds suspense?) but so were my Wii Motes. Very fun on-rails game though.
Last edited:
Omega Amen
Member
Okay, tell me what part of the 11 minute video is not gameplay footage. What was the added fluff that you will not see if you play the game?Watched didn't but it didn't really change anything. I've been immune to marketing techniques for quite a while now. When you don't have a lot of money you quickly learn to discern fluff from actual gameplay
I thought I was providing our community a better look at the game from the media available at this time. But if there is some special marketing technique that you think is deceiving, just specify it. That way I won't waste both of our time.
Seriously, who cares about originality? People play games for quality execution and fun gameplay design. If the presentation is not appealing and it is not fun, no one cares about whether the idea presented was original. I have seen a lot of original ideas in games over the years, and they got abandoned. And they deserved to be abandoned because they were boring to play in a game.TMG said:
And my original point was simply that these two franchises have been traditionally direct competitors. Thus, it should not be surprising to see a lot of similarities. The best analogy I can think of now is this is similar to the Quake 3 vs UT days.
As for the ideas...
ArmA does address this, I think. Very few games ever apply this mechanic because the vast majority of gamers who play in this genre find this to be very irritating. Most do not think this is fun, and in a game, it could be even more advantageous to kill oneself and just respawn without the injury.TMG said:
In COD4, you were presented a map to pinpoint the airstrike. It was possible to bomb yourself. In BC2, as a Recon, you have to hold the targeting reticle for a specific amount of time, and you are vulnerable while waiting for strike order to be confirmed. Not sure about your "base" idea. There a lot of game types of defending points of interest, including fortified positions with powerful stationary weaponry as "perks", if you will. Very commonplace.TMG said:
In COD4, you have to hold your breath to steady your aim with sniper rifles. Going prone in general increases accuracy with all sorts of weapons in a lot of franchises. In BC2, you have to account for bullet drop. Honestly, I think your concern has already been addressed. If we make sniper rifles more realistic, they actually become even deadlier.TMG said:
SOCOM has done nightvision multiplayer levels. It is also extremely focused on team tactics and a slower-paced game.TMG said:
Eh, I just don't agree with your assessment on how easy it is to take down armor right now in games. Infantry support is critical to keeping tanks running in BC2. Without support, it is possible to flank it, plant a bunch of C4 and destroy it. With it, the tank can literally dominate the game like a tank should. The opening the hatch idea is only neat from a purely visual perspective, but I see people hijack enemy tanks from their drivers all the time in BC2. For the most part, this is already covered out there.TMG said:
That is Spy vs. Mercenary mode in the Splinter Cell games. This is a game type that will only be implemented in games where steath-espionage mechanics is the major focus/selling point. Most military shooter gamers want to participate in full-out firefight scenarios. What I am trying to say is that this game idea has been explored and satisfied to an audience that ended up being different than the one you are addressing.TMG said:
Honestly, I think the squad spawning mechanic in BC2 already addresses the search-out-then-destroy need, and it inherently is a mobile spawning point. In that game, you can spawn on a squadmate. Thus, if you have not searched-out and taken out the whole squad from your area of the map, you have not really removed the menace. As for picking an arbitrary base/spawn point on a map, in practice over time, those points become less arbitrary. This is because the optimal positions will be determined by the map design, not a player's momentary cleverness. It is somewhat like placing a turret in TF2. Sure, you can place them wherever, but ultimately, there are just better spots than others, and in the end, everyone "learns" to place them in the same spots.TMG said:
In MAG, there are 256 players playing on one map. However, in reality, to make a good map for that size, you will not end up seeing most of those players in your field of view ever. In fact, it does not look that much different from say a 64-player match. Kind of a game design paradox. As for cooperative bots to command, I just don't think the first-person perspective is the best interface to give precise commands. Will they be smart/telepathic enough to execute my commands satisfyingly? Or will I get frustrated like every other attempt at squadmate bots (see L4D, Mass Effect, and Rainbow Six series)?TMG said:
Well, I gave specific examples of your ideas being covered for the most part. I would also argue that FPS design in general is pretty much well-established and vetted of good ideas at this point. And just because another original idea comes up does not mean it will be fun or provide genuinely new entertainment.TMG said:
Ah I offended him T_T sorry. I was talking about the video link I put up that you said had fluff in it not yours. I was saying I was capable of looking past the fluff in my video therefore gameplay wise the video you linked to didn't really show me much >.< I'm hip to what they do believe me.
I'm viewing some of the war shooters as so similar in gameplay it's not worth paying 50-60 bucks to do the same thing I was doing in another game but prettier and with a class shuffle. I point to the small time between military shooters releases as evidence of oversatuation in the genre. One of the reasons I have not bought BF2 to play with you guys is becuase I know as soon as the next big military shooter comes out half of the few Toj playing it will evaporate. I don't think it's a bad game and it has points for having destructible stuff only the genre is so populated by similar games the players move on rapidly. You may or may not like TF2 but some of it's staying power (not all) is in the fact the game is different than other games I.E. more original. To compare so far the main selling point of MOH I'm thinking of is dedicated servers. In essence the selling point is "MOH the game that does what MW2 should of done if Activision was not greedy"
. I suppose that's not bad but if that turns out being the main reason to play it it's only going to be around until the next incremental release.I was talking about for the duration of the injury like with the auto heal feature enabled so you wouldn't be permanently limping all through the round. Remember I'm not going for a sim experience only one different than the norm. My point about getting injured is there is little fear of it as it is. If you shoot a guy who is running at you pell mell with a knife it should at least knock the dude back. As it is in MW2 you can hit your target with a bullet only to have him ignore it and run through to kill you. I think getting hit with a bullet should at least stop a player for a moment.
I'm not talking about making them realistic I'm talking about nerfing the guys who can instantly one shot you from any position. I know about the holding your breath thing in MW2 and I've still been headshoted by people who can zoom, hold the button and headshot you instantly from fairly close or far range (perhaps some are hackers but I am sure others are legit). There is no reason to use another weapon once you get that good with a sniper rifle. It's not fun to play a guy who you can consistently outsmart only to have him kill you because his reflexes, coordination and internet connection (I.E he has more money) are better. I used to believe that with practice and dedication one would overcome this but it's simply, unfortunately not true. With age you generally slow down and if you never dedicated your entire youth to playing fps games you can't catch up. I like games that make teamwork and intelligence more powerful than twitchy game skills. It's not that twitchy shouldn't count at all only it shouldn't be the ruling factor. It also seems like the more twitchy a game is the less the game play feels different than another game.
Sounds like that could do it. Is the nightvision class based in Socom though? Ah after a Google I learned it's not on PC so it doesn't matter to me anyway
.You are probably right. I've only had personal multiplayer vehicle experience in Unreal, Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield 2142 the rest is based on watching videos of other games.
Ehhh I googled it and I don't think that sounds like what I was thinking of. I was comparing the real life insurgent vs the US videos to games so it would fit in the context of realistic military shooters. Certainly the US is vastly OP in real life so you'd have to tone it down for a game but the terrorist vs military depictions I've seen in games so far are on decidedly equal footing. The mode that uses terrorist stealth tactics vs military might (No not like counter Strike where you are once again equal). Like as a terrorist you could be held up in a building which the military needs to clear. Military would have superior firepower, infinite respawns and a set time to kill insurgents. Terrorist could plant IEDs have hidden passageways, a limited number of spawns, and an escape route that would reduce the clock if they got there.
True but is this a bad thing? It still gives a map more options than static bases.
Yeah bots are generally dumb no matter what you do. I'd designate them to cannon fodder and distractions (and you could walk through them so they could not block your path T_T). If you make them fairly disposable it shouldn't hurt to much. Basically the strategy would be having to determine who is the CO (real person of a group) and take him out. I've also never seen huge groups come at you in a military shooter like in L4D multiplayer. I want that overwhelmed feeling of a wall of people coming at you like a beach landing (note I knew about Mag).
True not all original ideas are fun. I'll just have to make a game and show you some new fun game play
.
Last edited:
Corpfox
Active Member
Am I the only one that didn't watch E3?
Marvel vs Capcom 3 is very awesome but its very difficult when I have to buy the next gen consoles just to play it.
Time Crisis: Rising Storm is pretty cool too but same problem above.
BC2 has that. When you get a critical hit or almost blown up, your half blind and deaf. Your screen is red, the sound is muffed and your heart beating rapidly. The usual way to recover from it is to have a Medic drop a Med pack so you get healed.
Marvel vs Capcom 3 is very awesome but its very difficult when I have to buy the next gen consoles just to play it.
Time Crisis: Rising Storm is pretty cool too but same problem above.
TMG said:
BC2 has that. When you get a critical hit or almost blown up, your half blind and deaf. Your screen is red, the sound is muffed and your heart beating rapidly. The usual way to recover from it is to have a Medic drop a Med pack so you get healed.
Last edited:
Come over for some games any time, but judging by your location, it'd probably be cheaper to just buy an Xbox 360 Arcade and the game.Marvel vs Capcom 3 is very awesome but its very difficult when I have to buy the next gen consoles just to play it.
I missed Konami's gig the other day, and I haven't found the rundown of everything they talked about yet. Anybody else catch it? I'm primarily interested in the Yu-Gi-Oh! game coming to XBLA.