this is disconcerting... - Page 4

Katanauk · 2012-08-05, 06:50 AM

Why is it people instantly hate on things that reference COD? Yeah it's mainstream. And loads of people play it. Your hatred for COD makes you so indie! Pft.

I don't play it, myself, I just don't enjoy it like I used to and I have a (for me) better alternative in BF3, but its successful for a reason and there are elements to it I can appreciate, one of the being the weaponry! (except black ops, when I played that every weapon made the same sound . . . weird.)

If Planetside is drawing the successes from other projects I applaud them. I trust them to maintain their own innovation and individuality whilst picking the best parts from other genres to make Planetside as good as it can be.

I felt it necessary to bold that text to prevent people from flaming me claiming what I said means PS2 will be another generic shooter.

On a slightly different note, but still relevant to the thread, I strongly prefer Battlefield 3 weaponry, if they were gonna base it on another game I wish it had been BF3 not COD.

brighthand · 2012-08-05, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Snipefrag

Why do people have hissy fits when someone mentions CoD or battlefield, if we took for first 4 words off of that quote would you have come in here and made such a pointless thread?:

yes. The word 'twitchy' would still raise an eyebrow...the people's eyebrow (;o

As for the people defending COD...if after all this time, you can't see why COD has been cancerous to the FPS and the gaming industry, well, I leave you to revel in your opinions.

Down with mediocrity!

Originally Posted by Memeotis

... ... ... Really? I used to think that killstreak rewards was the worst thing that CoD introduced into the genre, but now it's becoming obvious that in fact it's only in second place. So many people nowadays seem to have mindlessly hopped onto the CoD hate-train, for no other reason that so many other people say they hate it. Form your own fucking thoughts.

Just because a game is bad does not mean that EVERYTHING about said game is bad. Brink was a bad game, but it had some amazing elements. I think Battlefield 3 is a bad game, but I certainly recognize that it, too, has some brilliant things going on. Have you ever taken a second and asked yourself: If there is so much hate for Call of Duty, how come it's so successful? When Call of Duty first came out, it had no such thing as killstreaks, but it was still one of the most successful titles (and at that time a really good game), why? The feel of the guns and the amazing sound. Call of Duty 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, because the whole experience felt unbelievably smooth, and because one-click-to-activate killstreaks didn't exist yet, everything that happened in that game was skill vs. skill. It was an even playing field where good players didn't become progressively better with UAV, chopper gunner, air-strikes, etc.

If PS2 manages to get anywhere close to how shooting feels in CoD, it will be a good thing.

I typically don't jump on any trains. I've always been more of an independent thinker type. I evaluate things based on their merits and my own preferences- and have found COD, to be LACKING on many fronts. Many others, especially in the PC community, do the same, and we can all agree, that COD's influence overall, is a bad thing. Battlefield 3's gun handling would be PRETTY sweet. COD's would not - because of previously stated reasons that you seem to be ignoring in an attempt to make a blanket statement that anyone who hates COD, does so blindly without actually having legitimate reasons.

NoDachi · 2012-08-05, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

It doesn't do anything of the kind. What makes you think he isn't in the tech test?

Because what if there is not a single thread with this complaint in the entire tech test forums?

I don't know. Try reading between the lines.

SturmovikDrakon · 2012-08-05, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Revanmug

nope, the .50 cal on all buggies are still terrible. That vid might make you think he is firing a very powerful gun but in reality, it got 0 precision and it's a dead trap against any infantry (and everything else...) worth it's salt for the simple reason that... he can easily kill you before you land the 3-4 hit markers needed.

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Yeah, that looks terrible. Fuck screen shake; I know the relative power of the weapon by looking at its bloody spreadsheet and what it does to the people he's shooting at.

Originally Posted by Shylan

The amount of screen shake from that gun is just fine. It gives the impression of heavy recoil from a mounted weapon while standing up. Of course you're not going to get the same visual stability as if you were lying prone with it or something.

Have a look at how much the recoil of an M249 light machine gun shakes its gunner when fired from a standing position, even when braced against it. And the M249 fires only .223 caliber rounds; not even .50 caliber.

If you can't properly aim with a buggy MHG then that's just sad. Learn to adapt

This doesn't just apply to buggy HMGs, but the ones on the tanks as well. Did you ever have problem firing from the passenger position in BF3?

I'll repeat, the screen-shake gives you an impression of power and simulates the heavy recoil

Currently, the HMGs in Planetside feel like plastic guns because they don't give you back any feedback, especially the Engineer placed MG due to its pathetic little sound

Marinealver · 2012-08-05, 08:35 AM

lol even though COD has no where near the real weapons physics. It looks like real weapons atleast with what is in the movies. But where in COD do you take 500 yard shots with an M16? Nope most fights except for snipre rifles are done at the pistol range of 25 yards. Even with the sniper rifles that is done at 300 yard most which is AK47 range.

Operation flashpoint a tactical shooter said it clearly an enemy that is a footbal field away (100 yards) is dangerously close. However you really can't get a good look at what you are shooting at from that far so that is why the videogame industry (and movie producers) often bring the range down to ball and musket range. So it looks like you can see your oponant in the face. Not to say the close quaters engagements do not happen. They happen all the time, that is why germany made the submachine gun. However there is a very long effective range out in open fields and forests when it comes to rifles.

brighthand · 2012-08-05, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by NoDachi

Because what if there is not a single thread with this complaint in the entire tech test forums?

I don't know. Try reading between the lines.

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

Sunrock · 2012-08-05, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by brighthand

If you have read my previous thread about 'modern shooters' you will know where I am coming from and why I would be slightly troubled by the following excerpt taken from an interview with Games Industry International:

"The Call of Duty players want to play a game where the weapons feel good, where the combat feels snappy, it feels twitchy, it feels exciting, and it feels legitimate. The weapon that I'm firing feels like a weapon. It doesn't feel like some floaty Nerf gun or something. I feel the impact, I hear the sound of the impact. I see the animation from it. We're building our game to follow that also. It would be way easier if we were just making guys running around with lasers and not worrying about that mechanic, but we're spending a ton of time on the weapons. We're spending so much time iterating that gun feeling that I think we will be able to capture those people who are used to playing a triple-A FPS. Because they're not playing a compromised FPS experience when they play PlanetSide 2."

full link here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...-duty-audience

note: while the rest of the interview gives me a positive outlook, I still cringe a lttle bit at the mention of COD having any influence over PS2's gameplay and a desire to make it 'more accessible'. I have heard that too many times before, and it leads to perdition. Thoughts?

original thoughts on the matter here: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=45638

Well as I understand it he just use COD as an example when talking about the physics, animation and sound of the weapons. I don't think he was talking about the game play in COD so I would not worry too mush.

Pyreal · 2012-08-05, 09:05 AM

Don't worry fellas, Jimmy is on the job!

ArmedZealot · 2012-08-05, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by brighthand

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

We didn't start the flame war. Peeps were hatin' on it before we posted comments.

NoDachi · 2012-08-05, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by brighthand

actually, I am not in the tech test. If there is not a single thread about this then I must be the only one looking closely at the gunplay? Everyone else just trusts SEO wholeheartedly? At any rate, perhaps we should end this thread, as it was only meant to voice a concern, not start a flamewar.

No, its just that those of in the Tech Test know how completely unfounded your 'close look' actually is.

Maniox · 2012-08-05, 10:06 AM

The mentality has started to change actually, gamers look down on mindless CoD fans, and to noones suprise their sales has dropped

Program · 2012-08-05, 11:00 AM

Everything he described about those guns aren't in Call of Duty.

vVRedOctoberVv · 2012-08-05, 11:45 AM

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.

DiabloTigerSix · 2012-08-05, 01:05 PM

Too much attention is being paid to Call of Duty. CoD has never had benchmark weapon feel or gun mechanics. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that CoD's recoil model has always been stupid - no progressive changes, just random mess.

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.

Both suck. BF3 recoil model doesn't make any sense. Alan Kertz, the guy behind it has absolutely no clue how to make proper rewarding/punishing weapon/recoil mechanics, let alone any Battlefield features.

Malckeor · 2012-08-05, 01:58 PM

'Sup everyone. First post.

Getting the weapons to feel good isn't something to be worried about; it doesn't matter whether or not the devs took inspiration from Call of Duty in this regard. If the weapons feel good, then that's one more positive quality in what will be an awesome game, and I'll be a happy man.

If you're worried about Call of Duty's community coming into Planetside 2, though, think of it this way: The only Call of Duty game that is active on the PC is Call of Duty 4, which is actually an awesome game with a cool bunch of players for the most part. If any Call of Duty player(s) will be playing Planetside 2, they'll likely be coming over from COD4.

The console players for COD are the ones to worry about, but they're most likely not going to hop from console to PC to play such a completely different game like Planetside 2. If there's one thing that's true about Call of Duty players, it's that they HATE change. Planetside 2 won't have hitscan and is not going to have a huge focus on K/D like COD does. We've got nothing to worry about.