On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter ?

[Enigmers]

Yeah, that's super pedantic, but when you just say "classical" that's not what comes to peoples minds.

Edit:

Oh yes, that was a fantastic article. I was honestly expecting some bias but it was very analytical and straightforward.

I think when he said "Classical" he meant that it was more structured with more rigid rules, whereas Jazz is more improvised and free-flowing. (You could say that MW2 is like Baroque music, which is even more structured.)

 

[Plurralbles]

hmm... BC2 sounds way more fun to me.

Vehicles. and Destructo-environs.

Fck yeah.

 

[Fenixius]

On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter...

Emotional intensity versus spontaneity, developer intent versus player agency - there's no winner in these "conflicts," no matter what EA's marketing department or Activision's SEC filings tell you. In fact, they're not battles at all, but rather questions. Should storytelling come at the expense of gameplay? Should players be allowed to make choices that go against the developers' wishes? How much of the responsibility for "fun" lies in the hands of the developers, and how much at the feet of players?

Read Full Article

Ooh. Now that gives me an idea.

^ What the picture says.

Seriously, let's experiment with other combinations. I bet it'd work out really, really well!

Edit: Also, upon consideration, the lower left quadrant of the square could possibly house something like Prototype. I think that'd fit there...?

 

[Fenixius]

I think this is funny to be honest as I think "we", the fan base, are being played.

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.

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.

Well, written, dude. Someone should write a full-length article on the topic, because I think that bears further investigation / discussion.

 

[Wandrecanada]

On the Ball: Two Shooters Enter...

Emotional intensity versus spontaneity, developer intent versus player agency - there's no winner in these "conflicts," no matter what EA's marketing department or Activision's SEC filings tell you. In fact, they're not battles at all, but rather questions. Should storytelling come at the expense of gameplay? Should players be allowed to make choices that go against the developers' wishes? How much of the responsibility for "fun" lies in the hands of the developers, and how much at the feet of players?

Read Full Article

Ooh. Now that gives me an idea.

^ What the picture says.

Seriously, let's experiment with other combinations. I bet it'd work out really, really well!

Edit: Also, upon consideration, the lower left quadrant of the square could possibly house something like Prototype. I think that'd fit there...?

Look up a game called Brink being developed by Bethesda.

 

[HT_Black]

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 irrelevant

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.

Huh...I ususally get pings of less than half a millesecond, and I'm running a beat-up old wireless. My apologies-- I wasn't aware that your computer was as capable as it is. Moreover, I assumed that you knew that '-' meant "Perfect" (or at least it does on my computer).

'Fraid I've nothing else in the way of help, though; I'll go beat up a DICE developer and see what I find as soon as I can.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

Team Fortress 2 still beats both of them.

Agreed.
*flame war ensues*

 

[Lord Kofun]

The article itself lacks a point. It declares a cohesive view, but doesn't actually get anywhere. It reminds me a little of daytime television, stand-up comedy, and politics. It says a lot without saying anything at all.

The article states that they are the same game going about their goal in a different way, so they can't be going "toe-to-toe." Clause omitted, the fact remains that they are the same game. They can be compared very easily.

If the developers took a different approach, so be it. Let the people who love the guided adventure have at those who adore the chaos.

The trouble with such a tightly scripted sequence of events is that it delivers that tension and pacing extremely well, once. After that you know what happens next.
I'll gladly lose the set pieces if it means I can play games with an air of unpredictability to them, it's much more satisfying to react to and overcome the things you didn't see coming.

Amen, brother. Couldn't have said it better myself.
MW2 did an excellent job with the tension, but it pretty much evaporates after the second go.

 

[YuheJi]

For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse Bad company 2 over MW2.

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

Oh cool, so it has all of the exact same problems I always had with Battlefield 2? Groovy.
I'll make sure to play it on XBox, sigh.

From what I've heard, all three platforms have had connection issues. I have it on PC, and I definitely have trouble getting servers to show up. For some reason, the favorited servers and history servers show up no problem, so whenever I do get the servers to show, I try to favorite as many that look interesting as possible. Though if I ask it to just put me in a random server, it does so just fine.

 

[Fenixius]

Look up a game called Brink being developed by Bethesda.

Aah, yes, this I have heard of. But I would have thought that it fits into the same slot at Battlefield, doesn't it? Freedom of movement, class-based, large-scale objectives...?

 

[Wandrecanada]

Look up a game called Brink being developed by Bethesda.

Aah, yes, this I have heard of. But I would have thought that it fits into the same slot at Battlefield, doesn't it? Freedom of movement, class-based, large-scale objectives...?

Well I figure it's a game that's on the path between the two. Almost the majority of the game is fueled by a kind of player choice while still having the core experience "on rails" so to speak. There are many objectives you can do as a side mission but there will always be a scripted "main plot" where each stage shunts you down a very specific area. Each of the main plot "quests" look like they all comprise scripted segments.

If Bethesda can pull it off we'll see a game that allows us the freedom of unique character customization like Rainbow Vegas, with a smattering of voluntary missions connected to a wider ranging story that is advanced via a scripted main plot chain of missions. Even better is that we can play it by ourselves, with friends or against real humans.

 

[Fenixius]

If Bethesda can pull it off...

My faith in Bethesda has never been very high, to be honest, so I am a bit worried. But hey, so much good stuff coming out, even if it's bad it won't be the end of the world.

 

[Irridium]

I just wish Bad Company 2 didn't get rid of all the humor from the first series.
Its what set the first game apart from other FPS games.

It was a great fit for the game, and worked well. The characters were likable, and had a personality instead of the usual "grunt grunt shoot" personality of every other soldier in games.


It was a fun, funny, and lighthearted story about 4 guys who get tossed aside by their government, so they decide to look for gold. And it went straight to another "gritty" and "serious" story about Russia invading the U.S.

Just by looking at the trailers and intros from the first, where they poke fun at Metal Gear Solid [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59k8_HhcOI&feature=channel] and Gears of War [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gk_3NuiX2M&feature=channel] then the second show how much the focus has changed...

For example:

Spoiler: Bad Company 2 teaser and commercial

Seems the focus alse went towards multiplayer...

And what pissed me off the most was the fact that they got rid of the smiley face on the grenade pins. That was just a fantastic little detail that made me chuckle everytime.

 

[Tonimata]

"If Modern Warfare 2 is like classical music, and Bad Company 2 is like jazz, then Jordan Deam is like Lady Gaga. Think about it."

No. Just no. Lady Gaga has absolutely nothing to do with classical music. EVER. Rephrase and resubmit.

 

[Wicky_42]

I would also - if the server browser worked - or at least displayed pings, if I could get into a game in under 10 mins, if I could get into a server with less than 300 ping, or if the 'play now' function would pick a) a populated server and/or b) a sever with playable ping.

Until it can offer me ANY of those things, I can't endorse BC2 :'(

If you're having any networking issues try this link:
http://www.fragcast.org/?p=433

As for the Server Browser, it does usually display a ping for me and it "works" as in I start a Search, click "Cancel" after 5 seconds or so and it displays the servers it found in that time period.

I don't know what you mean with "getting into a game in under 10 mins". There are some servers it doesn't want to connect to for whatever reason, I usually just pick another, maybe another 2-3 and one'll usually work. Other than that there's been a lot of days where the EA Servers went down like say ~10 or so hours ago and nobody could even log in or join any game.

Pings are usually displayed in the server browser (at least for me)... there's even some with 20-50 but after joining I usually end up with a ping of 100-200. I don't know if its just the code of BF:BC2 with all the destructible environments that have to be sent and updated for everyone etc. or if its just "false" though. Some people reported their "G15" keyboards measure a ping closer to the initial value.

Cheers, that was actually helpful! Well, not that I've tried the changes out yet, but finally a link to a decent source of information! And thanks for the tips on using the server browser. Hopefully I'll be seeing a bit more action now, but I just wish that the pings would actually show up. no idea what's causing it - I've read that running as admin's meant to magically fix the problem, but I've had no luck with it

 

[Arkhangelsk]

I prefer Bad Company 2's big maps. I like taking whatever routes fit me without rushing it. In MW2, I always had to run so nobody sneaked up on me and so that I could quickly find an enemy. And the courses were so small that death was fairly quick everywhere you go. BC2 feels more tactical. But I do love both. Just BC2 a little more.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Honestly? Are you even trying to attempt attach "realism" to MW2? It's an arcade shooter dressed up in some HIGH SPEED LOW DRAG GO LOUD DROP TANGO SUPPORT. While some of the weapons resemble their real-life counter parts, the weapon stats are just goddamned confusing. For instance, despite the fact that TAR-21 and M4A1, FAMAS, L86, and MG4, M16, ACR, and F2000 all fire the same 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge, their damage is completely inconsistent. The TAR-21, FAmAS, M16, and L86(40) all deal more damage (40-30) than the M4A1, MG4(30), ACR, and F2000 (30-20). The first set also deal more damage than the M240B (30), which fires the much more badass 7.62x51mm NATO. The SCAR-H fires this and does 40-30, and the FAL fires it and does 55-35. I won't go into detail, but also consider the UMP-45 and the Vector. Both fire .45 ACP, yet the UMP does 40-35, and the Vector does 25-20. Where's the sense and realism in that?

(By the way, the guy with one arm is dead since COD4.

Anyway, the more important factor, which, this article more or less addresses, is that they are two completely styles of FPS. Comparing MW2 and BC2 is like comparing apples and carrots. It's just goddamned illogical and stupid.

Which is ironic as IW founded itself from the MoH team to make more realistic games and they churn out MW2 it seems they sold their souls.

 

[secretsantaone]

Whatever, still waiting on BF3.

That'll be the real king of FPSs.