[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49874072]That's not Black Ops though ? I was talking about Black Ops.
Besides, managing to spend an entire game without killing anyone remains impressive, more than enraging. Using it as a proof that a game is broken is dumb. Is the Legend of Zelda for NES broken because you can beat it solely with bombs and never use the sword ?
Also Story Mode is literally broken. If you fail prompts, it'll do nothing, and sometimes lock you in unwinnable positions where you can just walk back and forth.[/QUOTE]
what even is your POINT. Another game doing it worse doesn't make it any less bad.
what does zelda have to do with anything at all? that's a 20+ year old game and the thing about bomb runs is that they're challenging. Bomb runs are going out of your way in order to beat the game in a completely different way. Pacifist runs in CoD doesn't involve going out of your way, you're literally just standing there doing nothing at all.
You would have a point if all you had to do to beat zelda was stand around, but that isn't the case at all. Even a bomb run has challenge, hell, it has greater challenge, that's the point.
[video=youtube;QvGoxGmtGjQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvGoxGmtGjQ[/video]
How is this the same? it involves actually playing it :v: That plus, bomb runs need an extremely advanced knowledge of the game. By the time you're doing a bomb run you'd have played the game at least a million times over.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49873665]There is something magical about watching people purposefully fuck up and break the rules of a game just to claim the game's shit.[/QUOTE]
This was your original point. Our point was that he wasn't going out of his way at all to show it was broken, he literally just stood around, so I showed you someone doing the exact same thing. Now all of a sudden this is about blops?
I thought this was about "people purposefully fuck up and break the rules of a game just to claim the game's shit."
Super bunny hop isn't going out of his way at all. Neither way that other guy.
I don't think super advanced AI would benefit cod that much, but I just wish they were more aggressive.
The game has great shooting but when you realize how little the enemies do, it kinda ruins the experience. They don't even really have to make the game harder or anything, just give me the impression that I'm under fire and am actively in danger.
Far Cry 3/4 aren't that hard or have crazy good AI either but at least the enemies can royally fuck you up if you don't take cover and shoot back.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49874199]I don't think super advanced AI would benefit cod that much, but I just wish they were more aggressive.
The game has great shooting but when you realize how little the enemies do, it kinda ruins the experience. They don't even really have to make the game harder or anything, just give me the impression that I'm under fire and am actively in danger. Far Cry 3/4 aren't that hard either but at least the enemies can royally fuck you up if you don't take cover and fire back.[/QUOTE]
all CoD needs is enemies to maybe sometimes run towards you, and have better aim and the AI would already be a lot better. It'd force the player's hand into action and create a sense of drama.
They don't need to communicate or anything. All they need to do is, if the players taking cover for too long, force him out and try and chase him down.
problem is that they literally do nothing more than sit in cover and wait to die.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49874210]all CoD needs is enemies to maybe sometimes run towards you, and have better aim and the AI would already be a lot better. It'd force the player's hand into action and create a sense of drama.
They don't need to communicate or anything. All they need to do is, if the players taking cover for too long, force him out and try and chase him down.
problem is that they literally do nothing more than sit in cover and wait to die.[/QUOTE]
I remember enemies in CoD 2 being exactly that. They weren't on such a short leash than the rest of the franchise, they were smart about their positioning, knew when to camp and when to press the player, changing cover and moving around. And they threw grenades in a very smart way, not to kill, but to flush you out of cover.
I never understood why no one stick to that, it was just perfect for a game like that.
[QUOTE=gudman;49874277]I remember enemies in CoD 2 being exactly that. They weren't on such a short leash than the rest of the franchise, they were smart about their positioning, knew when to camp and when to press the player, changing cover and moving around. And they threw grenades in a very smart way, not to kill, but to flush you out of cover.
I never understood why no one stick to that, it was just perfect for a game like that.[/QUOTE]
Cod 1 seemed to do this too. Playing it on veteran and using the lean felt like the perfect difficulty for that game. It was a lot more tactical than the later games, but I just wish the later games put you in danger more.
[QUOTE=cdr248;49874303]Cod 1 seemed to do this too. Playing it on veteran and using the lean felt like the perfect difficulty for that game. It was a lot more tactical than the later games, but I just wish the later games put you in danger more.[/QUOTE]
Yeah CoD and UO probably did this too, I just kind of don't remember those all too well in that regard. Later games just treated the singleplayer portion of the game like this setup for their newly-found instant-gratification multiplayer formula. And just like their multiplayer, every single person should be able to boot it up, set the highest difficulty and complete it, feeling nice about it before jumping into the real deal. Not that it's a bad thing by itself, I'm fine with that, if it wasn't exactly the same basic formula for every game since then... Big shame that it translated exactly like that into the WaW/BlOps series, which I actually enjoyed for the story.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49874210]all CoD needs is enemies to maybe sometimes run towards you, and have better aim and the AI would already be a lot better. It'd force the player's hand into action and create a sense of drama.
They don't need to communicate or anything. All they need to do is, if the players taking cover for too long, force him out and try and chase him down.
problem is that they literally do nothing more than sit in cover and wait to die.[/QUOTE]
Except they already do this. The Black Ops 1 example is a poor one seeing as it's basically the beginning of the game and the second part of the first mission of the game even.
In Modern Warfare 2, on the normal difficulty that I forget the name of, you'll get enemies popping in and out of cover rather than always standing there shooting at you, enemies bumrushing your ass to melee you (with death in two strikes if they got close enough), grenades to flush you out so you don't just stay in one place. If you played on Veteran in any game, but especially World at War, you couldn't even sit still for 5 seconds before they start homing grenades down your throat and couldn't be exposed for one second of gunfire before you die.
I've started feeling this with most 'triple A' releases recently. Despite amazing shit happening in front of my eyes and fantastic set pieces, I rapidly lost interest and couldn't understand why. Some I actually bought, some I've played a little of and some I've heard things about; recently it's Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, AC:Syndicate, Rise of the Tomb Raider, and Primal just to name a few. I actually got pretty scared that I was starting to lose my enjoyment of games and growing up or some stupid shit, but then I realised there were simply no stakes in the games I was playing and the sheer padding/lack of innovation were causing the games to be shit, or at least not hold my attention for an price-justifying amount of time. I guess if you're new to a franchise and play the latest iteration then you can have a fresh experience, but otherwise it starts to really grate on you. I found that there were some varying reasons why these games were unfun though.
Fallout 4 got easier as you level up and progress which seems quite counter-intuitive, and the perks were either boring or OP. You end up with a bazillion guns, ammo and healing and it becomes dull even on survival mode (which managed to be worse than normal). There's tactics to the combat but it's extremely shallow. I usually end up taking an untelegraphed molotov to the face and dying instantly anyway
Just Cause 3 - you just fly around and destroy shit. The layout differs but you're still destroying the same transformers and fuel containers at hour 1 that you are at hour 50. Obviously it escalates but it didn't feel like the challenge differed at all, and the 'time to die' was EXTREMELY slow. I had to make a stupid mistake like blowing myself up or standing in front of a tank for 30 seconds to actually die. I get that it's supposed to be a sandbox but there's not a ton of things you can do with some cables. Felt like a playable checklist. I'd say Red Faction Guerrilla is the best example of an awesome sandbox done right.
AC is a yearly franchise, enough said.
RotTR is apparently a near copy of the first game which I bought on a sale and struggled to finish, so it might be a while before I get around to trying the new one. And now Primal, which I thought was mildly interesting before this video largely due to the setting, has revealed its truly stagnant colours. I enjoyed Far Cry 3 because it was ages since I'd played an FC game, but 4 wasn't compelling for long and this I don't even want to try.
I tried to not write this post with the intention of sounding pretentious or elitist, but thank god for games that actually know what they're doing. Indies that try new things or games that understand and respect gamers and give them a challenge, like Vermintide which I'm currently playing the most or Dark Souls (my favourite series, shameless plug). Obviously this isn't all triple A games, I've got my eye on XCOM 2, and I don't think it's any coincidence that a common word used to describe the game is 'hard'. For me 'hard' is a positive term as it suggests challenge and an actually engaging game. It seems to me that, year on year, the level of visual art just increases in games (correlating with the increase in processing power) while the actual game design (or gameplay) stagnates and fails to innovate, at least for the most 'popular' franchises. Gameplay is absolutely timeless (you can still enjoy pong) while art gets stuck in the time that it was created and does become dated rapidly. Why is this?
Maybe I'm just an idiot writing an overly waffly comment and am playing mainstream games expecting them to treat me like me, rather than one of the millionth product consumers that MUST ENJOY THE GAME at all costs and can't fail or have a bad time, or to not be just a thinly veiled interactive movie. Maybe this post is 100% pointless observation, totally redundant and I should have realised what I was doing wrong a lot earlier. Games are just another medium with a ridiculous amount of genres and types of experience, you have to find what suits you as a personality.
tl;dr played a bunch of hyped up and impressive looking AAA games, got scared because my enjoyment of them ebbed away, realised that the games were actually shit and there are good games out there and I just need to play the ones that suit me. Wrote a wall of text figuring this whole thing out and could have deleted it, content that I had my mind sorted out, but decided to press the post button anyway even though noone will actually read this entire thing. fight me
Far Cry 3 was enjoyable, hell I liked Far Cry 2 even, but Far Cry 4 just got repetitive. After clearing the map in coop and getting dumped back in to complete the main story alone, I couldn't even finish it. I think I'm about a third or halfway through but haven't launched the game in close to a year. Running around and taking apart camps and fortresses is fun, especially with a buddy, but whenever the scripted exposition scenes are just so dull.
[QUOTE=gudman;49874277]I remember enemies in CoD 2 being exactly that. They weren't on such a short leash than the rest of the franchise, they were smart about their positioning, knew when to camp and when to press the player, changing cover and moving around. And they threw grenades in a very smart way, not to kill, but to flush you out of cover. [/QUOTE]
Yet i still remeber FEAR enemies, which could actually act as a team, not a meat wave coming just to be obliterated by a player. They were smart enough to even hide and camp you if the rest of their squad gets killed. Sure the first several games of the new COD series (Modern Warfare 1-2 specifically) were enjoyable, but now i really miss the kind of experience I had in FEAR.
[QUOTE=antianan;49874613]Yet i still remeber FEAR enemies, which could actually act as a team, not a meat wave coming just to be obliterated by a player. They were smart enough to even hide and camp you if the rest of their squad has been killed. Sure the first several games of the new COD series (Modern Warfare 1-2 specifically) were enjoyable, but now i really miss the kind of experience I had in FEAR.[/QUOTE]
There's some good shit you can read on F.E.A.R.'s AI
[url]http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf[/url]
[url]http://aigamedev.com/open/review/fear-ai/[/url]
Only one AI programmer, amazing
[QUOTE=J!NX;49874043][video=youtube;z-B4cONnyGw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-B4cONnyGw[/video]
he beat the entire game doing this
[video=youtube;H5sqU5RMfaE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5sqU5RMfaE[/video]
keep telling me that please, the AI in call of duty presents 0 challenge to anyone that isn't actively running into the enemies line of fire [/QUOTE]
excuse me, i just skimmed through that first video and, disregarding the part where he did kill people, multiple times, because the game forced him to, he had to constantly duck into cover and was very close to death multiple times. that means that there was challenge.
and i'm guessing this was on easy, it would probably have been much more difficult at the higher difficulty settings
you're literally just wrong. straight up, objectively, wrong.
[QUOTE=Destroyox;49862658]That fucking Owl scene.[/QUOTE]
"Copy, SatComm, you are clear to engage"
[b]*SCREE*[/b]
I can't believe people are actually using CoD's campaign as an example why it's a bad game. For the past what, 7 years, CoD has been heavily focused on multiplayer, and that shows. The entire point of the campaign has been setpieces and showing off shit. Like Ganerumo said, the campaigns are 100% linear and cinematic. That is the intent. To complain about shit AI in CoD campaigns is to complain about something that is clearly not the focus.
Sure, shit can get a little weird when you don't play the game the way it's intended. You don't use a spoon to cut a steak and complain when you can't cut shit. That's now how it's meant to be.
Now, as to how Primal ended up, Super Bunnyhop really did say the big thing. They played it too safe. There's no creativity or originality for this specific title.
Although I do hope this doesn't stop them from making more far out Far Cry games. In this situation, what's worse: playing it too safe or too much of the same?
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;49879362]Although I do hope this doesn't stop them from making more far out Far Cry games. In this situation, what's worse: playing it too safe or too much of the same?[/QUOTE]
Well it's too much of the same [I]because[/I] they're playing it safe.
Ubisoft should just really stop making open world games at this point. They all follow the same predictable formula and patterns, and all have the same relatively big, but lifeless worlds.
I realize they just want to capitalize on the success that Asscreed 2 and Far Cry 3 got them (because they're both great games), but you shouldn't do that by just constantly repeating the exact same formula over and over again. You have to change things up. At the very least, make the good things better and tweak/axe the bad things.
And especially, DO NOT USE THE SAME FORMULA FOR OTHER GAMES OR NEW IPs. Outside of the downgrade drama and change of story, the other reason why WATCH_DOGS got so much shit is because it didn't really do anything to differentiate itself from all the other Ubisoft open world games. It was pretty much just a GTA clone with Ubisoft's open world formula slapped on. It was a great concept that reeks of laziness and poor execution due to Ubisoft focusing on money rather than the actual game itself.
Ubisoft is really a company that I would love to see just re-structured at some point, because they clearly have a shit ton of talented people with some awesome ideas. They should be supporting and creating new, bold, and interesting ideas for games, not just using 600 people to recycle the same ideas and IPs over and over again.
Am I the only one who finds the kind of cinematography at 2:09 to be the absolute worst thing in these and the majority of modern fps games?
Like it's trying to be immersive, but it breaks immersion. It tries to be more cinematic, but you would never see that in an actual movie, because it looks fucking awful. Why is this such a huge trend???
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
