Orogun01 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I hope that doesn't result in more MP only focused games now though with SP getting the shaft. Now? The industry has been pulling out MP on every game in the last 3 years, ever since someone said that "millenials" are more social by nature and by social they probably meant that they can't go 3 secs without texting or checking their facebook status. Let's just look at the transition of FEAR (since it's close to mind) the first 2 were FPS/Horror games with the added multiplayer. The last one was some multiplayer bull with an added FEAR storyline. Wanna know why nobody makes WRPGS that aren't MMOs? NO MULTIPLAYER I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Nepenthe Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I hope that doesn't result in more MP only focused games now though with SP getting the shaft. Now? The industry has been pulling out MP on every game in the last 3 years, ever since someone said that "millenials" are more social by nature and by social they probably meant that they can't go 3 secs without texting or checking their facebook status. Let's just look at the transition of FEAR (since it's close to mind) the first 2 were FPS/Horror games with the added multiplayer. The last one was some multiplayer bull with an added FEAR storyline. Wanna know why nobody makes WRPGS that aren't MMOs? NO MULTIPLAYER Forgot, Casey Hudson (re)confirmed at comic con that there will be no MP in ME3. So if there is one, the project manager is unaware of it. You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions
Slowtrain Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I've got nothing against military shooters, per se, but it's a pretty depressing genre contraction if sf, horror, fantasy or whatever-themed shooters are all stopped in favor of these para-military goon fests. I'll give Bioshock and ME and DX credit for at least not being that. Notice how I can belittle your beliefs without calling you names. It's a useful skill to have particularly where you aren't allowed to call people names. It's a mistake to get too drawn in/worked up. I mean it's not life or death, it's just two guys posting their thoughts on a message board. If it were personal or face to face all the usual restraints would be in place, and we would never have reached this place in the first place. Try to remember that.
Purkake Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) It's more the mechanics than the theme. Most of the military shooters have just diluted the shooter formula down the basics in terms of story, atmosphere, characters. If you managed to copy all the mechanics over to any other genre, you'd probably do okay and you might even be able to slip a few extra things in there to make it a little more exciting. A lot of the shooter/X hybrids just can't match the mechanics of the straight-up shooters and have to sink or swim on the strength of their other features. I'd say one of the problems with the hybrids is the reductionist approach where the developer waters down the existing shooter mechanics to accommodate the abilities/classes/progression instead of thinking outside the box and adding various options to the (great) already existing mechanics. A part of it probably comes down to having to program decent AI and put more focus on tactical gameplay, which probably takes much more effort than the default scripted approach. Edited July 24, 2011 by Purkake
Niten_Ryu Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 There are just way too many FPS and Bulletstorm is part of the problem, rather then solution like FPS hybrids like Stalker, Mass Effect series or Fallout 3 / NV. FPS are the most popular genre but that don't mean everyone can replicate the Call of Duty success and Bulletstorms gimmicks like harsh language or short singleplayer campaign wasn't enough. Heck, I like FPS but I still wouldn't buy Bulletstorm unless it's under $10 (or ?7 ). But I do love the funny dialogue like "dicktits" (google it ). Let's play Alpha Protocol My misadventures on youtube.
pmp10 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 It's more the mechanics than the theme. Most of the military shooters have just diluted the shooter formula down the basics in terms of story, atmosphere, characters. If you managed to copy all the mechanics over to any other genre, you'd probably do okay and you might even be able to slip a few extra things in there to make it a little more exciting. I wish I could agree but games like Homefront (or even Flashpoint) don't outsell the likes of Crysis 2 on simplicity alone. The market simply responds very well to the pseudo-realistic military themes. I'd say it's the nature of target audience.
Purkake Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I wasn't talking about simplicity, I was talking about the best shooting mechanics. Unfortunately I haven't played Homefront, so I can't comment on that, but Crysis 2 is hardly an example of a non-military game.
pmp10 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 That's the point. It still has a lot of the same trappings with realistic weaponry and plenty of marines and it still fails due to perceived lack of realism.
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Wonder if sometime anybody will have the courage not to make a "Marines **** yeah!" game, but maybe something like "The Hurt Locker" game. Rain makes everything better.
Purkake Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Haven't you noticed? All the Modern Warfares and whatnot have tried to tell deep personal stories about war, it's just mixed in with all the dudebro stuff and no one actually cares. Edited July 24, 2011 by Purkake
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I heard Rockstar San Diego (RDR) is supposedly working on an anti-war game. But yeah, rumors and Rockstar. Rain makes everything better.
Malcador Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 What would make it an anti-war game, I wonder. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 What would make it an anti-war game, I wonder. Tons of cutscenes thrown in that make you cry. Rain makes everything better.
Orogun01 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Haven't you noticed? All the Modern Warfares and whatnot have tried to tell deep personal stories about war, it's just mixed in with all the dudebro stuff and no one actually cares. Its hard to care about someone in a Michael Bay film...Oh wait, we are talking about MW. Rule still applies. Seriously, half the people writing for games don't know what they are doing and the other half don't know how to write. I spent most of my time in MW trying to figure out why was attacking a oil base, or why I went to Brazil. Until I finally gave up and figured out that the devs completed the game before the story. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Malcador Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I dunno, COD4 had that scene when your buddies all buy it in slow motion, MW2 had Roach and Ghost getting torched. Wouldn't say either of those is anti-war. Maybe they'll expose you to atrocities on both side though, that might do it. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Thing that bothers me about all these military shooters is that there's never any sense of danger or outright stress. They should implement the mechanics and AI in a way that makes it really really tough to kill a bad guy, not in an unfun, but rewarding way. Also, less canon fodder in general. Mowing down 100 guys in 10 minutes is unrealistic. Better confine it to really really hard fights with just 3-5 guys per map. Supplement this with smart level design and revolutionary AI, and you have a winner. Oh, and one shot, one kill. But that goes both ways. Rain makes everything better.
Malcador Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 So like ArmA/OFP:CWC then ? Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 So like ArmA/OFP:CWC then ? No. Rain makes everything better.
Purkake Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Thing that bothers me about all these military shooters is that there's never any sense of danger or outright stress. They should implement the mechanics and AI in a way that makes it really really tough to kill a bad guy, not in an unfun, but rewarding way. Also, less canon fodder in general. Mowing down 100 guys in 10 minutes is unrealistic. Better confine it to really really hard fights with just 3-5 guys per map. Supplement this with smart level design and revolutionary AI, and you have a winner. Oh, and one shot, one kill. But that goes both ways. I don't know, the special missions or whatever in MW2 were pretty hard.
Rosbjerg Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Battlefield 3 Alpha. Looks like Bad Company 2. Fortune favors the bald.
Malcador Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) So like ArmA/OFP:CWC then ? No. Seems like that's what you're talking about. Most of the fights (well for me so far) aren't huge slugfests and you can get offed easly. The old GR was a lot like that too, long periods of quiet punctuated by violence, could get pretty tense in some levels, watching for movement (although your AI Gods would be pretty handy) Edited July 24, 2011 by Malcador Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Orogun01 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 I dunno, COD4 had that scene when your buddies all buy it in slow motion, MW2 had Roach and Ghost getting torched. Wouldn't say either of those is anti-war. Maybe they'll expose you to atrocities on both side though, that might do it. Dude, if the worst thing about war that they can write about is your buddies dying it just show how poorly informed the writers at IW are. You want an anti-war game go play MSG, Kojima is very anti-war and it shows in every game in the series, MSG3 and 4 particularly. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Morgoth Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) So like ArmA/OFP:CWC then ? No. Seems like that's what you're talking about. Most of the fights (well for ms eo far) aren't huge slugfests and you can get offed easly. The old GR was a lot like that too, long periods of quiet punctuated by violence, could get pretty tense in some levels, watching for movement (although your AI Gods would be pretty handy) Well, the thing about AMRA2 or OFP is, that I never finished them. Those games were all a drag, too much open space, no drama, no good pacing. Edited July 24, 2011 by Morgoth Rain makes everything better.
pmp10 Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 Well, the thing about AMRA2 or OFP is, that I never finished them. Those games were all a drag, too much open space, no drama, no good pacing. So you'd rather a more grim version of Brothers in Arms?
Recommended Posts