I liked TF2 more before all the random weapons came into play. I don't really complain about it a lot; I just don't play it much anymore.
more chance of war-man getting his 500-scale player shitfuck mmo-fps or whatever it is he dreams aboutbennisboy wrote:
I played quite a bit of TF2, it was good and different, but I would like something which is more a hybrid of platforming and shooting, like Mirrors Edge but with large scale multiplayer... and not shit like brinkUzique wrote:
it's called team fortress 2 and it's about 4 years old.bennisboy wrote:
I think we need to get away from realism.
Ditch the god-damn "everything must be brown" colour scheme. Add some crazy and fun mechanics.
A shooter based on the platforming mechanics of something like Ratchet and Clank would be awesome.
32 players on each side, double jumping through the air, jumping on those crazy 'roller-coaster' rails and sliding along them, firing insane guns, all in a bright, colourful and original environment.
'Realism' has been done to death for now, we need something new and fun, where no one cares about realism or the colour brown
the problem with it is that they over-did the crazy shit, way over the top.
genre-hybrids are generally a headache. there's loads of room for variation in core genres - tf2 was an example in point - but people are lazy
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ain't shitfuck.Uzique wrote:
more chance of war-man getting his 500-scale player shitfuck mmo-fps or whatever it is he dreams aboutbennisboy wrote:
I played quite a bit of TF2, it was good and different, but I would like something which is more a hybrid of platforming and shooting, like Mirrors Edge but with large scale multiplayer... and not shit like brinkUzique wrote:
it's called team fortress 2 and it's about 4 years old.
the problem with it is that they over-did the crazy shit, way over the top.
genre-hybrids are generally a headache. there's loads of room for variation in core genres - tf2 was an example in point - but people are lazy
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
a 500 player mmo-fps? Sounds like a shitfuck to meWar Man wrote:
Ain't shitfuck.Uzique wrote:
more chance of war-man getting his 500-scale player shitfuck mmo-fps or whatever it is he dreams aboutbennisboy wrote:
I played quite a bit of TF2, it was good and different, but I would like something which is more a hybrid of platforming and shooting, like Mirrors Edge but with large scale multiplayer... and not shit like brink
genre-hybrids are generally a headache. there's loads of room for variation in core genres - tf2 was an example in point - but people are lazy
More to it than that.Kampframmer wrote:
a 500 player mmo-fps? Sounds like a shitfuck to meWar Man wrote:
Ain't shitfuck.Uzique wrote:
more chance of war-man getting his 500-scale player shitfuck mmo-fps or whatever it is he dreams about
genre-hybrids are generally a headache. there's loads of room for variation in core genres - tf2 was an example in point - but people are lazy
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Oh god
or play airsoft, coz its realisticrdx-fx wrote:
Fuck "realism" in games.
In a FPS, or even in a flight sim, "realism" is a unattainable fantasy.
Realism at the level of a professional soldier, professional pilot, or professional race car driver
-or-
realism, as defined by 90% of the gamer market, (12-32 year old civilian males, that go to work or school behind a desk)?
I'd rather the developers concentrate on good gameplay, balanced classes/sides, an enjoyable experience, and an intuitive interface.
In some part, having weapons/aircraft/cars that appear to behave in a realistic (intuitive) manner, contributes to all of the above.
To put it another way, do you want weapons/aircraft/cars that behave as they do in real life, or do you want them to behave like Hollywood special effects have trained the average gamer to believe they should behave?
In real life, the match is often over before the other side is aware that it even started.
In real life, teams are not balanced.
In real life, billions of dollars are spent developing "hacks" - it's commonly called an arms race.
In real life, there is no respawn.
... ad nauseam ...
Personally, if I want to go shoot, I turn off the damned PC and go shoot. If I want to go drive, I go drive.
All conceivable implementations of that in the near future would most likely be a shitfuck.War Man wrote:
More to it than that.Kampframmer wrote:
a 500 player mmo-fps? Sounds like a shitfuck to meWar Man wrote:
Ain't shitfuck.
your mum's a shit fuck!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
All conceivable implementations of that in the near future would most likely be a shitfuck.War Man wrote:
More to it than that.Kampframmer wrote:
a 500 player mmo-fps? Sounds like a shitfuck to me
burn
Can't wait for tank maintenance in a gamerdx-fx wrote:
Fuck "realism" in games.
In a FPS, or even in a flight sim, "realism" is a unattainable fantasy.
Realism at the level of a professional soldier, professional pilot, or professional race car driver
-or-
realism, as defined by 90% of the gamer market, (12-32 year old civilian males, that go to work or school behind a desk)?
I'd rather the developers concentrate on good gameplay, balanced classes/sides, an enjoyable experience, and an intuitive interface.
In some part, having weapons/aircraft/cars that appear to behave in a realistic (intuitive) manner, contributes to all of the above.
To put it another way, do you want weapons/aircraft/cars that behave as they do in real life, or do you want them to behave like Hollywood special effects have trained the average gamer to believe they should behave?
In real life, the match is often over before the other side is aware that it even started.
In real life, teams are not balanced.
In real life, billions of dollars are spent developing "hacks" - it's commonly called an arms race.
In real life, there is no respawn.
... ad nauseam ...
Personally, if I want to go shoot, I turn off the damned PC and go shoot. If I want to go drive, I go drive.
inane little opines
I have a mom, not a mum, you English wastrel.bennisboy wrote:
your mum's a shit fuck!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
All conceivable implementations of that in the near future would most likely be a shitfuck.War Man wrote:
More to it than that.
burn
Shocking, play World of Tanks if you want tank maintenance
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
That was sarcasm
inane little opines
I say, you you.... you scoundrelunnamednewbie13 wrote:
I have a mom, not a mum, you English wastrel.bennisboy wrote:
your mum's a shit fuck!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
All conceivable implementations of that in the near future would most likely be a shitfuck.
burn
I don't see whats wrong with having higher degrees of complexity
There's a niche market who loves high complexity games, and would probably be easy to re-adapt it to military use
eg. ArmA -> VBS
Also
Talking about high complexity games
Look how successful EVE Online is
Niche market game that's done well
There's a niche market who loves high complexity games, and would probably be easy to re-adapt it to military use
eg. ArmA -> VBS
Also
Talking about high complexity games
Look how successful EVE Online is
Niche market game that's done well
Last edited by -_{MoW}_-Assasin (2011-06-20 20:05:48)
But why would you develop a game that 250000 people will play when you can go for one that sells 2 million?
because you care about quality and arent driven by greed
Unfortunately idealism has a very small place in western capitalism.
-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
I don't see whats wrong with having higher degrees of complexity
There's a niche market who loves high complexity games, and would probably be easy to re-adapt it to military use
eg. ArmA -> VBS
Also
Talking about high complexity games
Look how successful EVE Online is
Niche market game that's done well
werdzzzStimey wrote:
because you care about quality and arent driven by greed
Which is why many of the best made games are made in non Western countriesSisco wrote:
Unfortunately idealism has a very small place in western capitalism.
I think 90% of the gamer market misuse the the term "Realism". Retards call Call of Duty 'realistic', but I think they actually mean that it's authentic (well, that stopped after CoD4). They got it into their heads that shooters are realistic, and thus don't know any better. Many console players probably haven't experienced military sims like Operation Flashpoint or flight sims like Falcon 4.0 etc, so don't have anything to compare it to on their system. Yes, none of those are truly 'realistic', and nothing can ever be, but it's alot closer to realism than arcade games like Call of Duty.rdx-fx wrote:
realism, as defined by 90% of the gamer market, (12-32 year old civilian males, that go to work or school behind a desk)?
Last edited by henno13 (2011-06-21 04:12:40)
Yeah, those african games are banging-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
Which is why many of the best made games are made in non Western countriesSisco wrote:
Unfortunately idealism has a very small place in western capitalism.
game devs gotta make a living. most profitable company now is zynga and they make only facebook games and shit. game companies want to invest on a product taht would profit ofc.Sisco wrote:
Unfortunately idealism has a very small place in western capitalism.
you talking about eastern european companies, i assume?-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
Which is why many of the best made games are made in non Western countriesSisco wrote:
Unfortunately idealism has a very small place in western capitalism.
they're capitalist too, non?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
repairing tanks in Men of War is actually really fuckin intense...Shocking wrote:
Can't wait for tank maintenance in a gamerdx-fx wrote:
Fuck "realism" in games.
In a FPS, or even in a flight sim, "realism" is a unattainable fantasy.
Realism at the level of a professional soldier, professional pilot, or professional race car driver
-or-
realism, as defined by 90% of the gamer market, (12-32 year old civilian males, that go to work or school behind a desk)?
I'd rather the developers concentrate on good gameplay, balanced classes/sides, an enjoyable experience, and an intuitive interface.
In some part, having weapons/aircraft/cars that appear to behave in a realistic (intuitive) manner, contributes to all of the above.
To put it another way, do you want weapons/aircraft/cars that behave as they do in real life, or do you want them to behave like Hollywood special effects have trained the average gamer to believe they should behave?
In real life, the match is often over before the other side is aware that it even started.
In real life, teams are not balanced.
In real life, billions of dollars are spent developing "hacks" - it's commonly called an arms race.
In real life, there is no respawn.
... ad nauseam ...
Personally, if I want to go shoot, I turn off the damned PC and go shoot. If I want to go drive, I go drive.
go ask Timaaaaaaaaah
also
it's been done in Red OrchestraSEREMAKER wrote:
I'd like to see more realism
example : 2 combatants on BF2 ...... you stand there shoot each other and after a few rounds you're dead or a head shot and its one shot one kill
now add realism : 2 combatants ...... I shot in the hand : you can either hold your rifle with one hand and can not raise it to look down the sights or hip shoot and your rounds are going all over the area or switch to pistol and you can look down your sights - shot in the arm you can raise the weapon but its very unsteady - shot in leg : you go limp or crawl no running
of course if this was ever placed in something like BF3 then everyone would be complaining that they wanted like it was where they run around take a few shots but they keep wanting more and more realism