this is disconcerting...

[lawnmower]

Originally Posted by RJTravis

Hes saying that PS2 guns will feel like guns from triple-A FPS games & yes CoD is one.

CoD guns are great the guns are not the problem its the small maps & players that ruin CoD its not the guns for sure.

If the guns react & feel like CoD/BF3 then PS2 did it right.

no they dont feel good

Originally Posted by RJTravis

I my self hate CoD & Bf3 was a let down but both of them have great guns & to tell you the truth if PS2 guns don't feel like CoD/MoH/BF3/CSGF the game wouldn't do very well.

yes because those are the only games thats ever done well

Originally Posted by RageMasterUK

If it was a bad game it wouldn't have been milked to death.

-RageMasterUK

if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

This thread is much ado about nothing. As has already been pointed out, this is just a reference to how they're trying to make guns "feel". I don't like CoD, but it's a shooter with decent gun animations. Certainly a helluva lot better than PlanetSide 1's were. That is the point.

the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by lawnmower

no they dont feel good

That's your opinion. Others feel differently. (I personally have no opinion having not played CoD).

if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death

Wrong argument. Would have been: "If cigarettes didn't taste* good they wouldn't have been milked to death." Whether something is healthy or not isn't part of the argument, but rather whether it is enjoyable. For the discussion on the health of video games, I recommend the "Gore Pack" thread.

the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

Animations play a role in gameplay (switching weapon animations, reloading animations, etc.) and effect people's impression of them as well. Honestly what I got from the quote was that they wanted to have better quality gunplay closer to that of an actual FPS. Whether that's something you want or not, I think you should try the game and see for yourself.

A lot of the problems with CoD (as they are described to me by others) are rooted in balance and structure of the maps/game modes. I haven't heard many complaints about how weapons feel, only that x weapon is overpowered or whatever, and that's something that can definitely be avoided or corrected.


*(Is "taste" the right word for this? Smokers, let me know, I'm curious.)

[TtD]

Originally Posted by Shylan

I do consider the handling animations to be part of a weapon's 'feel', because that's about the only way I can think of to judge the feel of a weapon in a video game when you're not firing it and experiencing recoil, bullet spread, or bullet drop. In a game, you have no physical way to judge size or weight of a weapon other than the animations the character performs when you perform certain actions with the weapon. The only other clues present would be the sound design for that weapon and the actions associated with it.

Honestly interested: Where do you draw the distinction between a weapon's feel and its mechanics? To me, they're very closely related, if not inseparable.

I classify feel as anything purely cosmetic, sound quality, firing animation, recoil motion blur (note: not recoil itself), muzzle flash, accuracy of representation (how competently what you see reflects what the netcode is actually delivering). Basically anything that contributes to the experience of shooting in a game, but isn't an intentionally introduced mechanic to affect balance.

Under mechanics, you have the gun balancing (recoil/accuracy bloom/ttk), avatar movement, ADS time, scope design, etc...

Mechanics determine what you experience, 'feel' are the implemented affects that determine how that experience is received by the player. A good 'feel' game can cover some level of bad mechanics by being a fun experience to play, a mechanically sound game however can be disappointing if they mess up the 'feel' of the experience. If you want a good example of 'feel' in effect, look at the success of Treyarch iterations of CoD vs IW versions. They are never as successful, as while using near identical mechanics, Treyarch games have never properly pulled off the 'feel' effects. Most noticeably, they have a far worse record of linking the user experience to what the netcode is doing, guns feel far more clunky and unresponsive in the Treyarch versions (WaW and Black Ops are big offenders), and this turns off the playerbase.

For the record, i'll say PS1 was a brutal game both in terms of the mechanics, and the 'feel', they were so limited at the time by tech that they delivered a truly horrible firing experience. It survived on the meta game, rather than doing the avatar stuff well.

[Piper]

I always feel like I'm actually holding a mouse that's connected to a computer that is generating a disembodied (why don't FPS's actually model the entire body these days by the way?) hand/arm that's holding a polygon representation of a futuristic weapon.

But then I have no imagination.

Gameplay>>All. /ducks

[Astrok]

Originally Posted by lawnmower

no they dont feel good


yes because those are the only games thats ever done well


if cigarettes were bad for you they wouldnt have been milked to death


the point is that they want to make gun animations better? and what has that to do with the quality of gameplay and how good guns feel?

u can say whatever u like.Me myself doesnt like cod either ..battlefield is ok but thats my oppinion but to tell u the truth if they both where pieces of crap then why the hell they selling milions of copys every year?.

U can say i dont like the gameplay but u cant say it sucks.I dont like macdonalds but if u look at those restaurants they always filled with people.

[wasdie]

Like it or not, CoD is the gold standard of shooter today in terms of feel. It took them many years to get that feel just right too.

From what I can tell, Planetside 2 follows some of the basic look and feel of the shooting of CoD, but the distances in between targets, and the tracking of bullets (not hitscan) really changes everything. I think it will be fine.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

This thread is disconcerting.

Yes, but is it ridiculous (mods)?

[Astrok]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Yes, but is it ridiculous (mods)?

its a thread that has nothing in it really lol.

people complaining about how the guns will be without even playing yet is kinda concerning yes.

[Fligsnurt]

Originally Posted by Drakkonan

The part that disappointed me was that he mentioned CoD instead of Battlefield. Battlefield's guns feel a lot better than CoD's, but that's primarily due to recoil.

I agree, CoD weapons don't have much recoil and half the time they don't have much deviation. More then a few are just point and click laser beams. BF3 did have better weapon handling and I enjoyed it, honestly I hope that if they are trying to have their gun play more modernized that they aren't using CoD as their example to go by.

[Beem]

The stupidity of this thread is astounding. If you found a reason to not like the gun play in easily the best set of gun play games ever to be released you can see yourself out. The rest of the gameplay in these games doesn't matter because that's not what was being copied.

[NePaS]

Originally Posted by Piper

(why don't FPS's actually model the entire body these days by the way?)

If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

[FastAndFree]

Originally Posted by NePaS

If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

He meant like Mirror's Edge or milsims, where you can see your body/legs if you look down


Also I don't understand this thread. The op quotes claims to make gun handling feel more "real", which is great because firing any of the weapons in PS1 felt very "unsatisfying" and... ethereal?

[Piper]

Originally Posted by NePaS

If they do that,it is not an FPS anymore,it becomes a TPS(Third Person Shooter)

No I don't mean over the shoulder, I mean model the entire body but put the camera at eye level (no peripheral vision of course to help ) and then if you have a key to toggle head movement you can see your body. Also when rag-dolling through the air with an explosion etc.

Actually...didn't the original ArmA game do that?

[Shylan]

Originally Posted by TtD

I classify feel as anything purely cosmetic, sound quality, firing animation, recoil motion blur (note: not recoil itself), muzzle flash, accuracy of representation (how competently what you see reflects what the netcode is actually delivering). Basically anything that contributes to the experience of shooting in a game, but isn't an intentionally introduced mechanic to affect balance.

Under mechanics, you have the gun balancing (recoil/accuracy bloom/ttk), avatar movement, ADS time, scope design, etc...

Mechanics determine what you experience, 'feel' are the implemented affects that determine how that experience is received by the player. A good 'feel' game can cover some level of bad mechanics by being a fun experience to play, a mechanically sound game however can be disappointing if they mess up the 'feel' of the experience. If you want a good example of 'feel' in effect, look at the success of Treyarch iterations of CoD vs IW versions. They are never as successful, as while using near identical mechanics, Treyarch games have never properly pulled off the 'feel' effects. Most noticeably, they have a far worse record of linking the user experience to what the netcode is doing, guns feel far more clunky and unresponsive in the Treyarch versions (WaW and Black Ops are big offenders), and this turns off the playerbase.

I never really thought about it that way, but now that I do, it does make quite a bit of sense to me.

Originally Posted by Piper

Actually...didn't the original ArmA game do that?

Yep, it did. All of Bohemia Interactive's Arma games, and their professional simulators, have a true first-person view. Same with Valve's Left 4 Dead series. They've all been praised for including that feature, too.

[TtD]

Originally Posted by Shylan

I never really thought about it that way, but now that I do, it does make quite a bit of sense to me.

It's actually the main problem with a lot of modern FPS. Whereas your CS, CoD2, SOF2, Quake, etc... only really had netcode, and basic things like locational sound to worry about, the modern FPS feels the need to have the best sound quality (BF series especially), best motion effects, biggest explosions, etc... and as a result the key things a lot of obsessive FPS gamers worry about most have been degraded. If you want to tar the CoD series for anything, blame them for the degradation of netcode quality in almost all recent FPS games in attempt to add more 'experience', since CoD4 the reliability has got worse and worse compared to the older games (punkbuster is partly to blame for this but it's one of multiple things clogging up the netcode that have been added in recent years). Used to be that a playable ping range was anywhere from about 0-180, and you'd get no real issues other than the time delays. If you look at the more recent games, Black Ops starts to fall apart over a 60 ping, BF3 at about 80, that's a huge dropoff in performance and playability, and just kills cross-Atlantic, pan-european, etc... clans.

When veterans moan about the curse of CoD, it's not just the kiddies, it's the style over substance as well. When the OP worries about the 'feel' of CoD leaking in, he's not exactly wrong to be cautious, but he's worrying for the wrong reasons. Mechanics are easy to change over time, 'feel' is a lot more permanent and harder to tweak.