Wow that looked super generic... why are you all praising this? It plays exactly how every other shooter does.
looks cool.
doesn't look like battlefield.
at all.
[QUOTE=Pappi_man;28380772]
I have to agree. It looks like another generic shooter.[/QUOTE]
But what more can you really do with a modern-era war FPS? Apart from more immersion into the story, and more interactivity, the actually shooting can't really be that revolutionized.
I'm sick of seeing every new FPS come out being branded as "another generic FPS" before anyone's played it. Apart from adding superpowers what more can be done?
Aside from that however, the animation, and the graphics in this gameplay look amazing.
Good looking but it didn't excite me. I don't like singleplayer games that are so tightly focused like this was. Multiplayer please.
I'll agree I'm buying this game for the multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Clavus;28381595]In terms of tech Source will remain outdated because of the fundamentals it's based on. Doesn't mean it can't look pretty in its own way.
[/QUOTE]
It's funny because you have no idea what the fundamentals are.
I assume they aim to have 2 types of singleplayer. Story mode and skirmishes.
[editline]2nd March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Clavus;28381595]In terms of tech Source will remain outdated because of the fundamentals it's based on. Doesn't mean it can't look pretty in its own way.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure that the fundamentals of Source engine are for it to be playable by the largest portion of the community possible. That's the way it's always been and Valve regularly reminds people about that.
I really hope they don't have "enemy wells" like CoD.
Story-driven skirmishes would be fucking amazing.
The running animation and bobbing was really stiff, as always.
Wow that looks incredible, at least graphics-wise.
I dunno, the gameplay looks like any other modern shooter, what with you following other people around and the AI opening doors for you and all.
Then again, this is Battlefield 3 so no one really gives a shit about the single-player.
I give a shit about the singleplayer. I just don't care as much about how it turns out as long as the multiplayer shines.
Singleplayer campaign that isn't 100% shooting? Good.
only two concerns:
1) i didn't see multiplayer, I won't spend a single second in the sp
2) WHERE IS THE GODDAMN HEALTH BAR
Looked quite nice until the combat, which looked quite generic really
And then of course than obnoxious fucking BBZBZZZZHHBUHHH "music" shit
I really hope they go back to their 1942/2 roots and move away from call of duty/medal of honour
It appeared when he got shot and disappeared again. At least I think that's a health bar. Also I like how there's no bloody screen when he got shot, just a faded red marker.
[editline]2nd March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=PopLot;28380270]The gunplay actually looks rather boring, to be honest.[/QUOTE]
I don't get this statement. When you have a gun, it shoots bullets. Every fps has that, so does that make gunplay in every fps boring?
[QUOTE=BurnBlackJay;28385242]Looked quite nice until the combat, which looked quite generic really
And then of course than obnoxious fucking BBZBZZZZHHBUHHH "music" shit
I really hope they go back to their 1942/2 roots and move away from call of duty/medal of honour[/QUOTE]
While I will agree that Battlefield 2 at least had some great stuff going for it, and still does, the gameplay is now technically outdated. I know most people are on a nostalgia trip and want Battlefield 1942/2 with a graphical upgrade, but that is ridiculous. I can think of a few titles that kept the same core gameplay for years and only updated the graphics for every iteration, and they were stagnating. Either it evolves to remain a competitive force in the new market, or it stagnates and fails financially, killing off any chance of new iterations in the future. I am not disagreeing on the fact that it should remain close to its roots, but they should also not be afraid to bring in technology and ideas from other games. If you want Battlefield 2 all over again, go play Battlefield 2. You're not a dedicated fan if you refuse to let them try to change it up, you're just holding it back.
I hope they improve the AI. The enemies were doing their "ima sit around and get shot at as I expose my entire body to a bunch of people with machine guns". I would really love a shooter where the enemies act like real people. They sit behind cover shitting their pants and popping out just enough to shoot at you. In the past, only having the enemies expose a tiny bit of themselves was realistic, but hard to hit and annoying since the walls wouldn't break. If the destruction works like they claim then you can just bust down their wall, or shoot through it or any number fo things.
[QUOTE=FlyingDog;28385756]While I will agree that Battlefield 2 at least had some great stuff going for it, and still does, the gameplay is now technically outdated. I know most people are on a nostalgia trip and want Battlefield 1942/2 with a graphical upgrade, but that is ridiculous. I can think of a few titles that kept the same core gameplay for years and only updated the graphics for every iteration, and they were stagnating. Either it evolves to remain a competitive force in the new market, or it stagnates and fails financially, killing off any chance of new iterations in the future. I am not disagreeing on the fact that it should remain close to its roots, but they should also not be afraid to bring in technology and ideas from other games. If you want Battlefield 2 all over again, go play Battlefield 2. You're not a dedicated fan if you refuse to let them try to change it up, you're just holding it back.[/QUOTE]
People always complain about the lack of innovation, but when an old series gets a fresh look people being to just jump on the wagon of "it should exactly like the last games." It happened to Fallout, it happening to Deus Ex: Human Revolution, happened to Red Faction, and its happening to countless other series. Hell, even recent titles like ME2 and DA2 got raged at. Then they go right back to complaining about how CoD always stays the same. Way to be closed minded guys.
[editline]2nd March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=redonkulous;28385854]I hope they improve the AI. The enemies were doing their "ima sit around and get shot at as I expose my entire body to a bunch of people with machine guns". I would really love a shooter where the enemies act like real people. They sit behind cover shitting their pants and popping out just enough to shoot at you. In the past, only having the enemies expose a tiny bit of themselves was realistic, but hard to hit and annoying since the walls wouldn't break. If the destruction works like they claim then you can just bust down their wall, or shoot through it or any number fo things.[/QUOTE]
I think they left it like that for the demo so the player wouldn't get shot up a lot, but we'll see when more gameplay comes out.
[QUOTE=FlyingDog;28385756]While I will agree that Battlefield 2 at least had some great stuff going for it, and still does, the gameplay is now technically outdated. I know most people are on a nostalgia trip and want Battlefield 1942/2 with a graphical upgrade, but that is ridiculous. I can think of a few titles that kept the same core gameplay for years and only updated the graphics for every iteration, and they were stagnating. Either it evolves to remain a competitive force in the new market, or it stagnates and fails financially, killing off any chance of new iterations in the future. I am not disagreeing on the fact that it should remain close to its roots, but they should also not be afraid to bring in technology and ideas from other games. If you want Battlefield 2 all over again, go play Battlefield 2. You're not a dedicated fan if you refuse to let them try to change it up, you're just holding it back.[/QUOTE]
Refuse to let them try to change it up? I only said I hoped it would go towards 1942/2 (instead of where bad company has went)
Yeah, this is an early build of and unfinished game, so they could go that way, we don't know. But you could say that this was MW3 and I would be like "Oh shit they made it really sexy looking and sounding, same durr hurr gameplay though"
Haha, the censoring was very clever.
Modern Warfare BF?
For a game which is based on multiplayer, this singleplayer looks supprisingly immersive.
[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;28382232]I assume they aim to have 2 types of singleplayer. Story mode and skirmishes.
[editline]2nd March 2011[/editline]
Pretty sure that the fundamentals of Source engine are for it to be playable by the largest portion of the community possible. That's the way it's always been and Valve regularly reminds people about that.[/QUOTE]
UE3 runs much better than Source on my PC. Source is a CPU-hog in every respect.
[editline]2nd March 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stopper;28382563]The running animation and bobbing was really stiff, as always.[/QUOTE]
Looked good to me, except the FOV on the weapon models could've been tighter or the weapons moved closer during the sprint animation.
[QUOTE=Khaos-23;28381918]But what more can you really do with a modern-era war FPS? Apart from more immersion into the story, and more interactivity, the actually shooting can't really be that revolutionized.
I'm sick of seeing every new FPS come out being branded as "another generic FPS" before anyone's played it. Apart from adding superpowers what more can be done?
Aside from that however, the animation, and the graphics in this gameplay look amazing.[/QUOTE]
Good argument.
I am less hyped after seeing that trailer, but I hope they manage to make this game right.
Just the fact it was a PC recording made it 10x's better.
I hope the dragging your team mates away thing can be integrated into multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Khaos-23;28381918]But what more can you really do with a modern-era war FPS? Apart from more immersion into the story, and more interactivity, the actually shooting can't really be that revolutionized.
I'm sick of seeing every new FPS come out being branded as "another generic FPS" before anyone's played it. Apart from adding superpowers what more can be done?
Aside from that however, the animation, and the graphics in this gameplay look amazing.[/QUOTE]
Solution: Stop making (generic) modern-era war FPSes if you're just gonna settle for another mediocre shooter
It's been done to death in the last 5 years alone goddamn
If you're a game developer and you can't bring anything new to the plate, you're doing it wrong (in my opinion)
The whole look of the gun looks fuckin stupid, everything else is pretty cool.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
