On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter ?
- Thread starter Jordan Deam
- Start date
And I, on the other hand, wholeheartedly endorse this opinion. Bad Company 2 combines the most dynamic and tactically-interesting multiplayer FPS experience with terrible network issues.Wicky_42 said:
The highs are as high as they come, but they only make the lows hit even harder.
Hardly. It does not have some degree of realism because it uses real guns (regardless of their actual usage/expected usage in any armed forces) and is set in the modern day-ish kind of time period. My point was that if it was 'realistic' the damage values per gun might reflect that, and not be more or less randomly assigned to each weapon.300lb. Samoan said:
Borderlands goes the other way from any semblance of realism. It intentionally goes to whacky and silly and guns that shoot lightning. COD doesn't though. In my opinion, it doesn't even try for realism, it just tries to appear as if it's going for realism. You know, like a movie like The Hurt Locker. It's not even trying to achieve the level of technical accuracy of Generation Kill. It's a lot like Black Hawk Down, but like they let the Hollywood types who said "fuck it, let's just add a pile of extra muzzle flashes and gunshots to goddamned everything" have a lot more control from the get go.
Your browser doesn't work? What a shame. You might want to get that looked into. I'd also recommend fixing the ping issue by purchasing, say...a moderate-speed USB internet connection (or, alternately fixing the server browser). I did, and now I own n00bs at the speed of eight kills a minute (no kidding).Wicky_42 said:
[sub]H.T. Black also endorses moderate-speed internet connections.[/sub]
COD, for the most part, is pretty simple. You see bad guys, you shoot 'em, you get shot, respawn quickly, rinse, repeat. There typically is much strategy. need to a cap a point? Rush rush rush. Need to defend it? Shoot shoot shoot M203. You can join objective gametypes and just go by those simple rules, and you'll do pretty goddamned good, even without communicating with your team. Try doing that in BC2. Not likely that it'll do much besides getting you killed.Oyster^^ said:
Now then, I haven't played the BC2 singleplayer, so maybe it's so heavily similar to MW2, and completely different from BC1's SP, but for BC1, you had a wide variety of options. Strong point the enemy held town in a humvee? Sure! Pick off guys with a sniper rifle or go charging headfirst with an assault rifle or SMG or shotgun? Your call. Light tank or heavy or some sort of careless daredevil and head out only with a RPG? it's all up to you. Come in from the side or the front or open a few holes in the wall? Your choice.
MW2's choices consist of taking the alley on the left, or the alley on the right; and the game usually says "Roach! Take the alley on the left and flank them!" or something similar. Never mind that they play differently. MW2 is very speedy and quick and all, with sensitivity ranging from "slow" to "the flash". BC2 on full sensitivity takes quite some time.
In my opinion they're only "identical" in that they're FPS's and you shoot people in them, with modern-era guns.
Elaborate?Stubee said:
BC2 all the way btw.
No more who gets to the first camping spot first wins, because now i can put a giant hole where your precious sniper window was. Plus there is few things more satisfying than tracer darting someone on a machine gun and letting the rocket fly (oh and getting your friends dog tags)
Ah, the man's funny. Yeah, of COURSE it's my bad that I can't find a ping that reads lower than 999 or merely '-' in the browser, and that I havn't managed to find a game with lower than 300 ping. I mean, the fact that I can play Crysis perfectly fine, browsing servers happily, cherry-picking 30 ping servers whenever I desire must be irrelevantHT_Black said:
I don't care how fast you "own n00bs". I do care that Dice seemed to have issues with their software that they are 'aware of'. Fat lot of use that is.
So true. Which makes the ABYSMAL network issues SO much more frustrating.Dorian Cornelius Jasper said:
Anyone got any hints beyond the useless 'run shortcut as admin'?
I can't help but feel that anyone reeled in by any of the marketing hyperbole about BC2 being a direct competitor/replacement for MW2 simply hasn't been paying attention to the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises. Frankly, I was getting worried (until the demo) that they had somehow abandoned a relatively tried-and-true Battlefield formula in chase of the Call of Duty fanbase.
I like both flavors for different reasons (although I found the campaign in BC2 less satisfying than the one in BC, and I blame the influence of Call of Duty on that), and I'm glad that marketing hyperbole is all it ended up being.
I like both flavors for different reasons (although I found the campaign in BC2 less satisfying than the one in BC, and I blame the influence of Call of Duty on that), and I'm glad that marketing hyperbole is all it ended up being.
The opening to the article is all screwed up. Of course these two games aren't fighting head to head. Competing for sales yes, but that is not to say that one can outright beat the other; as long as both games make a significant profit, both are winners, regardless of who makes the most money or is generally the better game.
The only conclusion that can be squeezed out of this article is that these two similar games go about things differently. I don't think that is enough for a proper article.
The only conclusion that can be squeezed out of this article is that these two similar games go about things differently. I don't think that is enough for a proper article.
My two cents: BC2 will not reach the success of MW2 precisely because MW2 came out first so if someone was interested in buying either they already bought MW2.
Well analyzed. Me, and I believe many other fans of FPSs, have also reached similar conclusions with these two games in an analytical comparison.
I think this is funny to be honest as I think "we", the fan base, are being played. Overall both games have sold a lot of copies and any implication of direct, heated competition between them just exists to generate hype and maybe draw people into buying one or both to see what the big deal is. It might have been an issue if they hadn't both already succeeded in a big way.
That said, I've long felt what the industry actually needs is a "two games enter, one game leaves" type format for real. Or more accuratly, that I think games should directly compete with each other. One reason why I criticize the game industry is that it engages in cartel behavior like price setting, and does not engage in direct competition. You see games being scheduled carefully to avoid competing with each other directly, specifically because if they did that (which is incidently how things were intended to work at least in the US) it would lower overall profits by demanding each company to try and create the highest quality product for the lowest price... and undercut their competition.
Overall we would benefit if say "Bad Company 2", and "Modern Warfare 2" were released at the same time and fighting each other for the same user base. But this did not happen, they were released months apart specifically for that reason. Heck, even non-shooter games were pushed up into the next year specifically to avoid competition with other big titles.
Competition breeds creativity, and really I think the lack of any real competition, outside of what is said to generate hype, is part of why we have seen quite a bit of stagnation within the games industry in general, and a lot less improvement and innovation that people expected. There isn't much actual NEED for it. What's more with everyone agreeing to charge the same prices, there is no need for people to try and find ways to charge consumers less to undercut the competition, it's all about how much they can gouge with those fixed prices.
In the end all that BC2 vs. MW2 comparisons amount to is fanboy comparisons and arguements that generate hype/free advertising, and show both companies that really they don't NEED to innovate and try and outdo each other within the genere because the goverment certainly isn't forcing them to compete directly, and the fans really don't care about innovation except to occasionally engage in a whine fest about how while a game is decent they somehow think there could have been more.
That said, I've long felt what the industry actually needs is a "two games enter, one game leaves" type format for real. Or more accuratly, that I think games should directly compete with each other. One reason why I criticize the game industry is that it engages in cartel behavior like price setting, and does not engage in direct competition. You see games being scheduled carefully to avoid competing with each other directly, specifically because if they did that (which is incidently how things were intended to work at least in the US) it would lower overall profits by demanding each company to try and create the highest quality product for the lowest price... and undercut their competition.
Overall we would benefit if say "Bad Company 2", and "Modern Warfare 2" were released at the same time and fighting each other for the same user base. But this did not happen, they were released months apart specifically for that reason. Heck, even non-shooter games were pushed up into the next year specifically to avoid competition with other big titles.
Competition breeds creativity, and really I think the lack of any real competition, outside of what is said to generate hype, is part of why we have seen quite a bit of stagnation within the games industry in general, and a lot less improvement and innovation that people expected. There isn't much actual NEED for it. What's more with everyone agreeing to charge the same prices, there is no need for people to try and find ways to charge consumers less to undercut the competition, it's all about how much they can gouge with those fixed prices.
In the end all that BC2 vs. MW2 comparisons amount to is fanboy comparisons and arguements that generate hype/free advertising, and show both companies that really they don't NEED to innovate and try and outdo each other within the genere because the goverment certainly isn't forcing them to compete directly, and the fans really don't care about innovation except to occasionally engage in a whine fest about how while a game is decent they somehow think there could have been more.
So it tries for realism and doesn't accomplish it, so it isn't realistic at all? So what are the damage values of those weapons in real life, you got the figures on that? I imagine not, because in real life you can't hardly predict the damage a gun/ammo combination will inflict, let alone accurately quantize it. The best games can do is approximate, and as you put it "appear to be going for realism". Whether or not those values are an appropriate reflection of reality is a subjective opinion, but considering the work it takes to balance a multiplayer game I'd say it's hardly random and it still doesn't have a damn thing to do with the discussion. 'Approaching realism' IS video game realism, whether it meets your stringent standards is something completely separate.DirkGently said:
And to say that comparing these two games is illogical and stupid, is just a reflection of your own short-sightedness. This is an article about video game design, not weapon damage values.