PDA

View Full Version : Medal of Honor Beta Looks So Uninnovative



squirrel
10-10-2012, 04:08 PM
If you still remember, this game is about to be out within this month, and starting on 5 Oct the beta for multiplayer was launched for Xbox ONLY (http://www.medalofhonor.com/beta), so don't need to wonder why RPS didn't cover it. But anyway, if you happen to be able to try this out (I cannot, I dont have Xbox), it shouldn't deviate too much from its PC counterpart.

I simply post one of the many videos of beta gameplay you can easily find on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MLNyK838NM
(I am not the commentator so I do not take responsibility for his opinion, I have no relationship with him and I do not own this video.)

We all know this is a Frostbite powered game, but this beta obviously doesn't demonstrate any damage of surrounding structures. I guess this is realistic since this beta only focus on infantry actions and you probably cannot blast through a wall with just a hand grenade. I don't know, is Medal of Honor a infantry action only shooter just exactly as Call of Duty?

There is no showing of ballistic projectile. Is it just the distance of characters being too close or this game simply does not feature ballistic projectile (damn, if they dont have this, I rather prefer COD which is much more fast paced). Do they have ballistic projectile in maps of Close Quarter in Battlefield 3?

And the feeling is awfully similar to my very brief experience with Battlefield 3 beta, with its first map Metro was also a infantry action environment.

Simply put, this is a Call of Duty with Battlefield style of art and cutscene.

And I strongly urge for cross-platform multiplayer. Is it really that difficult to implement cross-platform multiplayer?

Barnox
10-10-2012, 04:15 PM
I saw weapon upgrades (including camo), shooting mans and manshooting.
The only difference I see between this and other manshoots is the HUD.
It's a post-CoD4 military manshoot, why were you expecting innovation?

squirrel
10-10-2012, 04:21 PM
It's a post-CoD4 military manshoot, why were you expecting innovation?

I used to think there is not much room for further perfection, but ballistic projectile is already one such great innovation dont you think? And then the destructible structures... But all are missing in this beta.

Shooop
12-10-2012, 03:31 PM
I said the same thing about Battlefield 3 but look how well that did anyway.

The gamers get what the gamers want. And sheer monotony and repetition is what they want.

gundato
12-10-2012, 03:41 PM
I used to think there is not much room for further perfection, but ballistic projectile is already one such great innovation dont you think? And then the destructible structures... But all are missing in this beta.

It depends. If everything is happening in close quarters, there really isn't much point.
Quick wiki shows this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M855_drop_during_25-meter_zeroing_trajectory_M16A2_M4.jpg
So a bit over 5 inches at 100 meters

For reference:
50 meters http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+meters is a bit over half a block
100 meters http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+meters is approximately a football field in length

I haven't played multiplayer CoD since MW1, but none of the maps felt particularly large. And unless you were a sniper, you were engaging at well under 50 meters most of the time.

BF3 was a bit more open, but even then it was mostly just snipers and "campers" who engaged at particularly long ranges, with the rest of us occasionally taking a shot, but mostly trying to get near the capture flag/mcom point.

Adding more complexity for complexity's sake is never a good move.

victory
12-10-2012, 04:32 PM
It depends. If everything is happening in close quarters, there really isn't much point.
Quick wiki shows this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M855_drop_during_25-meter_zeroing_trajectory_M16A2_M4.jpg
So a bit over 5 inches at 100 metersEven that is with a silly 25-meter zero.

In reality, you can shoot all regular assault and battle rifles to about 0-200m without changing the point of aim, so ballistics have practically no effect on COD-sized maps.

Ballistics would still create challenge for long-range shooting, and also if you try to hit a bit farther with guns that have steep trajectories, so it becomes important to estimate range.

Would be nice flavor to have an in-game shooting range where you can zero guns to your own preference with your preferred ammo and sights, and save the settings you make. Want to try sniping with an itty bitty short-barreled AK? Mount a big scope, take it to the range, zero to 300m and then hit multiplayer. And so on.

Diesel-
12-10-2012, 06:02 PM
Of course it looks terrible. looks like every other military shooter

Screw this and get Arma 3.

gundato
12-10-2012, 06:05 PM
Even that is with a silly 25-meter zero.

In reality, you can shoot all regular assault and battle rifles to about 0-200m without changing the point of aim, so ballistics have practically no effect on COD-sized maps.

Ballistics would still create challenge for long-range shooting, and also if you try to hit a bit farther with guns that have steep trajectories, so it becomes important to estimate range.

Would be nice flavor to have an in-game shooting range where you can zero guns to your own preference with your preferred ammo and sights, and save the settings you make. Want to try sniping with an itty bitty short-barreled AK? Mount a big scope, take it to the range, zero to 300m and then hit multiplayer. And so on.

That is one thing I love about ArmA2 (OA). They let you zero (most) guns.

I used to HATE sniping (of course, I was the guy who would rather have an m16 with iron sights than any form of scope). Now, I love doing the armory and assassinating targets. Use my rangefinder to get the distance, zero it in, and then take the shot.

Of course, that would be a death sentence for any "normal" multiplayer FPS in that it would make everyone a camping sniper.

Shooop
12-10-2012, 06:15 PM
camping sniper

I love how many gamers don't understand how redundant that is.

victory
12-10-2012, 06:35 PM
That is one thing I love about ArmA2 (OA). They let you zero (most) guns.

I used to HATE sniping (of course, I was the guy who would rather have an m16 with iron sights than any form of scope). Now, I love doing the armory and assassinating targets. Use my rangefinder to get the distance, zero it in, and then take the shot.

Of course, that would be a death sentence for any "normal" multiplayer FPS in that it would make everyone a camping sniper.
How so? Making ballistics more realistic just makes sniping harder. Sight adjustment takes time and adds opportunity to screw up. Range and wind estimation add lots of opportunity to screw up.

gundato
12-10-2012, 07:00 PM
I love how many gamers don't understand how redundant that is.

It isn't. Yes, real snipers may (and probably often do) sit in the same location for days or even weeks on end. But there are also the ones who support infantry units who will position themselves, provide support until said location is not viable, and then move to a new position.
Guess which kind makes more sense for a multiplayer game? :p


How so? Making ballistics more realistic just makes sniping harder. Sight adjustment takes time and adds opportunity to screw up. Range and wind estimation add lots of opportunity to screw up.

Because it encourages you to focus on "one shot, one kill" and to spend a lot of time fiddling around. Rather than the current system where the really good players will go prone for a short period, take out a few enemies, then move.

RO2 is actually a perfect example of how this mentality affects people. When someone spawns with a bolt-action, they'll advance, get cover, then take out a few targets until they do it again. When someone (often a newbie) gets a scoped rifle, they basically will do their damnedest to never move. Why? Because they think they should be living off moss and a parrot friend.

victory
12-10-2012, 08:46 PM
Because it encourages you to focus on "one shot, one kill" and to spend a lot of time fiddling around. Rather than the current system where the really good players will go prone for a short period, take out a few enemies, then move.If sniping is harder, it is less effective, therefore good players will snipe less. That should be blindingly obvious.

Surely you don't think that making short range weapons less effective would encourage everyone to seek to fight at short range.

RO2 is actually a perfect example of how this mentality affects people. When someone spawns with a bolt-action, they'll advance, get cover, then take out a few targets until they do it again. When someone (often a newbie) gets a scoped rifle, they basically will do their damnedest to never move. Why? Because they think they should be living off moss and a parrot friend.I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the matter. Are the scoped rifles in RO2 harder to use than non-scoped rifles...? In other games not to mention real world, scopes make sniping significantly easier, therefore make sniping more attractive - the polar opposite of including realistic ballistics.

gundato
12-10-2012, 08:54 PM
If sniping is harder, it is less effective, therefore good players will snipe less. That should be blindingly obvious.

Surely you don't think that making short range weapons less effective would encourage everyone to seek to fight at short range.
I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the matter. Are the scoped rifles in RO2 harder to use than non-scoped rifles...? In other games not to mention real world, scopes make sniping significantly easier, therefore make sniping more attractive - the polar opposite of including realistic ballistics.
Its not what is harder to use (also, I personally feel that adjusting the sights makes it EASIER to aim...), it is what is more "fun". The more you get to fiddle with it, the more satisfying the sniping is. But sniping isn't really conducive to "team play" for most people.

Bleekill
12-10-2012, 09:44 PM
Fucking christ the twitter feed is so obnoxious

but yeah this looks like COD MW : Frostbite 2 engine.

squirrel
24-10-2012, 11:28 AM
This game is released. Any one is playing now? How do you feel about it?

None of my friends is willing to give this a try, all saying this is going to be just like Close Quarter of Battlefield 3. And as I heard from the stores, no one rushes to buy it so the sales here is rather not impressive.

Diesel-
24-10-2012, 11:33 AM
This game is released. Any one is playing now?


Im a Huge Fan of FPS thats why i refuse to play it

squirrel
24-10-2012, 11:46 AM
Im a Huge Fan of FPS thats why i refuse to play it

I know many FPS fans including me will feel the same. But I cannot get into Battlefield 3, so this is probably my best shot to get into something similar to BF3, if this manages to be as good as BF3 that is.

But of course, if there is not enough player counts, I rather not buy it myself.

I dont think I will care much about the personal stats issue as I would care that much for Battlefield, but cybercafes here are too slow to install this. They told me they rather wait for Black Ops 2.

Shane
24-10-2012, 11:49 AM
Battlefield 3's multiplayer and this are entirely different.

Jesus_Phish
24-10-2012, 12:05 PM
And I strongly urge for cross-platform multiplayer. Is it really that difficult to implement cross-platform multiplayer?

Cross platform FPS games will never work. The console guys would be at a huge disadvantage to anyone with a mouse for aiming. Cross platform is doable, it just doesn't work for FPS at all.

b0rsuk
24-10-2012, 12:11 PM
If sniping is harder, it is less effective, therefore good players will snipe less. That should be blindingly obvious.

Stupid generalization.
One common way to make sniping harder is to make it really count only when you score a headshot. Bodyshots and legshots deal moderate or small damage. This is typical in multiplayer games. Do you honestly think snipers will be played mostly by worse players if the only way to do real damage is to score headshots consistently ?




I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to the matter. Are the scoped rifles in RO2 harder to use than non-scoped rifles...? In other games not to mention real world, scopes make sniping significantly easier, therefore make sniping more attractive - the polar opposite of including realistic ballistics.

Depends. Scoping gives you tunnel vision and you're not aware of things happening around you. Second, in somewhat faster games like Enemy Territory, scoping can easily put you at disadvantage because it requires you to stand still. You don't want to be an easy target.


* * *

There's an easy way to distinguish between good and bad snipers in FPS games:
- bad sniper spends his time where he can maximize his safety and kill/death ratios (typically a distant hill)
- good sniper seeks to maximize damage he can do especially around objectives. He's often on the move and spends most of his time unscoped.

Decent players learn to avoid hill snipers and are hit less often. This is relatively easy because bad snipers don't move. Good snipers move around and catching them is like trying to nail mist down.


Cross platform FPS games will never work. The console guys would be at a huge disadvantage to anyone with a mouse for aiming. Cross platform is doable, it just doesn't work for FPS at all.

To anyone who doesn't believe: plug in a console controller to your PC and join any server. See how far you can go against m+k users.

Mohorovicic
24-10-2012, 01:30 PM
I know many FPS fans including me will feel the same. But I cannot get into Battlefield 3, so this is probably my best shot to get into something similar to BF3

Is it time for blatant Battlefield 2142 plug?

I think it is.

bonkers
24-10-2012, 01:50 PM
And I strongly urge for cross-platform multiplayer. Is it really that difficult to implement cross-platform multiplayer?
Depends on what you want to do. From a technical standpoint this should not be too hard. But as Sony and MS control the mp environment they simply don't want to. Sony is a bit more open to this with the inclusion of Steam but afaik Portal 2 is the only title allowing cross-play between PS3 and PC as it is a cooperative game. Valve announced cross-play between PS3 and PC for CS:GO because the PS3 can use mouse+keyboard, but this was also trashed some while ago if i recall correctly.

Cross-plattform between PC and console has been done (e.g Shadowrun) but proven to be a disaster. Console players where obliterated in the few games that allowed it and so the idea was tossed into the trash. Most likely forever.
http://www.t3.com/news/microsoft-pc-gamers-are-better-than-console-gamers

Finicky
24-10-2012, 01:56 PM
Cross play outside of cooperative games is never going to happen:p
It's not exactly in the interest of pc gamers either, you want to play on an even playing field.
Stomping controller users all day (or having them on your team) is a detriment to the enjoyment you can get out of teamplay.

Also why did a 2 year old thread get bumped? (it was on top of the page so I didn't rebump it:p)

gundato
24-10-2012, 02:06 PM
I really do love the "Controllers are inherently inferior"

At super-high level gameplay, yeah, the accuracy difference will be huge (but so might analog movement).
For the average gamer, a bit of aim-lock for the controllers is all that is needed.

But yeah, these days the problem is XBOX Live and (probably) the PSN. MS definitely charges for patches and I suspect Sony does too (no idea, but I don't see why not). And I think MS does not allow for free DLC (Sony definitely allows it). So that would mean that fixing bugs would be difficult (due to the high cost of each patch) and publishers wouldn't even have the opportunity for some "free" DLC to entice people into buying the real stuff.

Jesus_Phish
24-10-2012, 02:14 PM
I really do love the "Controllers are inherently inferior"

At super-high level gameplay, yeah, the accuracy difference will be huge (but so might analog movement).
For the average gamer, a bit of aim-lock for the controllers is all that is needed.



That's like telling a cyclist that he might as well buy a bike with a small electric engine on it and just toggle that on because he's having a bit of trouble doing as well as his friends.

Even at low level controller are worse, there's no debate about it. If you need assistance for your controller such as aim-lock, that just shows you it's worse. And since we're talking about competitive FPS gaming here (even at low level) it makes controllers inferior to K+M.

gundato
24-10-2012, 02:23 PM
That's like telling a cyclist that he might as well buy a bike with a small electric engine on it and just toggle that on because he's having a bit of trouble doing as well as his friends.

Even at low level controller are worse, there's no debate about it. If you need assistance for your controller such as aim-lock, that just shows you it's worse. And since we're talking about competitive FPS gaming here (even at low level) it makes controllers inferior to K+M.

And yet, the console gamers aren't complaining...
And before you say "they are stupid and don't know any better", I play PC and console FPSes. It is just different, that is all.

It takes me a few moments, but I am just as comfortable with a mouse/keyboard, a dual shock, or a dildo and a movie nub thing (PS Move) that is often mounted in a carbine-like housing (Sharpshooter). I have more difficulty adapting to different control schemes between games on the same platform than I do from one input device to another.

For me, at least, I find the mouse best for precision, gamepad best for movement, and the PS Move just plain fun. You know, "fun". That mysterious concept that is the anathema of "proper" game design :p

Hell, I am seriously considering getting the Razer Hydra (or whatever it is called) for the PC to play games like Skyrim or DX where twitch gameplay isn't the norm.

And you might as well say "if you need a special button to slow down, that just shows you its worse" (the walk button). Or how driving/mech control is inherently wrong because you are either limited to pre-set levels of acceleration (number keys) or have to press and hold throttle up or throttle down. Whereas a gamepad is fully analog (often for acceleration and braking)

Every control input has its advantages and disadvantages. As infantry, I prefer the mouse (or move). The moment I get into a vehicle (even in ArmA), I switch to a joystick or a gamepad.

Also dude, go watch some youtubes of competitive FPS gameplay. Can get quite difficult to tell, at a glance, if it is a console or PC (assuming a capture card is used and you aren't familiar enough with the game to be able to tell how detailed the environment should be).

Do I imagine people at those super tournaments opting to use their XBOX: Probably not. Do I imagine having people with an XBOX ruining it for the people who play games for fun (not work)? Not at all. Outside of the previously mentioned patching issues.

Finicky
24-10-2012, 02:28 PM
That's like telling a cyclist that he might as well buy a bike with a small electric engine on it and just toggle that on because he's having a bit of trouble doing as well as his friends.

Even at low level controller are worse, there's no debate about it. If you need assistance for your controller such as aim-lock, that just shows you it's worse. And since we're talking about competitive FPS gaming here (even at low level) it makes controllers inferior to K+M.

Just don't even dignify it man, he trolls every post on this forum, that's what he gets off on: starting inane arguments.

Mohorovicic
24-10-2012, 02:42 PM
So is there anyone on this forum who is not considered a troll by someone else?

soldant
24-10-2012, 02:54 PM
So is there anyone on this forum who is not considered a troll by someone else?
"Troll" is the standard response for "I'm losing this argument and need to save face" or "I disagree but can't find a valid point to bring up." Don't like someone? Accuse them of trolling. Losing an argument? Call them a biased or fanboy troll. Someone has a different opinion? Call them a troll. Guy ate food for breakfast? That's a trollin'.

Derek Smart? Troll.

You? Troll.

Me? Immune. Or possibly a troll.

gundato
24-10-2012, 03:02 PM
To be fair, Derek Smart IS an asshat :p

Speaking of, what has he been doing the past few years? Ever since he switched to Universal Combat instead of Battlecruiser Millenium (or whatever the names are) he seemed to have fallen off the face of the internet. You would think the rise of indie games would benefit him, seeing as how that asshat WAS basically following the exact same model most of the "indie studios" are going for.

Finicky
24-10-2012, 03:23 PM
"Troll" is the standard response for "I'm losing this argument and need to save face" or "I disagree but can't find a valid point to bring up." Don't like someone? Accuse them of trolling. Losing an argument? Call them a biased or fanboy troll. Someone has a different opinion? Call them a troll. Guy ate food for breakfast? That's a trollin'.

Derek Smart? Troll.

You? Troll.

Me? Immune. Or possibly a troll.
OR it's simply not worth dignifying because it's such an inane statment?
Like when a christian tries to tell you the world is 10.000 years old? You just go UGH I'm not even going to go there again.

I'll dignify you though : you are saying that a controller (which works like a joystick) is even remotely capable of controlling a camera in a 3d world compared to a mouse?

How could anyone who has ever used both claim this with a serious face? The way they register and handle input is completely different.
With a joystick you nudge the camera in a direction at a limited range of set speeds and you attempt to stop the motion when the crosshair moves over the target.

With a mouse you are in direct control of the camera , there is no nudging, your movement is translated 1:1.

The learning curve for a mouse and keyboard caps hundreds of times higher than that of a joystick for camera control (aiming in an fps)

Using a soft aimbot in an attempt to compensate does not change this... putting driving assists on maximum including autosteering and autobreaking while i steer with the arrows vs a 900 degree wheel with pedals does not suddenly make the arrow keys (or an analog stick which has about 90 degrees of motion) in any way even remotely equal.
That is what bothers me, I'm under no illusion that arrow streering in racing wheels is remotely comparable to using a 900 degree wheel, will the arrows do in a pinch? Sure, is it good that they exist for those poor sods who don't have a wheel ? Sure!
But that is the difference, I'm not delusional about it, unlike the batshit pants on head crazy people who genuinly believe this for a controller. And that is why you get this reaction...



But hey, when the input methods are so fundamentally different and when the games made for controllers are so fundamentally different (maps designed for close encounters, bullet hose weapons, 'hardcore mode' ,narrow fov, ADS, aimbot ) and when the promises of cross platform play made at the start of this online console revolution never came to fruition, it must be because I'm the troll.
Yes that just has to be it.

If I were you I'd feel insulted that I fell for the snap on autoaim kill montages from games designed from the ground up to mimick the crazy frag movie experiences you used to see in ut/quake/tribes movies.


You know what, I just remembered something to illustrate my point!
They ported quake 3 to XBLA without aim assists.
Look at it, and cringe, it is not a pretty sight!
This is the best 'skilled' video I could find... as in he can actually hit something if he runs up to people with a shotgun and has good eye hand coordination with a controller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h6Vk1W8pEc&t=2m53s

.... did you watch it? This is why those shitty snap on aim assists exist, else it just becomes really SAD to watch and play.
Go look for yourself and shake your head at how painful to watch the other videos are.

On pc it goes from helpless flailing new players who don't have any eye hand coordination yet (like a 7 year old who throws his first baseball) to some random tier 4 clanny nobody who put in some good practice and plays to have a good time ( e.g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMStLyNCxcM or hundreds of other videos) to talented people that put everybody else to shame and give the rest of the community something to aspire to... (http://www.own3d.tv/derQuaker/watch/10056 )

Which again... is the point... the mouse is so much better for controlling a camera and aiming that the learning curve is infinitely much longer and capped infinitely much higher.
You could just listen with your eyes closed and listen for the amount of hit bleeps vs shots fired and still get the point.
Yet somehow you don't want to see it.
But that's ok, I'm just trolling.

Watch the xbox video again afterwards, OUCH.

gundato
24-10-2012, 03:49 PM
OR it's simply not worth dignifying because it's such an inane statment?
Like when a christian tries to tell you the world is 10.000 years old? You just go UGH I'm not even going to go there again.
At least you manged to include an example that encourages religious intolerance.


I'll dignify you though : you are saying that a controller (which works like a joystick) is even remotely capable of controlling a camera in a 3d world compared to a mouse?
Works for military drones and most remote controlled devices that are meant to be used in the field (and I think the ones meant to be used from across the globe also still use joysticks/analog sticks/POV hats for camera control...)


How could anyone who has ever used both claim this with a serious face? The way they register and handle input is completely different.
With a joystick you nudge the camera in a direction at a limited range of set speeds and you attempt to stop the motion when the crosshair moves over the target.

With a mouse you are in direct control of the camera , there is no nudging, your movement is translated 1:1.
Really? Your mouse takes into account rotation? When I move my mouse to the left, I know I am saying "Rotate view to the left". In fact, I think the Razer Hydra is currently the ONLY thing out there that has "1:1 movement" since it takes into account rotation as well as XYZ coordinates. And even that doesn't take into account how a change in perspective can impact things. There is a reason that the field of computer vision considers efficient algorithms to calibrate cameras to be very important.

Also:
With a mouse, you nudge the camera in a direction at a limited range of set speeds (since we are defining analog movement as that, apparently...) and you attempt to stop the motion when the crosshair moves over the target.

Oh, I get it, you were being sarcastic. The only possible explanation :p


The learning curve for a mouse and keyboard caps hundreds of times higher than that of a joystick for camera control (aiming in an fps)
I would actually love to see a study for this, but I'll give it to you since I am bigoted enough to believe it too :p


Using a soft aimbot in an attempt to compensate does not change this... putting driving assists on maximum including autosteering and autobreaking while i steer with the arrows vs a 900 degree wheel with pedals does not suddenly make the arrow keys (or an analog stick which has about 90 degrees of motion) in any way even remotely equal.
So we do agree that the mouse/keyboard is not the be-all, end-all of every possible kind of input. PROGRESS!!!


I really thought the consolite internet fanbase got past the silly 'controller is a matter of preference and just as good' delusional phase from 2 years ago.
Nah. I blame how just about every game is cross-platform these days so there are actual comparisons that can be made and, much like with all forms of bigotry, comparisons and rational thought tend to trump bias.


To humor you some more but this is already giving me a headache considering how ridiculous the premise of controller aiming is to begin with : just looking at the core design of console shooters speaks volumes of how much more cumbersome the controls are:
-narrow field of views to constantly play 'zoomed in'
-small maps and large player models (cod model sizes vs cs/ut model sizes , ut model sizes vs ut3 console multiplatform game model sizes)
-aim down sights in an attempt to add another zoom and another aim modifier with agressive snap on autoaim as a bonus
-narrow corridors with monster closets (you know, the DOOM type that pc gaming moved past once the mouse became standard and they didn't have to be designed with keyboard aiming in mind anymore.
-bullset hose hitscan weapons that kill in a third of a second, vs high uptime requirements of classic hitscan weapons
-de emphasising projectile weapons in faster paced games
-headshot? center mass works too!
All these are clear consessions to prevent the player from feeling like they are helplessly flailing around to get a kill with a controller.

And, of course, all of those ONLY exist because of consoles and what not. Because the PC has never had any of those design choices be made in the entire history of gaming...



But hey, when the input methods are so fundamentally different and when the games made for controllers are so fundamentally different , and when the promises of cross platform play made at the start of this online console revolution never came to fruition, it must be because I'm the troll.
Yes that just has to be it. There is no way that a consolite 'owning it up' in cod with his controller is not playing a slimmed down version of with a lower learning curve and cap.
Nobody is whining about trolls except for you. The rest of us are trying to actually listen to other people and make counter-arguments.


If I were you I'd feel insulted that I fell for the snap on autoaim kill montages from games designed from the ground up to mimick the crazy frag movie experiences you used to see in ut/quake/tribes movies.
Okay. Shame we don't really have games like UT, Quake, or Tribes anymore (unless you count Tribes Ascend, and that has been divisive).

Jesus_Phish
24-10-2012, 03:57 PM
So we do agree that the mouse/keyboard is not the be-all, end-all of every possible kind of input. PROGRESS!!!


Who in this thread said it was? We're talking about FPS games here.

For driving games, K+M is a handicap and controllers are much better. Steering wheels and pedals are even better.
Same for fighting games where joypads and fighting sticks trump keyboard.

Finicky
24-10-2012, 04:24 PM
Who in this thread said it was? We're talking about FPS games here.

For driving games, K+M is a handicap and controllers are much better. Steering wheels and pedals are even better.
Same for fighting games where joypads and fighting sticks trump keyboard.
As I said, don't go into it, I did for Soldat and this is what happens.
Just let him believe in his pie in the sky for your own sanity.

Going to leave one more thing here: Gundato is obviously a rapper since he feels the need to turn his gun sideways.
Pro tip: the bullet comes out of the barrel spinning and is round, it doesn't really matter all that much how sideways you hold the gun.

gundato
24-10-2012, 05:06 PM
Who in this thread said it was? We're talking about FPS games here.

For driving games, K+M is a handicap and controllers are much better. Steering wheels and pedals are even better.
Same for fighting games where joypads and fighting sticks trump keyboard.

That was mocking another thread where people were arguing that mouse and keyboard needs to be for everything Apologies, but I found it funny and couldn't resist making a jab :p

But even then, there are people who absolutely love using a mouse and keyboard for that crap.

Hell, take Mechwarrior (specifically 4). Everyone knows the "right" way to play it is with a joystick (preferably a full-on flight system). But it is hard to deny that the precision aiming of PPCs with a mouse has its advantages, and people love to camp and snipe in multiplayer. Is the joystick inferior? Arguable. Is it more fun? Scientific fact :p


Going to leave one more thing here: Gundato is obviously a rapper since he feels the need to turn his gun sideways.
Pro tip: the bullet comes out of the barrel spinning and is round, it doesn't really matter all that much how sideways you hold the gun.
Uhm... what?

o0Slickman0o
30-10-2012, 05:21 AM
There are only so many modern day military shooters I can play. This one is again, nothing new, so its a pass from me. WHERE IS THE INOVATION ???!!!

soldant
30-10-2012, 08:44 AM
There are only so many modern day military shooters I can play. This one is again, nothing new, so its a pass from me. WHERE IS THE INOVATION ???!!!
To be fair, not every game needs to be innovative to be good. The genre is stale though so something new or original would definitely help. The real issue is that there's absolutely no appeal to this game at all - we've done this a hundred thousand times. Modern warfare is the new WW2.

Plenty of games don't innovate but are still good. XCOM isn't particularly innovative, it's just an update to the 90s XCOM. Dishonored for the most part isn't innovative, it borrows from a bunch of other games (predominately Deus Ex). HL2 wasn't innovative - it just improved on the scripted sequences from HL1. But these are all good games...

coldvvvave
30-10-2012, 09:21 AM
Is it time for blatant Battlefield 2142 plug?

I think it is.
Do people still play 2142?

Mohorovicic
30-10-2012, 09:35 AM
Some, unfortunately the community is divided between people with 1.50(latest official patch) and 1.51("final" patch, adds few community maps, removes DRM, includes Northern Strike expansion, some minor bugfixes and security updates) since 1.51 was never put on autoupdate.

Either way last time I checked there were few active servers in pretty much every region. Hell, last time I checked you could reliably get games going in the demo! Since the game costs next to nothing(as Northern Strike is free) and it's the best Battlefield hands down you really have no excuse. Except the fact it's on Origin. But then again if you're willing to play BF3 you already threw in the towel anyway, so you have nothing to lose.

bonkers
30-10-2012, 02:00 PM
2142 did require a Gamespy for mp, didn't it?
Thinking about buying it as it currently is 50% off on Origin. But which would mean using Origin...

shaydeeadi
30-10-2012, 02:09 PM
You can freely remove Origin after you have installed it as it does not require it to be open or installed to run from what I remember, as it has it's own account login in game, the same with BF2.

I also remember the community being quite small though. But always a titan server to jump on to.

squirrel
30-10-2012, 02:45 PM
I also remember the community being quite small though. But always a titan server to jump on to.

This is enough to kill an online game. An online game's dead or alive is determined within the first week of launch from my experience. Insufficient player counts within 1st week and I often forget about it.

But here is another issue: Battlefield 4 beta. I suspect that EA may not be as generous as last time to offer everyone access to the beta. But of course, by the time they launch Battlefield 4 beta, this game will already have been past tense, so it would be really stupid to screw up the promotion of Battlefield by then.

shaydeeadi
30-10-2012, 03:10 PM
I meant playing 2142 a few months back, the game has been out for quite a while. About 5 years now I'd guess.

Mohorovicic
30-10-2012, 03:54 PM
2142 did require a Gamespy for mp, didn't it?

No. Punkbuster.


You can freely remove Origin after you have installed it as it does not require it to be open or installed to run from what I remember, as it has it's own account login in game, the same with BF2.

Can you double-check this? Because if it's true I'm going to buy it like, right fucking now.

shaydeeadi
30-10-2012, 04:31 PM
Ok gimme half an hour to redownload it and find out.

Yep, it totally works for the old Battlefield games. Obviously you will need to keep the 'Origin Games' folder but Origin will not remove them from your HD and only warns you they may not work when you uninstall it.

You might want to run them in administrator mode, and maybe force V-sync on control panel of your card of choice but they definitely work. This is nothing to do with Origin though and would happen if it was installed or not.

Also Punkbuster... You know, I never thought there was a worse anti-cheat system than this until I got DayZ and had to use BattlEye, holy crap is that a shitfest.