So what you are saying is that there should not be ultra-realistic elements in FPS games. Or, to put it another way, ideas that you don't like have no place in videogaming, regardless of the opinions of other people. That's how I'm perceiving what you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong.Chibz said:Ultra-realism actually severely limits what you can or cannot have happen in your game. It has little place in FPS games, absolutely no place elsewhere.
MW2 is also my only CoD game. However, CoD, STALKER and Operation Flashpoint are all vividly different games, despite all their aspects of realism.Chibz said:I'm just putting it out there but I also own a copy of CoD:MW2. This is my only CoD game. That's how similar they all seem to me.
Well CoD limits what goes on in its games to what could happen within the boundaries of reality. That's pretty much what it takes to be called "realistic".bussinrounds said:STOP CALLING COD REALISTIC PPL !! That just sounds retarded.
Oh God. Just when I thought the world had forgotten about Desert Bus, IT RETURNS! WHY, JESUS?!Chibz said:Ultra-realism actually severely limits what you can or cannot have happen in your game. It has little place in FPS games, absolutely no place elsewhere.GiantRaven said:Why? You can't state something like that without stating why. I have plenty of fun playing STALKER. I have fun playing certain parts of Modern Warfare II. Operation Flashpoint, despite not having played it, looks like a jolly good time. Why are games that are somewhat realistic suddenly not fun?
To see what a truly ultra-realistic game looks like, play Desert Bus.
I'm just putting it out there but I also own a copy of CoD:MW2. This is my only CoD game. That's how similar they all seem to me.
You know what would be even better than copying a game with bland story & gameplay? Copying Timesplitters' idea. Yeah, do that instead industry.Frotality said:half-life was a fun shooter as well; however much its been said, i still think half-life's design is the best FPS's have ever been and what they SHOULD be copying. imagine that... a world where publishers tried to copy half-life instead of the 20-billionth CoD game...
The key word there is most. Why deny things that only a few people want, just because the majority don't want it?Kopikatsu said:But no, I totally agree. Most don't play video games for the realism
Why play an FPS? Go play paintball or laser quest instead. I mean, it's real right? So it must be superior!(Which is why sports games always confused me. Go gather some friends and go play ACTUAL sports. You know, so you actually get some exercise or something.)
I'd play it. Why shouldn't that exist just because you don't like it?If you want a realistic war game, you would be sitting in an outpost for 98% of the game, just wasting time, then you get attacked by a few guys...then they get chased off/killed and you go back to sitting around doing nothing. Unless its an actual army attacking you. In that case, you get overwhelmed and die horribly/become a POW.
Is it not possible to like both things that are immature and things that are serious? Most people in this thread seem to be of the 'either/or' mindset when the 'and' mindset is much, much better.MaxPowers666 said:People are immature. They seem to like those stupid un-fuuy one-liners over story, gameplay and well everything. That is who they are trying to appeal to with these new games, young immature gamers who are either either 12 or still have the mentality of a 12yr old. I would also say that you probably have to be a male for them to appeal to you simply because from my experience guys are more prone to being immature idiots.
I really don't think anyone would enjoy a 100% realistic war game. I wouldn't mind playing one where they cut out the hours of sitting around and cut to the action, but we pretty much already have that.GiantRaven said:I'd play it. Why shouldn't that exist just because you don't like it?If you want a realistic war game, you would be sitting in an outpost for 98% of the game, just wasting time, then you get attacked by a few guys...then they get chased off/killed and you go back to sitting around doing nothing. Unless its an actual army attacking you. In that case, you get overwhelmed and die horribly/become a POW.
I think it would be very interesting to play. If I find something interesting, then chances are I'm enjoying it. I wouldn't make grand sweeping assumptions that you have no way of measuring. There are always going to be people who don't fit into your ideas.Dexiro said:I really don't think anyone would enjoy a 100% realistic war game. I wouldn't mind playing one where they cut out the hours of sitting around and cut to the action, but we pretty much already have that.
I think we might need to elaborate 'realism' a little, in this case. To me, something like Mass Effect is a 'realistic' game. Because it's relateable. it's immersive. I can to a point relate to something like Morinth running from her mother. I can relate to the fact, that for a human to be paralyzed and turned into goo isn't fun. I can relate to how a cutscened shot that garrus pulls off, was hard to do.Chibz said:Ultra-realism actually severely limits what you can or cannot have happen in your game. It has little place in FPS games, absolutely no place elsewhere.
See, that's the kind of fun, I've never quite gotten my head around :<boholikeu said:It's fun in the same way a teenage slasher flick/B grade monster movie is fun. In other words: it's brainless fun.
Well then that right there is the reason you don't understand the appeal behind "fun" shooters.Zannah said:See, that's the kind of fun, I've never quite gotten my head around :<boholikeu said:It's fun in the same way a teenage slasher flick/B grade monster movie is fun. In other words: it's brainless fun.
I dug this forum post out just to say... I told you so.Ultratwinkie said:i am sorry, did you recieve an early copy of the game? i swear i heard people who ACTUALLY played that duke nukem is a fusion of old and new designs. I guess the people who actually played it are wrong. /sarcasm.Mcface said:as opposed to what?Ultratwinkie said:oh yes because its true when you back it up with an opinion. Want to know how COD is more shallow? They release the same fucking game every year with only minor graphical enhancements.Mcface said:I massively disagree.Xzi said:It has nothing to do with nostalgia. Duke Nukem 3D is better than CoD: MW2, CoD: Black Ops, and every damn game trying to be like those. Even with its outdated graphics. That's why I'm looking forward to Duke Nukem Forever. I think I'm looking forward to the fan update for Duke 3D even more, though.Mcface said:BRINK is the only non-"modern" shooter im looking forward to.
I find very little enjoyment out of games like series sam or duke nukem.
I will not pay full price for a single player game that went out of style 15 years ago.
People are all stuck with the nostalgia factor, those games aren't very good compared to more recent tiles at all. and neither will these new ones.
people in the 70s thought giant afros and bell-bottoms were cool.
if you wear them now, you just look stupid.
Duke Nukem is a shallow first person one man v the world shooter.
It's shallow. VERY SHALLOW. even compared to the COD series.
You are definitely blinded by nostalgia goggles.
AMERICANS WIN AND ARE DOMINATE!
see what i did there? I just spoiled the ENTIRE COD franchise for everyone in the past, present, and future.
10 year long development cycles and they still are using the same exact gameplay on a slightly better graphics engine?
yeah awesome, i so wish every game was like that.
have fun with your 8 hours of campaign with no replay value, bud.