The FPS Dilemma

[Autofaux]

I like a lot of games, of varying genres; pretty eclectic like that. And, usually, I pick one FPS, or if the game is truly enjoyable and somewhat different, two.

Now, I was really keen on Medal of Honor. Preordered it, longed for it long time. Then it came out, did a backflip and fell on its face, showing us all yet again that a leopard can't change its spots and once the magic is gone, it is well and truly gone.

Another choice that cropped up was Halo: Reach. However, it was really an 'if all else fails, get' choice. Problem is, I don't have a 360, I don't like the idea of being tied to Xbox Live, and I never liked Halo 3. Even with all the evidence to the contrary, it is the Halo with the biggest fan service you can have, short of Master Chief, and thus is every single reason why I never bought a 360 for Halo 3 in the first place.

Which leaves one other heavy hitter this fall, that being Call of Duty: Black Ops. One of the reasons I was so intent on getting Medal of Honor in the first place is because I had zero patience for Infinity Ward's underachieving, pathetic, and slightly less attractive sister Treyarch. And while I can't stand the Filler of Duty's they'd churned out in the past, as well as some other shocking works (see Spider-Man, Spider-Man Web of Shadows, Minority Report et al.) it really *does* look like they are trying to make up for the shit that MW2 left lying around. Perks that are too powerful, perk combinations, "Pro" effect, Killstreak rewards... It really does look like they're trying, and I am tempted to give them my money. After all things changed. Infinity Ward is a hollowed out husk, and what other choice does a loving fan of the original Modern Warfare have?


However, there is still room in my heart for Medal of Honor if they patch the mess that is the whole game, and if Blops is the game that Infinity Ward should've made it is definitely a contender for my dollars. And Halo... well, forget Halo. I'm not sixteen anymore, its nothing special.

What do I choose?

 

[No_Remainders]

Treyarch are hardly "less attractive" than IW.

Let's compare the last game from both:

Treyarch:
"Call of Duty: World At War"
Stunningly beautiful. The games were balanced. The snipers were not too powerful, a headshot was always needed to get a one hit kill. There was little or no lag. The perks weren't too overpowered and the campaign was more than 3 hours long. And also, two words: Nazi Zombies.

InfinityWard:
"Modern Warfare 2"
Looked basically the same as CoD4. The game was made horribly uneven by the inclusion of Tactical Knives and by the fact that Lightweight and Marathon were on two different perk slots. The killstreak rewards were a good idea, I'll admit, but they didn't add enough to a game that was full of lag and mediocrity. The single player campaign lasted a whopping 3.5-4 hours on hardened, and only about 6 on veteran. Special Ops were fun, but unforgiving in places. It was an attempt to rival the well-made Nazi Zombies game mode, but it fell flat on its face in comparison. If IW had released extra spec. ops missions, I would've been happier with it. But the game itself felt unfinished and rushed, despite them having two years to make it.

 

[No_Remainders]

Edit: Double post. First didn't come up first time around.

 

[Autofaux]

Treyarch are hardly "less attractive" than IW.

Let's compare the last game from both:

Treyarch:
"Call of Duty: World At War"
Stunningly beautiful. The games were balanced. The snipers were not too powerful, a headshot was always needed to get a one hit kill. There was little or no lag. The perks weren't too overpowered and the campaign was more than 3 hours long. And also, two words: Nazi Zombies.

Not barring your critique of Modern Warfare 2 by any stretch, which is why it isn't included in the quote.

However, that gold star you gave Nazi Zombies is immediately made moot by one fact. It is the only thing original about the game.
The multiplayer had vehicles, which were badly implemented. It had the same three killstreak setup, like Call of Duty 4, minus the very, *very* unbalanced dogs which were hard to kill and overpowered.
The scripted sequences in the single player were nothing special, or original.

The best way to describe this game is "like Call of Duty 4, but". Which would've been great, again, if it had come out a year earlier. At least Modern Warfare 2, broken as it was, offered a wealth of new weapons, killstreaks, and perks.

 

[phoenix352]

have you seen black ops? its like crack in video game form....

 

[No_Remainders]

The best way to describe this game is "like Call of Duty 4, but". Which would've been great, again, if it had come out a year earlier. At least Modern Warfare 2, broken as it was, offered a wealth of new weapons, killstreaks, and perks.

That's a problem. MW2 was too broken to be good.
I quite liked the Russian missions in W@W. Especially the first one, which was "Enemy at the Gates"-esque in its beginning.
I'm not saying W@W was perfect. It wasn't by any means. It was just better than the glitched, laggy excuse for a pile of shit that was MW2.

 

[Autofaux]

The best way to describe this game is "like Call of Duty 4, but". Which would've been great, again, if it had come out a year earlier. At least Modern Warfare 2, broken as it was, offered a wealth of new weapons, killstreaks, and perks.

That's a problem. MW2 was too broken to be good.
I quite liked the Russian missions in W@W. Especially the first one, which was "Enemy at the Gates"-esque in its beginning.
I'm not saying W@W was perfect. It wasn't by any means. It was just better than the glitched, laggy excuse for a pile of shit that was MW2.

I'm not even defending MW2. We are both in agreement that MW2 is a broken mess of everything and anything. Hence, why I skipped it.

 

[No_Remainders]

The best way to describe this game is "like Call of Duty 4, but". Which would've been great, again, if it had come out a year earlier. At least Modern Warfare 2, broken as it was, offered a wealth of new weapons, killstreaks, and perks.

That's a problem. MW2 was too broken to be good.
I quite liked the Russian missions in W@W. Especially the first one, which was "Enemy at the Gates"-esque in its beginning.
I'm not saying W@W was perfect. It wasn't by any means. It was just better than the glitched, laggy excuse for a pile of shit that was MW2.

I'm not even defending MW2. We are both in agreement that MW2 is a broken mess of everything and anything. Hence, why I skipped it.

Well. I enjoyed playing W@W with friends. Which is pretty much all I played of it. I only ever played online with people I knew, which made it enjoyable. Win or lose.

Regardless, I usually won.

 

[shadow skill]

What about Bad Company 2? If I were you and none of those games were really appealing I would just wait until next year when Crysis 2 comes out or even Resistance 3 which is supposed to arrive next year as well. I will say that Halo: Reach is actually a pretty good game. I feel like the way the covenant are presented is the way that they should have always been. The lack of the Flood is also a real bonus. Whoever had the idea to include them in the Halo universe at all should be getting mountains of hate mail for all time for inflicting that particular travesty on Halo. It does feel way too easy on normal even for someone like me who is not good at shooters at all. The only other major problem I have with the game is that we already know what happens to the members of Noble team and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of details that could or need to be fleshed out that justify Reach's existence as a game.

 

[No_Remainders]

Whoever had the idea to include them in the Halo universe at all should be getting mountains of hate mail for all time for inflicting that particular travesty on Halo.

You've obviously never played Combat Evolved.

"343 Guilty Spark". Chief is mysteriously teleported to a tower after unleashing the flood, the tower which holds the "codex" to enable the Halo's weaponry against the flood.

The suspense in that mission was INCREDIBLE.

It was by far the best part of that game.

 

[Lt_Bromhead]

What about Bad Company 2? If I were you and none of those games were really appealing I would just wait until next year when Crysis 2 comes out...

I'm behind you wholeheartedly with BC2. Great game - filled a lot of holes left by MW2's shortcomings.

Problem with Crysis 2 as I see it is that you'll probably need some sort of hyper-computer from space to run it to its full effect. (I.E. that brand-new £3,000 Alienware beast that just hit stores. Enough to generate nerdgasms, but also massive overdrafts...)

 

[Scott Guthrie]

Treyarch are hardly "less attractive" than IW.

Let's compare the last game from both:

Treyarch:
"Call of Duty: World At War"
Stunningly beautiful. The games were balanced. The snipers were not too powerful, a headshot was always needed to get a one hit kill. There was little or no lag. The perks weren't too overpowered and the campaign was more than 3 hours long. And also, two words: Nazi Zombies.

InfinityWard:
"Modern Warfare 2"
Looked basically the same as CoD4. The game was made horribly uneven by the inclusion of Tactical Knives and by the fact that Lightweight and Marathon were on two different perk slots. The killstreak rewards were a good idea, I'll admit, but they didn't add enough to a game that was full of lag and mediocrity. The single player campaign lasted a whopping 3.5-4 hours on hardened, and only about 6 on veteran. Special Ops were fun, but unforgiving in places. It was an attempt to rival the well-made Nazi Zombies game mode, but it fell flat on its face in comparison. If IW had released extra spec. ops missions, I would've been happier with it. But the game itself felt unfinished and rushed, despite them having two years to make it.

one criticism of your WaW review, the graphics where not as good a the MW series

 

[oplinger]

Treyarch are hardly "less attractive" than IW.

Let's compare the last game from both:

Treyarch:
"Call of Duty: World At War"
Stunningly beautiful. The games were balanced. The snipers were not too powerful, a headshot was always needed to get a one hit kill. There was little or no lag. The perks weren't too overpowered and the campaign was more than 3 hours long. And also, two words: Nazi Zombies.

InfinityWard:
"Modern Warfare 2"
Looked basically the same as CoD4. The game was made horribly uneven by the inclusion of Tactical Knives and by the fact that Lightweight and Marathon were on two different perk slots. The killstreak rewards were a good idea, I'll admit, but they didn't add enough to a game that was full of lag and mediocrity. The single player campaign lasted a whopping 3.5-4 hours on hardened, and only about 6 on veteran. Special Ops were fun, but unforgiving in places. It was an attempt to rival the well-made Nazi Zombies game mode, but it fell flat on its face in comparison. If IW had released extra spec. ops missions, I would've been happier with it. But the game itself felt unfinished and rushed, despite them having two years to make it.

My problem with treyarch, is they make fun games and all. But there is always one crippling flaw in them that just bothers the hell out of me, like a gnat constantly flying into your eye. For PC at least.

Quantum of Solace for example, was a lot of fun for a movie game. However if you ran it a bit slow with higher settings, there is no way to do a take down. And the game becomes broken. And you cant just lower the settings to run it better, you have to lower them to the lowest possible settings to fix the issue. My old comp ran it around 40-50 frames on max settings, Too slow, couldn't take down. ..It as silly.

And WAW was great fun, it was like a WW2 action movie. ....But all the sounds were the same volume almost, the wind was drowning out my gunfire. It bothered me so much I finished the game, and gave it away.

Too bad too, most of their games are fun lol

 

[No_Remainders]

one criticism of your WaW review, the graphics where not as good a the MW series

Looks like we have what I call a "New breed of gamer".

The ones that care almost entirely about graphics and nothing else.

Graphics do not make a game good. They don't make one bad either.

Minecraft. Amazing game, terrible graphics, who cares?
Crysis. Amazing graphics, shit game, yet people still played and for some strange reason thought it was well made.

 

[Scott Guthrie]

Looks like we have what I call a "New breed of gamer".

The ones that care almost entirely about graphics and nothing else.

Graphics do not make a game good. They don't make one bad either.

Minecraft. Amazing game, terrible graphics, who cares?
Crysis. Amazing graphics, shit game, yet people still played and for some strange reason thought it was well made.

i agree with you graphics aren't every thing, like you said about minecraft.

its just that you said WaW was "Stunningly beautiful" which is a point i disagree with

 

[No_Remainders]

Looks like we have what I call a "New breed of gamer".

The ones that care almost entirely about graphics and nothing else.

Graphics do not make a game good. They don't make one bad either.

Minecraft. Amazing game, terrible graphics, who cares?
Crysis. Amazing graphics, shit game, yet people still played and for some strange reason thought it was well made.

i agree with you graphics aren't every thing, like you said about minecraft.

its just that you said WaW was "Stunningly beautiful" which is a point i disagree with

Limbs flew. That was enough for me.

 

[Scott Guthrie]

Limbs flew. That was enough for me.

the violence in it was pretty sweet, and the nazi zombies was probably the best idea every put in a call of duty game (besides CoD being a non medal of honor WWII game)

 

[G-Force]

one criticism of your WaW review, the graphics where not as good a the MW series

Looks like we have what I call a "New breed of gamer".

The ones that care almost entirely about graphics and nothing else.

Graphics do not make a game good. They don't make one bad either.

Minecraft. Amazing game, terrible graphics, who cares?
Crysis. Amazing graphics, shit game, yet people still played and for some strange reason thought it was well made.

That would be a valid critique IF the poster said he he liked MW2 over WAW because of the graphics. Instead they just compared one game's graphics to another without mentioning gameplay. You said that WAW was "stunningly beautiful" the other poster disagreed that's it.

 

[helldragonX]

What do I choose?

None, wait for Brink, it is coming out early next year.

 

[shadow skill]

one criticism of your WaW review, the graphics where not as good a the MW series

Looks like we have what I call a "New breed of gamer".

The ones that care almost entirely about graphics and nothing else.

Graphics do not make a game good. They don't make one bad either.

Minecraft. Amazing game, terrible graphics, who cares?
Crysis. Amazing graphics, shit game, yet people still played and for some strange reason thought it was well made.

Crysis really deserves more credit than it gets as an open world game. Case in point, there is a point just before you entre the alien ship where you need to get past the Koreans stationed ahead of the mine complex. There is a secondary objective that helps you figure out exactly where the hostages are inside the Korean outpost. Now I decided to snipe most of the soldiers as they came by the front entrance, and destroy their tank with a few well placed RPG rounds before going inside the compound.

Once inside I killed two guards that were on the second floor, of the building I needed to get into. After that I infiltrated in stealth mode taking out one guard by the stairs. Another guard heard either the gun fire or the death sounds of his friend and came by to investigate, I let him pass me by while in stealth mode and then switched to speed mode and chased him down the stairs, grabbed him, threw him down and then shot him in the face as he tried to get up.

Even then that was a screw-up on my part because I had intended to strength-throw him and finish him that way.

Now I could have just stormed the place guns ablaze but I'm not very good at those type of engagements so I generally tend to use a more stealthy approach whenever possible. That is what makes Crysis a fairly good game, especially when compared to other graphically impressive, yet more mechanically one dimensional games.

Crysis is what I think would happen if a western developer made an MGS type game (In terms of options for stealth and such. Not necessarily story.) I find myself playing Crysis as if I was playing a Metal Gear game, focusing more on avoiding enemies and taking out enemies at a distance, rather than getting into extended firefights.

What about Bad Company 2? If I were you and none of those games were really appealing I would just wait until next year when Crysis 2 comes out...

I'm behind you wholeheartedly with BC2. Great game - filled a lot of holes left by MW2's shortcomings.

Problem with Crysis 2 as I see it is that you'll probably need some sort of hyper-computer from space to run it to its full effect. (I.E. that brand-new £3,000 Alienware beast that just hit stores. Enough to generate nerdgasms, but also massive overdrafts...)

I don't think it will be too bad if you have built a machine or bought one in the last two years. I also think that Crytek has learned from their mistake with the first Crysis and will not make a game that requires you to have a computer from late 2012 to mid 2013 in order to run the game anywhere near maximum that is released in early 2011. Besides if push comes to shove you could just get it for consoles. I expect Rage to become the new Crysis when it comes out.