The not buying an XBone/PS4 thread of waiting for all this to blow over
-
GurtTractor wrote:Is anyone else not actually bothered about Titanfall? It looks fun and all and I'm sure it'll be great with forumers, but it's still just competitive online MP. I was done with all that some years ago, particularly the twitchy stuff. Slow(er) and considered is more interesting to me these days.
I think that most modern FPSes are inherently random by semi-failure of design. There can be and is a lot of skilful play, but that's minimal guarantee of success in laggy, bilateral-of-map-and-resources environments.
I know I bang on about Uncharted 2 like it was some kind of MP panacea, but it did lend itself to tactically coordinated teams, allowing them to bend its maps to their strengths; to apply pressure to force choke points and so on.
In contrast, I think the majority of FPS maps are unyielding tubs, large enough to provide their combatants with every opportunity for equality, but rarely ever shaping their experiences. Good maps bend to smart teams' efforts. Such maps are poor for lone rangers, however, which is why I said semi-failure up there. If I designed an FPS, I'd deliberately divide my maps into single-player and team-based ones, locking out parties from the former.
As it is, I think you can play really well and score badly, and vice versa. In the land of equality-chasing symmetry, deserve's got nothing to do with it. Perks and boosters be damned, say I. Players and teams can certainly affect the equality of play, but unless this forces their opponents to adapt (map-shaping), it doesn't interest me, nor strike me as intellectually stimulating.
One complaint I have about most online games now is their overabundance of 'stuffing' in-between the contest of players' minds. (Uncharted 2 was about one-third combat ability, one-fifth luck, and the rest was down to your own self-taught tactical awareness.) -
What's this Titanfall everyone's harping on about?![quote=Skerret]Unless someone very obviously insults your loved ones with intent, take nothing here seriously.[/quote] -
If someone does a Metroid-beating Metroid game I'd buy a machine for that probably. -
Does anyone like Metroid? Or is Super Metroid an exclusive chubby-launcher, B?
I bought the original during a holiday in Carmarthen in '91, but I thought it was a bit bob, so I played Castlevania II instead. (Though I mostly drove around in one of those four-person pedal cars. When I wasn't playing with Velcro-pad ball-catchers, like. A blessed childhood.) -
I've never played any Metroid game. True fax.
-
I've never given Super the time o' day. Nice intro, slow start.
Ditto Prime. -
Gonzo wrote:JMW wrote:Titanfall has got me closest to caving on an xbone, it's a great 'exclusive' for them to have. It looks fantastic. But it's a £100 game, maybe £200 at the absolute tops, it's not a £500 game.
No. If it were on ps4 it would be a no brainer to jump in, because the console is cheaper and its specs are better. I'm hoping the Bono drops in price after the initial push off titanfall. At 299 I would consider, but my guess is that's 2015 at the earliest.
Don't they pay lawyers anymore?
-
Plan XIII wrote:I've never played any Metroid game. True fax.
Jesus Christ man! -
Things the gaming world needs more of IMO (similar themes/gameplay/mood etc): Metroid Prime, Myst, Shadow Of The Colossus, SW Battlefront, D. Souls, Elite. That's what I'm pining after anyway.
-
Gotta love Dave. You should move up here and do criminal defence. You'll never be rich exactly, but I'm guessing you've alteady made your choice about that sort of law. At least we still have legal aid up here.
-
Scottish law wins. You know you want to. If Scotland does go yes it should simply say, "Liberals welcome".
-
I am in. I am quarter Scottish, that should be enough right?
-
Nah man I am in, you can't stop me.
-
Escape wrote:GurtTractor wrote:Is anyone else not actually bothered about Titanfall? It looks fun and all and I'm sure it'll be great with forumers, but it's still just competitive online MP. I was done with all that some years ago, particularly the twitchy stuff. Slow(er) and considered is more interesting to me these days.
I think that most modern FPSes are inherently random by semi-failure of design. There can be and is a lot of skilful play, but that's minimal guarantee of success in laggy, bilateral-of-map-and-resources environments.
I know I bang on about Uncharted 2 like it was some kind of MP panacea, but it did lend itself to tactically coordinated teams, allowing them to bend its maps to their strengths; to apply pressure to force choke points and so on.
In contrast, I think the majority of FPS maps are unyielding tubs, large enough to provide their combatants with every opportunity for equality, but rarely ever shaping their experiences. Good maps bend to smart teams' efforts. Such maps are poor for lone rangers, however, which is why I said semi-failure up there. If I designed an FPS, I'd deliberately divide my maps into single-player and team-based ones, locking out parties from the former.
As it is, I think you can play really well and score badly, and vice versa. In the land of equality-chasing symmetry, deserve's got nothing to do with it. Perks and boosters be damned, say I. Players and teams can certainly affect the equality of play, but unless this forces their opponents to adapt (map-shaping), it doesn't interest me, nor strike me as intellectually stimulating.
One complaint I have about most online games now is their overabundance of 'stuffing' in-between the contest of players' minds. (Uncharted 2 was about one-third combat ability, one-fifth luck, and the rest was down to your own self-taught tactical awareness.)
I've been seeing complaints like this quite a bit recently. Too an extent you can't demand that public games ever lead to the sort of gameplay you're talking about. I've played a lot of counter strike, where maps, gameplay and rule sets are all designed for highly skilled team combat but if you play with randomly put together teams in 5v5 defuse on Dust 2 at a fairly low level (the PC version of cs:go has ranks in the 'competitive' playlists) your experience will be radically different to the experience of properly organised teams.
So actually Halo can still (despite the devs seeming best efforts) be a game of individual skill and teamwork on maps designed for 4v4 teamplay. However, you'll probably never experience that unless you get good enough at the game and go looking in the right places. Back in the days of Halo 3 i enjoyed amazing games in the MLG playlist where my 3 teammates, who the matchmaking system had randomly out me with, and I played proper team Halo. The MLG playlist gave me the best and worst of experiences actually.
Problem is developers seem to be less and less bothered about encouraging that sort of experience and are going for generic game experiences which actively encourage 12 random players to be randomly put together and fight it out in a chaotic and random battle field where 'teams' might exist on the score board but don't in reality. I mean, take titanfall, the game is great in lots of ways but what sort of 'competitive' FPS doesn't launch with private matches?GT: Knight640 -
I fucking hated all Gears games online. Third person multi player is yuck.
Great co-op campaign though. -
Probably true mate.
I'm also shit at FPS games online! -
On sticking with games... the reward should be getting better. A game's shooting and movement mechanics need to be enjoyable and deep enough for improving at the actual game to be reward in itself. The problem with that approach is it necessarily makes things harder for the newcomer, since if his rewards going to be improvement he's going to have to start out pretty crap. If you're new it will be challenging, and it will continue to be challenging. That didn't used to be a problem but nowadays, in the xbox live era, and after cod4 popularised it (a game that has a lot to answer for) a game cannot be challenging to begin with because otherwise it won't keep players. And if it's not challenging to begin with it'll basically never be challenging. And if it's not challenging the reward can't be getting better, it's got to be something different. That's where ranking up and unlocks come in. I can't imagine GOW being made now, I certainly can't imagine a successful GOW being made now.
The solution to all this, the solution that halos devs hilariously got rid of, demonstrating how cretinous they really were, is a ranking system. Put players who are equally bad together and allow them to improve, learn and enjoy the actual game without facing the impossible task of enjoying a game you're being rinsed in.
It saddens me that movement systems like Quake's, which is just hard to do but incredibly deep and massively rewarding once you start to 'get it' are probably long gone because no Dev is going to have the balls or creativity to make gameplay mechanics that are challenging and deep and allow real improvement. Titanfall's movement is encouraging on that front but i wouldn't be surprised to see a nerf when people complain about just how good people are.
To use an analogy we've got a situation in modern competitive FPS games where basketball has just being invented, the masses are playing, but everyone much prefers the version of the game with a 6 foot hoop, and so real basketball dies out, and we never get to see the truly elite player doing incredible things.GT: Knight640 -
I simply havent got the hours in the day to pour into an online First Person Shooter. I'm like Level 3 in BF 4 and Ive owned it since November.
-
Yeah I pretty much agree with all that. (@Knight)
Has anyone played Shootmania? I tried to play it but couldn't run it satisfactorily. It seems a nice idea but it's quite characterless. -
I was awesome at Gears MP. Joined a game with Jim, realised I didn't know wtf I was doing, then quit.
-
Back to Gears 3, have they? I take it that's a map supply issue largely.
-
Knight wrote:The solution to all this, the solution that halos devs hilariously got rid of, demonstrating how cretinous they really were, is a ranking system. Put players who are equally bad together and allow them to improve, learn and enjoy the actual game without facing the impossible task of enjoying a game you're being rinsed in.
I agree with a lot of what you've said Knight, but this bit hits the nail on the head.
I played Halo 2 as a lone wolf, which is unsurprising as it was the first game I took online. I'd make steady progress, then I'd come up against players and teams who'd wipe the fucking floor with me and the nubs I was lumped with.
But I learned something from those drubbings, and as they weren't happening all the time I didn't really mind them. If I lost three on the bounce my level would drop and I'd be back amongst the childlike fumblers who I could dominate with my newfound knowledge.
Fuck knows how matchmaking is handled now, stuff like Battlefield has a TrueSkill rating or some such bollocks, but I don't think it matters a jot when you can party up with whoever you want and switch teams at will.
I miss playing with and against people who are at the same skill level as me, it made for some great matches.
-
I generally prefer co-op or forge mode type chaotic shenanigans to competitive MP anyway.
-
Those don't sound gamebreaking, what gives.
-
Absolutely. Quicker reloading is fair enough.
Why do the oldies actually prefer the damage boost then? -
Gonzo wrote:The random factor is an issue. Never played uc2 beyond a brief dip, but mechanically it seemed a poor man's gears. Gears 1 and 2, as flawed as they were, had great scope for both teamwork and clutch factor, personally this is what I look for. Unfortunately teamwork requires community. I actually joined a clan of kids for gowJ, they were very good but they all thought I was some kind of amazing assist player when all I did was try to see where everyone was and talk a lot. They argued with each other and broke the team up before long. If I can find just three other, older guys like me, who no longer care about penis size, but want to play as a team, and get that thrill, o would buy any console, even Bono, tomorrow. But it's hard; gtav on ps3 showed very little maturity or coms there, as for 360, everyone's off to do their own thing. Personally, I choose community and team over everything else. I'm on gown again, tearing people apart - all the good players have gone back to gow3 - and I mean tearing them apart, MVP in 90% of games. I am utterly bored, because I have turned into most gears players these days - hunting for kills.
I like to think there is one more community experience in mp, but finding it is the problem. I don't think you can write off fps's like escape does, it doesn't matter. You need something you interesting, tactical, and communal. Hallo day Z, and hopefully titanfall and that ubisoft game.[/quote
I would play with you. Mad shouty fool that you are.PSN - minkymu -
You just lost the close bracket at the end of your end quote tag. -
Still no close bracket.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837