Project Reality Forums

Lampshade111 wrote:Well unrealalex Battlefield: 2142 does have better gameplay than standard Battlefield 2. Just the fact that the prone spamming is gone makes it worth it to me.

Yea but gameplay still sucks I think =/ It's like a big mosh pit, everyone doing whatever they can to get more kills and better points, rarely with any coordination or real tactic. Bf2 infantry servers sometimes manage to actually get normal gameplay...but with 2142...its always some invisible guy blowing you up, or some camper on the titan.
Either hold no candle to PR though.

yeah, right - way too much focus on graphics instead of gameplay, i mean take the latest final fantasies for example, it just a like 20 min cut scene, move your guy up the street and then another cut scene, just to show of the graphics. who had the first half life? i did, it was like the graphics of runescape (i dont play it, but my bro does) but the gameplay was fucking awesome, i still play it.

Well I think the consumers are partly to blame because "we" do demand that every new game look better then the last and have more features then the last. Game reviewers are always commenting on how every new game looks compared to it's competition. If a new and upcoming game looks good, it generates a lot of hype. Just look at Crysis, everyone is touting it as this huge new game because you can shot some plants and they fall apart It sure looks good but how much game play development has been done?

I read an interesting article on game development, it really shone some light on things for me about the gaming industry.

http://www.firingsquad.com/default.asp/?page=7#news

Ok the link is not working right, if you search for game industry you will find an article on the state of game development.

I thought it was a big money grab, which it is, but the profit margins are slim and rely on huge sales to make any profit. No mass sales and the companies are barely breaking even. So they try to make games appeal to the masses for as cheap as possible. If the new game looks good it will sell well initially. If they have to hire staff to make it look good and make it play really well thats more development costs, reduce the game play and the initial sales will still be strong, long term sales will suffer? Perhaps or people will overlook some of the flaws because the game still looks good compared to the competition. If a company has to take extra time to develope a lot of quality content for a game it starts to up the production costs and lower potential profits. The faster they can get that game out the better. I know the argument could be made that a really well developed game will sell well but it is a higher risk to develope it in the first place. Plus some companies with a great game idea might not have the cash to make it happen and have to compromise the final product to get it to the market.

I think now that video gameing is including a broader range of age the demmand is going to be there for better quality games (like Combat Mission series, good graphics but exceptionally detailed and complex) as well as for eye candy games.

This topic just not a clear cut black and white issue.

Well at least COD modern combat seem to have done away with the hateful floating crosshairs.. for the cause of reality.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6176029 ... ot;title;4
click on the little video insert to see what i mean.
Hideously bad "being hit 20 times and not dying" gameplay just like COD 1-3 though. Its obviously still on n00b difficulty.

'[R-MOD wrote:Darkpowder;452545']Well at least COD modern combat seem to have done away with the hateful floating crosshairs.. for the cause of reality.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6176029 ... ot;title;4
click on the little video insert to see what i mean.
Hideously bad "being hit 20 times and not dying" gameplay just like COD 1-3 though. Its obviously still on n00b difficulty.

I remeber that COD 1 and 2 had one hit kills with the rifles until a patch would come out and allow you to take one hit to the chest and have 5% health left. SO FRUSTRATING. You hit a guy in the chest with the K98 ( a typical kill shot pre patch) only to have him tommy gun you to death

Cross hairs are **** in FPS, they need to get rid of them for good.

Long Bow wrote:I remeber that COD 1 and 2 had one hit kills with the rifles until a patch would come out and allow you to take one hit to the chest and have 5% health left. SO FRUSTRATING. You hit a guy in the chest with the K98 ( a typical kill shot pre patch) only to have him tommy gun you to death

Cross hairs are **** in FPS, they need to get rid of them for good.

Kars are often nerfed out of the same reasons we have discussed before: partial reality.

On a firing range the Kar is a great weapon but the battlefield is a different issue.
But most devs only take the firing range stats and map them to the game, making the Kar into a weapon it never was.
Most games the Kar is a instagib railgun.

Funny thing was, most tommy gun players will tell you how frustrated they are when they are firing on someone with a kar and hitting them and the victim swings around and one-shots them.

Similar with BF2. Hit someone with a MG and it won't even faze them.

Sure, certain elements cannot be modelled into a game, but that should not be a reason to not attempt to find some kind of possibility.
In CS when you got hit you were fazed for a short time -> great for SMG and AR users.
We cannot emulate combat and running and whatnot stress & strain but we can play with the accuracy values. F.i. rilfes (cept snipers) could never have 0% (or 2% or 5%) spread. You will still hit the guy right in front of you but not the guy peeking out of the dust.
As I mentioned in a different thread, FH2 has implemented the blurred vision and 'tunnel hearing' when you are being fired upon (suppressive fire effect). Something I really like.
Someone flops around like a dolphin on land? Then maybe we can also put on the suppressive fire effects and take away their stamina and give them massive spread?

I am the type of player that wants as much realism AND gameplay as possible but without having 'wtf?' elements.

I think your correct Tank to a degree. The lack of effects in game from taking a bullet make for a lot of WTF! situations. Going back to the COD example the Kar, it is a notourisly good rifle with very good accuracey and stopping power. It should take a man down with a shot to the chest. However if that shot to the chest comes after taking a round or two of .45 from a tommy at close range all that accuracey and stopping power shouldn't mean a thing. A .45 at close ranges should make it real difficult to aim a big rifle like the Kar or any weapon really.

The point though is not to nerf guns to make up for a poor game element if you can fix the element instead. If not then I guess some concessions should be made. Red Orchestra is on game that does a really good job with the weapons, hit detection and aiming. I have yet to play a game that can match it in this area.

Expendable Grunt wrote:Quoted for Sadness and truth

Indeed. I still play 1.6, the graphics might not be up to par with todays standards but the gameplay is godly.

Long Bow wrote:I remeber that COD 1 and 2 had one hit kills with the rifles until a patch would come out and allow you to take one hit to the chest and have 5% health left. SO FRUSTRATING. You hit a guy in the chest with the K98 ( a typical kill shot pre patch) only to have him tommy gun you to death

Cross hairs are **** in FPS, they need to get rid of them for good.

Check out the "Multiplayer Content Video" and Wikipedia. COD4 will have "Hardcore" mode, which sounds a lot like they play PR in their spare time.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/20975.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4:_Modern_Warfare

I may well try COD4, but it's only 16 players. 64 players, combined arms with 5-6 squads each side is where it's at though, so PR will win out for a good while.

COD4 still has insano-strafe halo style gunplay. I watched the video and it just looks silly....besides being able to take 10 bullets in easy mode. Love the graphics and atmosphere though, looked very cool and gritty.

If gameplay was adjusted so still fun but killing people was not the focus point, then I think that many games would flourish faster and longer. The flags to capture in Vanilla BF2 was what EA had in mind as what everyone will be fighting over. But (as Karkand has showed) that as long as you got a bunch of points for killing people and not taking a flag, then people are happy. You could lose a game, but if you had a lot of points it didn't bother you. Why risk shooting and moving to a destination if I can just stay where I am, chuck grenades shoot some stuff, die and respawn, and if I have the highest score when all is said and done, then that person is happy. If they were to adjust it (similar to what the PR guys have done) so that you got say 50 points for capping, 25 for assisting, and then for every person you killed you lowered their score by like 2, and after you killed 5 people you got +5pts or something like that. Take the gunning aspect out of the focus point and put in the strategic point (no COH pun intended) as the main goal.

However, when all is said and done, the person playing the game is going to dictate how the game goes. And unfortuently a lot of the gamers suffer from "me syndrome" where they think that the entire world revolves around them. I've seen it, punks and brats that will ***** and moan to parents and the sort because they have a problem with something. The authority figure will cave in and this behavior will never end. Kids these days are spoiled (kids as in 5yrs old to like 20) and will do anything to have it their way (they take the BK slogan too litterally). Just watch MTV "My Super Sweet Sixteen" I want to give some of those kids a swift kick in the *** tbh.

All I know is, I saw the title "chief tech officer at EA says games need more REALISM !!!", saw the muzzle flash in the picture, and did this

Goddamnit, EA. Stop talking about "Super realistic frowny-muscles", pick up a real gun, and then get back to me after a couple hours..

I was simply amazed that someone at EA has a brain. Recruit him to work on PR when they fire him.