[QUOTE]The best single player first-person game of the last few years, in my opinion, is Dishonored. [/QUOTE]
Couldn't really take it seriously after that point. Plus everyone knows something new needs to be done with first person shooters, I don't think anyone is arguing that the same thing will work forever. Not sure what he's really trying to say here.
I think the problem is linearity. We're at a point now where we can put a world at your fingertips to do as you please, and also throw a pretty great storyline within it. A to B generic singleplayer shooters are on the decline. The saving grace to Battlefield was never the single player anyway, it has always been the Multiplayer, even with BC and BF3 which have an actual singleplayer story, and even so, Playing 1942 with Bots alone was more fun, to me
of all the things
they chose rihanna
Linearity is fine if you know how to pull it off, how to deliver variety along the way and interweave it with the narrative. Kind of why people still like HL2 despite it being linear.
Linearity only becomes a problem when you feel caged in and held by the hand from objective marker to objective marker by the exposition-dumping support character in your voice com.
Ok how about use those limits to make some good MP maps for 64 players this time?
ARMA III.
[QUOTE=Riller;40061058]ARMA III.[/QUOTE]
giant green check mark
[QUOTE=Riller;40061058]ARMA III.[/QUOTE]
-is only really fun with a group of people you know, and have all the mods(which tends to be a fair amount that it gets confusing) to play on a server.
BF3's campaign is basically just a tech demo, and to be honest, I replay it now and then just to admire the visuals and sound design. Thing is, if you just stop for a minute or two just to explore your surroundings, you'll find a bunch of broken things in plain sight, sometimes it'll be an npc half stuck in the ground, an invisible wall, or even seemingly solid objects that you can outright walk straight through. Given that, it's obvious DICE just wants you to follow the flashing yellow icon on the screen to go to the next area, rather than explore and take in your surroundings, which is half the fun in most video games.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;40062522]-is only really fun with a group of people you know, and have all the mods(which tends to be a fair amount that it gets confusing) to play on a server.[/QUOTE]
I meant more as in "Is proof that a shooter can work perfectly fine in an open world". I would say Operation Flashpoint DR or RR, because it's more of a straight-up shooter than ARMA is, but they both fail miserably. I honestly would probably fuckin' love a CoD/BF style arcade shooter with a ARMA style open world single player. You can still have all the cinematic explosions and shit when you are at the key points of missions, but how you approach those key points, what angle you attack from and so forth, is fully up to you.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;40062522]-is only really fun with a group of people you know, and have all the mods(which tends to be a fair amount that it gets confusing) to play on a server.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about it isn't even out of Alpha yet
It's pretty but it seems like they try to cater more to the CoD crowd than I'd like. Then again, Bioshock Infinite made that same attempt and look how that turned out.
The trailer still impressed me just because of sheer graphical fidelity and editing, I'm a moany cunt about shooter games but I'm still impressed by a bit of sensory overload.
this gameplay gets mad props though for including bonnie tyler
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HVQXkeU8U&feature=player_embedded[/media]
The trailer makes it look like the game is 90% someone handing you a weapon, and 10% you aiming and firing it very slowly...
Hey, at least they've still got BF3's rubber trees, right?!
Battlefield would be better if it focused on only the multiplayer gameplay, like it used to. I hate how every SP game needs MP tacked on and every MP game needs SP.
I'm pretty sure most people who buy Battlefield buy it for the multiplayer, but I bet that most of the development time and money goes into the 6~ hour campaigns when people play multiplayer for thousands of hours.
they need to increase the depth of shooting mechanics, or do something crazy with them... any singleplayer game focused solely on combat is going to fail, unless said combat is very deep.
Can't you just add decent guns to Mirror's Edge and make a spinoff or something, DICE
as much as that game was good without combat a multiplayer FPS with that kind of movement freedom would be amazing
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
