From a tactical gamer, jaded by 'trendy' modern shooters - Page 11

Broadside · 2012-07-24, 11:45 AM

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-24, 11:46 AM

I think what GreatMazinkaise(Nice name by the way) is trying to say is, Sure, blinding sun and lots of dust and shellshock effects happen to a soldier. Are they fun? No. So why put them in just for the sake of realism? ESPECIALLY when most of your game isn't realistic? Answer: Because some people are probably stupid enough to believe that because your game has bullet drop and travel times it's 100% realism.

Another example, say instead of pointing your sniper sights/scope upwards a certain degree, you would have to account for wind, humidity and adjust sights(see Arma 2:Extreme sniping). Is that fun? No. But it works(somewhat) for Arma because it's supposed to be a realistic shooter.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-24, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Broadside

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

Exactly. Higby seems legitimately excited when he describes PS2. He reminds me of a less vulgar cliffyB, lol.

People need to stop with the notion that all developers don't ever put their heart and soul into what they create just because it isn't the 2003 counterstrike world series. Do they make concessions? Sure. Does giving people what they want mean that they're slaves in a sweatshop, being whipped by overlord publishers? No.

This whole issue kind of seems like people came out of cryogenic freezing. Austin Powers came out wondering why everyone wasn't just shagging everyone, and a lot of players around here seem to wonder why whe still aren't iceskating around with a pinpoint reticul in a low-res 4x4 box.

feuerdog · 2012-07-24, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

I think what GreatMazinkaise(Nice name by the way) is trying to say is, Sure, blinding sun and lots of dust and shellshock effects happen to a soldier. Are they fun? No. So why put them in just for the sake of realism? ESPECIALLY when most of your game isn't realistic? Answer: Because some people are probably stupid enough to believe that because your game has bullet drop and travel times it's 100% realism.

Another example, say instead of pointing your sniper sights/scope upwards a certain degree, you would have to account for wind, humidity and adjust sights(see Arma 2:Extreme sniping). Is that fun? No. But it works(somewhat) for Arma because it's supposed to be a realistic shooter.

Dying in the game is traumatizing and unfun too. We should remove it.

I agree that effects without a purpose are not needed, but it can be argued that almost any realistic effect can and will be used for a tactical advantage.

Fighter pilots using the glare of sunlight in a dogfight.
Suppression fire used to restrict enemy movement.
Smoke to conceal friendly movement.
The psychological effect of seeing your friends head explode into a cloud of pink mist.

The issue is finding a balance between accessibility, realism, fun, detail, simulation, immersion, stats, no stats, and/or whatever other aspect of play makes the game. You can't please everyone, but you should at least expect the standard to remain similar to whats already out there.

brighthand · 2012-07-24, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Broadside

I never get why people are so offended when game developers "cater to the masses". Why would they make a game that less people are going to buy? That's just business. On top of that, did you ever stop and think that maybe the developers like the new modern way to play FPS's?

Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean you are better/more right/have any idea what you are talking about.

Let us say that you like icecream sundeas. You like the sprinkles and the fudge, and the random sugar cones and all of that Jazz. You appreciate all the intricacies of said ice cream sundea.

Now comes a regular ice cream cone; one scoop on a regular cone. It is cheaper, and comes out faster. more people buy it, and on a hot day like today, it is in high demand.

Do you hold it against those people for liking their quickie one-scoop icecream cone? -no. You happily go back to the stand and purchase another sundea and contently wait for its preparation, and eat to your delight; they like what they like and you like what you like, and you each have your own thing.

The day passes, and you wake up tomorrow, on another hot day, and find you are in the mood for another serving of that heavenly ice cream sundea and all of its toppings. You head to the usual place and wait your turn in a crowd of icecream lovers. When you finally get there, you find that the place no longer sells ice cream sundeas; It's a hot day and there are lots of people who want the cones, and its cheaper and faster to produce. -not to mention it just makes alot of business sense.

So you go elsewhere searching for a place that sells sundeas with the extra fudge and sprinkles on top, and three layers of complexed flavors and toppings. High and low you search, and...nothing.

-here is where your actual reasoning is inserted-

According to you, in this hypothetical situation where you hypothetically love your sundeas, you should just keep quiet and quit asking icecream makers to make icecream sundeas. Ice cream sundeas are a way of the past, and the new single-scoop icecream cones are what 100% of icecream lovers should now buy since the majority of people (only greater than 50%), like them. Furthermore, to yern for the icecream sundea and bemoan the lack of production of said sundeas by producers is elitist.

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game

wasdie · 2012-07-24, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by brighthand

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game

Well the problem here is that people usually mistake outdated, archaic gameplay for complex and deep. More often than that, people make the assumption that gameplay found in one game can transfer over to another style of game just fine.

Even more, people often fail to see the depth that a certain gameplay element has. Instead they just see it doesn't work exactly how they want and thus they don't actually see the differences and the new complexities and depth. Of course a game like Quake 3 is going to have a whole different set of skills required to be good at it than BF3. They aren't remotely similar. From what I'm reading here, people are just comparing apples and oranges.

OnexBigxHebrew · 2012-07-24, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by brighthand

Let us say that you like icecream sundeas. You like the sprinkles and the fudge, and the random sugar cones and all of that Jazz. You appreciate all the intricacies of said ice cream sundea.

Now comes a regular ice cream cone; one scoop on a regular cone. It is cheaper, and comes out faster. more people buy it, and on a hot day like today, it is in high demand.

Do you hold it against those people for liking their quickie one-scoop icecream cone? -no. You happily go back to the stand and purchase another sundea and contently wait for its preparation, and eat to your delight; they like what they like and you like what you like, and you each have your own thing.

The day passes, and you wake up tomorrow, on another hot day, and find you are in the mood for another serving of that heavenly ice cream sundea and all of its toppings. You head to the usual place and wait your turn in a crowd of icecream lovers. When you finally get there, you find that the place no longer sells ice cream sundeas; It's a hot day and there are lots of people who want the cones, and its cheaper and faster to produce. -not to mention it just makes alot of business sense.

So you go elsewhere searching for a place that sells sundeas with the extra fudge and sprinkles on top, and three layers of complexed flavors and toppings. High and low you search, and...nothing.

-here is where your actual reasoning is inserted-

According to you, in this hypothetical situation where you hypothetically love your sundeas, you should just keep quiet and quit asking icecream makers to make icecream sundeas. Ice cream sundeas are a way of the past, and the new single-scoop icecream cones are what 100% of icecream lovers should now buy since the majority of people (only greater than 50%), like them. Furthermore, to yern for the icecream sundea and bemoan the lack of production of said sundeas by producers is elitist.

I'm afraid I cannot aggree with you there. If I am elitist just for wanting a game with less shallow mechanics and dynamics, then very well - as long as I get my game

All of this hypothetical assumes that the other, popular item IS of less quality and has less depth.

Maybe what it is is that you prefer the old ice cream sunday, and the new rage comes with graham cracker crumbs and marshmallows, but you feel that your old ice cream has a less muddied flavor and is more natural, so people shouldn't eat this bullshit s'more flavored icecream. Therefore, even though people seem to love it, you complain to the manager about people not liking what you like, even though you still have the option of buying it.

Maybe you shouldn't use hypotheticals that require the other side to assume what they want is of lesser quality.

Because I fucking LOVE marshmallows and graham cracker crumbs, buddy, and thankfully, they made the cut, in a manner of speaking.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-24, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by feuerdog

Dying in the game is traumatizing and unfun too. We should remove it.

I agree that effects without a purpose are not needed, but it can be argued that almost any realistic effect can and will be used for a tactical advantage.

I never though about it like that. BUT, Dying is a consequence. Whether it'll be because you charged blindly for a kill or you were ambushed or another cause, it's a consequence.
Now adding something like sun glare, is not a consequence. It's a curse for someone who's unlucky enough to be on the sunshine side of the engagement.

feuerdog · 2012-07-24, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

I never though about it like that. BUT, Dying is a consequence. Whether it'll be because you charged blindly for a kill or you were ambushed or another cause, it's a consequence.
Now adding something like sun glare, is not a consequence. It's a curse for someone who's unlucky enough to be on the sunshine side of the engagement.

It's not a curse, it's a realistic effect that can be taken advantage of and/or guarded against, and understanding the nuances of the environment, of comabt, and those consequences, that is what makes the game deeper on a tactical level.

What are the consequences of standing next to an explosion?
What are the consequences of looking into the sun?
What are the consequences of .......?

I dont want to play 3D Axis and Allies,....I want to be enveloped in a rich and visceral immersive combat experience, where every effect whether unpleasant or enjoyable is a contributing factor in my demoralizing defeat or glorious victory.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-24, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by feuerdog

It's not a curse, it's a realistic effect that can be taken advantage of and/or guarded against, and understanding the nuances of the environment, of comabt, and those consequences, that is what makes the game deeper on a tactical level.

What are the consequences of standing next to an explosion?
You go boom and die, I don't need red jam and a ringing sound to know this. Or you could just be knocked back with a good chunk of damage. How about that for a change?
What are the consequences of looking into the sun?
Why would you even be looking into the sun? And I'm not sure about this, but don't soldiers have some sort of UV filter or glare reduction goggles? And if they don't, it's the future. If you have a problem with the future, shut up.
What are the consequences of .......?

I dont want to play 3D Axis and Allies,....I want to be enveloped in a rich and visceral immersive combat experience, where every effect whether unpleasant or enjoyable is a contributing factor in my demoralizing defeat or glorious victory.

The biggest problem with this sun problem is that it's mostly dumb luck whether or not you end up to have the sun infront of you or behind you(I'm not even sure how it works in Battlefield 3) unless you can find someway to force every enemy to be blinded by the sun while you aren't.

feuerdog · 2012-07-24, 02:06 PM

@ ThermalReaper

Youre absolutely right, the sound of an explosion may be too traumatic for modern FPS players to handle, we should replace all explosive sound effects with the spoken word "Boom" so that nobody becomes stunned or nauseous.

Your understanding of the realistic effect of the suns light on vision is not a prerequisite of its potential tactical use.

PS: I don't have a problem with the future.

ThermalReaper · 2012-07-24, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by feuerdog

@ ThermalReaper

Youre absolutely right, the sound of an explosion may be too traumatic for modern FPS players to handle, we should replace all explosive sound effects with the spoken word "Boom" so that nobody becomes stunned or nauseous.

Your understanding of the realistic effect of the suns light on vision is not a prerequisite of its potential tactical use.

PS: I don't have a problem with the future.

You may be giving them too much credit I'll be honest. You got me there, but just because it's realistic doesn't mean it has to be in a game. Team fortress is a very good example of this. Also, more on the future point, you are more armored and you have shields. I have no problem with slight blurs and effects that make me feel somewhat close to death, but not at all like the terrible blur effect from...anything that touches you in Rainbow six:Vegas(EDIT: Battlefield's' sun glare falls into the latter catagory in my honest opinion)

feuerdog · 2012-07-24, 02:35 PM

Agreed.

I like special effects, immersion, and depth of play just as much as the next guy, but in all things there needs to be balance, and some level of moderation.

I don't need there to be fancy effects crammed into every aspect of game play, I just want there to be as many as possible that make sense for the purpose of depth and immersion, all of it tempered to whatever realism fits for the PS universe of future.

It's doesn't all HAVE to be in the game, but it would be nice if it was.

brighthand · 2012-07-24, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by OnexBigxHebrew

All of this hypothetical assumes that the other, popular item IS of less quality and has less depth.

Maybe what it is is that you prefer the old ice cream sunday, and the new rage comes with graham cracker crumbs and marshmallows, but you feel that your old ice cream has a less muddied flavor and is more natural, so people shouldn't eat this bullshit s'more flavored icecream. Therefore, even though people seem to love it, you complain to the manager about people not liking what you like, even though you still have the option of buying it.

Maybe you shouldn't use hypotheticals that require the other side to assume what they want is of lesser quality.

Because I fucking LOVE marshmallows and graham cracker crumbs, buddy, and thankfully, they made the cut, in a manner of speaking.

My assumption that the popular thing is of lesser quality runs parallel with my referrence to COD, since it is the game that most modern shooters are based off of, and which actually IS of lesser quality from various standpoints (according to alot of people here who are trying to ESCAPE CODized games, hence why we are looking forward to Planetside 2).

As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

As for the graham crumbles being the new rage: that is fine too, but COD for example hardly has any grham crumbles. I am not advocating older mechanisms over new ones, because some developements over the years ARE superior to older mechanics. The problem is that, while their have been advancements made in the genre, there has also been an unrelated development of new-gen player prefferences that don't include deeper gameplay and strategy/tactics.

This is why it is a complicated issue: Since you may think I am talking about more fluid animations, bullet drop, recoil, and the like, when I'm referring to the meta game: objectives, tactical pacing, planning, skill-based shooting, the emphasis on ones individual performance in a game that should be about objectives (depending on the game).

I know that what works for one game shouldn't automatically work for another, and some games SHOULDN't be about tactics and all of that tralala, but the original game in a certain series, whose foundations were built in deeper mechanics and tactical gameplay have lost their chocolate fudge and whipped cream- and Graham cracker crumbs- in order to be the stripped down single-scoop cone that the majority of the market seems to prefer.

Again, I'll refer to KZ2: That game had very difficult, but very satisfying learning curve and gunplay (although it isn't for many people), the pacing was just enough so that if you chose a direction to go in, you had to commit to it, as rerouting would cost you some positioning. The class balance was great, and the tactician could lay down spawn points according to his tactical creativity. There are alot of other features that I won't mention because this is already a wall of text.

Killzone 3: Most of the things that made killzone 2 great and unique were taken away- and on top of that, were not even replaced by anything better; as a matter of fact, somethings weren't replaced by anything at all! In KZ3 there was no spawn on squad leader, there was no server browser, decent clan system. Some things did get replaced however- with inferior solutions. Not inferior according to my opinion, but literally inferior solutions. example: instead of spawn grenades, there were fixed spawn positions that killed the dynamism and strategy in the map. In battlefield, fixed capture points were fine because the map sizes allowed for greater flexability, but in KZ3's narrow passages and clustered rooms, people could then memorize the map and know where each post was and simply camp it to farm kills; it didn't help that you could not spawn on squad leader to flank a position to get to an objective. On top of that, they inputed a god-class sniper that one-hit-kills you with a shot to your big toe and can cloak indefinitely- in maps as small as KZ maps, that is pure death for anyone who is not a sniper; all so that COD players can feel at home racking up kills- instead of playing the objective.

Killzone lost its features in an attempt to be COD and that is what I refer to in my posts. Just because something is newer doesn't mean it is better and has more features; I look at what it has in comparison to what it could have had, and what its predecessor had/has, and I see a devolution, not progress.

Here is hoping PS2 doesn't follow suit

Flaropri · 2012-07-24, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by ThermalReaper

The biggest problem with this sun problem is that it's mostly dumb luck whether or not you end up to have the sun infront of you or behind you(I'm not even sure how it works in Battlefield 3) unless you can find someway to force every enemy to be blinded by the sun while you aren't.

In PS2, the sun will travel across the skies at a set rate, so you CAN control where the sun is relative to your position, based on the angle of your attack. Defenders are relatively screwed though, but they have other benefits (like walls and turrets for example) and could still use it with a surprise rear attack for example.

Also, there could totally be virtual sunglasses as an armor Cert or at the very least polarized scopes (along with night vision scopes and such already present).

Realistically though, I think most people would turn down the bloom and/or brightness to make things more visible/better contrast. I rather doubt that any game maker would make the sun in their games able to effectively blind rather than at best mask a silhouette.

Onto the meat:

Originally Posted by brighthand

As I wrote in the previous post, if other people like it, that is fine 'they have their thing and [I would have mine]" But that isn't the case, as their high demand for 'their thing' makes the producers furnish ONLY their thing and thus cause a stagnating Market.

This assumes that a given vendor isn't able to adapt to demand in such a way as to still provide differences and a deeper, richer, product while incorporating what has been successful. I mean, that's often the case, but it isn't always the case. WoW was built on the standard (at the time) formula for MMORPGs, but innovated by applying more quests, being more casual friendly (no loss of levels on death for example) etc.

Iteration on success is also a large part of what brought us into the current era away from for example Quake (and Quake and Quake style-variants are still being made, so that flavor is still available). Further iteration is what will bring FPS into the next stage whatever that is (even if it ends up being somewhat a re-hash of previous styles).