Have you seen Black Ops? I believe somebody described World at War as being 'like COD4, but...', and that's what Black Ops is: 'like MW2, but...'phoenix352 said:
The FPS Dilemma
- Thread starter Autofaux
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In this case, it might be prudent to let Treyarch be the 'monkey see, monkey do' dev. MW2 threw so many ingredients into the formula without thinking of the consequences. If Treyarch fixes those problems, and adds its own features to the mix, which to my surprise is actually happening, then it becomes beneficial to the Call of Duty name.Geekosaurus said:
True, I see your point. But for me (and this is just a personal thing) MW2 is a poor starting point. They'd have to change a lot for me to like it.Autofaux said:
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.[/quote]Lt_Bromhead said:
My point still stands - a PC built within the last two years or so will still make a pretty significant dent in one's bank statement.
Another problem is the gamer who only has a PC. I'm included in this.
Despite performance issue downgrades, there's still the problem that my PC is unable to even touch the Crysis disk without blowing up. (Some exaggerration there, but you get my point.) Thus I'm going to need to buy a new PC anyway - it's been upgraded as much as it can with its current innards. It's as good as it can get. My point being upgrades can only get you so far - at some point an entirely new rig has to be bought and it's damn expensive when that happens...!
My point still stands - a PC built within the last two years or so will still make a pretty significant dent in one's bank statement.Lt_Bromhead said:
Another problem is the gamer who only has a PC. I'm included in this.
Despite performance issue downgrades, there's still the problem that my PC is unable to even touch the Crysis disk without blowing up. (Some exaggerration there, but you get my point.) Thus I'm going to need to buy a new PC anyway - it's been upgraded as much as it can with its current innards. It's as good as it can get. My point being upgrades can only get you so far - at some point an entirely new rig has to be bought and it's damn expensive when that happens...!
[/quote]Not that big actually, I built my current machine for roughly 450USD. My 5770 ran 130USD so my current machine cost approximately 580USD which is still cheaper than an Iphone direct from Apple.As long as you don't need a new monitor you can definitely build a great machine for less than 1000USD. My advice to you is to avoid retail as much as possible. Find stores that sell OEM. Store bought PC's are usually much more expensive because of all the markups they put on it. The pricing on those is much better than it used to be though.
Not that big actually, I built my current machine for roughly 450USD. My 5770 ran 130USD so my current machine cost approximately 580USD which is still cheaper than an Iphone direct from Apple.shadow skill said:My point still stands - a PC built within the last two years or so will still make a pretty significant dent in one's bank statement.Lt_Bromhead said:
Another problem is the gamer who only has a PC. I'm included in this.
Despite performance issue downgrades, there's still the problem that my PC is unable to even touch the Crysis disk without blowing up. (Some exaggerration there, but you get my point.) Thus I'm going to need to buy a new PC anyway - it's been upgraded as much as it can with its current innards. It's as good as it can get. My point being upgrades can only get you so far - at some point an entirely new rig has to be bought and it's damn expensive when that happens...!
As long as you don't need a new monitor you can definitely build a great machine for less than 1000USD. My advice to you is to avoid retail as much as possible. Find stores that sell OEM. Store bought PC's are usually much more expensive because of all the markups they put on it. The pricing on those is much better than it used to be though.[/quote]
Less than 1000USD...? Dude... Teach me how!! :O
(As you can tell, budget is a big issue for me.)
I'm just going to call you out on that "fan" dilema. The people I have played with in reach are not the schreechy preteens who populate MW2. As Reach doesn't force you into game chat, most people stay in parties or just don't seem to have headsets. The few people I have talked to were quite polite, unlike the people I actually got to talk to in MW2. I'm not sure If the fan service you talk about and the things I just said are related, but I just want people to stop accosiating {speeling mistake} bad communities with games that don't have them. {I am basing this statement on the experince I have gathered}Autofaux said:
on your prediciment, I would suggest BFBC 2, as it is an ample example of a fun modern war based game.
Long time death match guy.
CoD, BF, etc. These games are all garbage. They were never very good when they first caught fire in the genre; simplified console shooters. I was giving my money to Dice, but after bfbc2 and the moh double whammy of fail, dice can suck it.
I'm waiting for duke nukem forever to bring fps multiplayer back to the pc, where it belongs, and reignite the twitchy, run n gun style of gameplay that was more punishing, layered and complex than any of these pop a squat, campy, wanna be realistic shooters ever could be.
Everything is cyclical, and fps games that are so slow, you can play while stuffing your face with snack food, are going away.
After 5 long years. The cracks are starting to widen. Fianlly, thank god.
P.s. I read and watched some stuff about a game called Brink that looked interesting... dunno too much about it.
CoD, BF, etc. These games are all garbage. They were never very good when they first caught fire in the genre; simplified console shooters. I was giving my money to Dice, but after bfbc2 and the moh double whammy of fail, dice can suck it.
I'm waiting for duke nukem forever to bring fps multiplayer back to the pc, where it belongs, and reignite the twitchy, run n gun style of gameplay that was more punishing, layered and complex than any of these pop a squat, campy, wanna be realistic shooters ever could be.
Everything is cyclical, and fps games that are so slow, you can play while stuffing your face with snack food, are going away.
After 5 long years. The cracks are starting to widen. Fianlly, thank god.
P.s. I read and watched some stuff about a game called Brink that looked interesting... dunno too much about it.
Less than 1000USD...? Dude... Teach me how!! :OLt_Bromhead said:Not that big actually, I built my current machine for roughly 450USD. My 5770 ran 130USD so my current machine cost approximately 580USD which is still cheaper than an Iphone direct from Apple.shadow skill said:My point still stands - a PC built within the last two years or so will still make a pretty significant dent in one's bank statement.Lt_Bromhead said:
Another problem is the gamer who only has a PC. I'm included in this.
Despite performance issue downgrades, there's still the problem that my PC is unable to even touch the Crysis disk without blowing up. (Some exaggerration there, but you get my point.) Thus I'm going to need to buy a new PC anyway - it's been upgraded as much as it can with its current innards. It's as good as it can get. My point being upgrades can only get you so far - at some point an entirely new rig has to be bought and it's damn expensive when that happens...!
As long as you don't need a new monitor you can definitely build a great machine for less than 1000USD. My advice to you is to avoid retail as much as possible. Find stores that sell OEM. Store bought PC's are usually much more expensive because of all the markups they put on it. The pricing on those is much better than it used to be though.
(As you can tell, budget is a big issue for me.)[/quote]Shop on sites like Newegg.com. I came up with two "Crysis capable" setups for under 1000USD easily
Someone else could probably do a better job on cutting costs on the Intel load out but I am not very familiar with Intel processors. I just randomly clicked clicked on processors that had good clock speeds and were quad cores.
As you can see with the Intel load out the processor is the most expensive item by far. All of these totals are before shipping. I will say that the generally less expensive AMD based systems gives people on a budget a bit more freedom when choosing between AMD/ATI and Nvidia GPU's.
Going back to Black Ops here for a second. I will admit I enjoyed WAW intensely more than I enjoyed MW2, and I will admit that game made me a fan of treyarch especially considering the work that went in post release.
What is important to remember about WAW is that essentially they made the game in a year with 1/3 of the studio and they used a lot of the assets that were in cod4 but just kind of tried to make them their own. Now this worked and it was a fun as fuck game but it was kind of lacking some x factor that infinity ward brought to the table.
Now with Black Ops, they know exactly the beast the are trying to tame here. The entire studio, as in not 1/3 of the studio but the full studio is working on Black Ops right now, with a monster budget and they really are going all out. To me this seems like its going to be the most balanced and most fun cod yet if not fps in general. I have a LOT of faith in Treyarch here, and I know they will knock it out of the park.
Literally my only concern is the lack of a Beta as WAW release had a good few bugs still in there. But put it this way, they have the manpower of the entire WAW team working solely on multiplayer this time. 1/3rd working on the single player and 1/3 presumable on the yet to be released Zombies. We should be getting 3 full games here people, all expertly crafted by Treyarch who are giving it 110% this time.
I say bring it on.
But in the mean time of course, Halo Reach it is, because that game is fucking amazing too man, fucking hell, best campaign ever.
What is important to remember about WAW is that essentially they made the game in a year with 1/3 of the studio and they used a lot of the assets that were in cod4 but just kind of tried to make them their own. Now this worked and it was a fun as fuck game but it was kind of lacking some x factor that infinity ward brought to the table.
Now with Black Ops, they know exactly the beast the are trying to tame here. The entire studio, as in not 1/3 of the studio but the full studio is working on Black Ops right now, with a monster budget and they really are going all out. To me this seems like its going to be the most balanced and most fun cod yet if not fps in general. I have a LOT of faith in Treyarch here, and I know they will knock it out of the park.
Literally my only concern is the lack of a Beta as WAW release had a good few bugs still in there. But put it this way, they have the manpower of the entire WAW team working solely on multiplayer this time. 1/3rd working on the single player and 1/3 presumable on the yet to be released Zombies. We should be getting 3 full games here people, all expertly crafted by Treyarch who are giving it 110% this time.
I say bring it on.
But in the mean time of course, Halo Reach it is, because that game is fucking amazing too man, fucking hell, best campaign ever.
Although I agree with parts of your argument, you can't really say World at War had a long storyline by anyway standard, all CoD games have notoriously short campaigns, I didn't think the MW2 felt rushed, and Nazi Zombies really wasn't all that good. It was a little gimmick that became way to popular.No_Remainders said:
Also two years is a pretty small amount of time when you look at most games, which can take 3 to 4+ years easily.
You choose Black ops, for all the reasons posted above plus the fact the singleplayer is not anchored to a single point in time and so has more variety and room for originality. Plus it has bots, which gives it infinite replayablility. I really can't stress that one enough.Autofaux said:
Nazi Zombies was even more fun when you got to the 2nd map pack.NeedAUserName said:
And by CoD standards, W@W had a massive campaign.
And then there's the issue of quality over quantity.Autofaux said:
FIVE HOURS OF FUN TIME?
YES.
TEN HOURS OF MIXED FUN TIME AND FRUSTRATION?
No, but thank you.