[Deepblue]

Originally posted by aldo_14


What, you mean like behaviour in a movie?

Ah, but movies are not interactive.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by Kalfireth

Hopefully though, once they've achieved a decent level of realism - they'll start to see what else they can do again. Look at Max Payne.. or that game that used stencil shading exclusively. They worked really quite nicely but also had their own unique styles.

And in some cases, a unique style could be a terrible idea. As an example I call up Freelancer which opted for the comic-book style of graphics over the "realism" of Independence War and such. It ended up looking terrible in my opinion.

Thats definately right.  The focus right now is definately on making games look pretty...but there is a lot that can be done about making the games play better too.  They haven't changed much in the last few years.

Usually I get the feeling that things were really thought through on only a few games.  Mostly Blizzard ones...and you know why they spend years in development...it takes that long and it takes a large group of talented people to do it.  Most game houses don't get that time or haven't got that experience to produce a better playing game when they have to focus on a better looking game.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue


Ah, but movies are not interactive.

Doesn't matter.  Both present a visual image which can be considered to demonstrate 'wrong' behaviour to children.  Both can be considered as glorifying that.

If anything, games are better than movies in that respect; they are more capable of showing consequences and alternatives, and require consideration of actions.

More importantly, both are regulated to protect against that sort of problem.  If a kid is unable to distinguish between what is, after all, a TV screen and what is reality, then they shouldn't be playing games atall.

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by CP5670
The original Unreal got singleplayer FPS combat just about perfect from a gameplay balance perspective, but we still haven't seen anything else that good.

Please. Half-Life is remembered for its gameplay. Unreal is remembered for its graphics.

[CP5670]

rofl, when I saw you as the latest poster on this thread I just knew you must have quoted me.

HL didn't come anywhere close to Unreal in this respect. Unreal is still the only singleplayer FPS game I have seen where fights with enemies actually last for a while and involve a fair bit of dodging and strafing. Both you and the enemies were fairly strong and the weapons weren't all ballistic ranged rifles with instant bullet speeds that you see in many games today, so there was less of that random factor as well.

[IceFire]

Originally posted by CP5670
rofl, when I saw you as the latest poster on this thread I just knew you must have quoted me.

HL didn't come anywhere close to Unreal in this respect. Unreal is still the only singleplayer FPS game I have seen where fights with enemies actually last for a while and involve a fair bit of dodging and strafing. Both you and the enemies were fairly strong and the weapons weren't all ballistic ranged rifles with instant bullet speeds that you see in many games today, so there was less of that random factor as well.

What'd be great in modern FPS games is an actual bullet physics model that is as detailed as the one in Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters.  So far, no FPS touches this game for the detail of its physics calculations...although HL2 I understand does some pretty flexible things too.  Just not detailed.

The next Raven Shield game REALLY should focus on a high fidelity physics engine for bullets and objects.  No more instant bullet...the thing actually travels through the air, the player is affected by realistic levels of recoil, the weapon generates heat and affects accuracy and possibility of jamming.  And sniper rifles that are rewarding with their hit potential but challenging with their requirement to deal with wind, bullet drop, and the like.

That'd be cool.  And it totally should be done...if one of the developers can have the balls to do it and not shy away infavour of the low end console crowd.

[aldo_14]

Battlefield 2 was suppossed to have proper bullet physics; AFAIK it simply makes hitting anything with a rifle to be a completely random experience.  Pain in the arse, may I add.

[Fineus]

That's pretty much it... although it's worth noting that apparently the sniper rifles do require you to draw lead / aim high on your target to ensure a hit as the bullet will drop as it travels.

Of course, most of the rifles are random and going prone only has one effect - it means that the enemy has a much higher chance of getting a headshot on you.

Pretty crappy really

[Turnsky]

there's realism, then there's gameplay balance

[aldo_14]

And then there's annoyance.  I welcome proper bullet droop / lead on sniper rifles; anything that stops me making cheap simple kills can only be good for general gameplay.

The support weapons (i.e M-60) in particular for BF2 are a ****ing disgrace, though.  I can position the sights perfectly on a static enemy and it'll still only hit about 5% (literally) of the time.  It's annoying as hell because it's such a simple premise (fighting big online battles), and yet it could be so much better.  That and the ****ing bunny hoppers.

[Mefustae]

Originally posted by aldo_14
The support weapons (i.e M-60) in particular for BF2 are a ****ing disgrace, though.  I can position the sights perfectly on a static enemy and it'll still only hit about 5% (literally) of the time.  It's annoying as hell because it's such a simple premise (fighting big online battles), and yet it could be so much better.  That and the ****ing bunny hoppers.

How ironic! If you will, remember back to when BF:V first came out, and said M-60 was, I believe many put it "TEH UBER W34PWN!!11!!1!" (please excuse my 1337speak )... Seriously though, I was popping VietCong & NVA left, right and centre at 500 Yards with that FullyAutomatic Sniper Machine Gun...!

And please, treasure at least the fact that you can play BF2. I've chosen to wait to upgrade my archaic GF4 Ti4200 until after my HSC (big end-highschool test thingy), meaning that I've had the game in my possession (two copies actually) since before it came out (special deal), and haven't been able to play it once...

[aldo_14]

The M-60 was a joke in BF:V for that reason, too.... especially when it was paired with a rocket launcher in the release version.  They've just done the opposite this time round.

[Fineus]

There's that as well. I'm all for games looking good - heck I think it's quite important in the aspect of immersion. But that's another big let down for BF2... it looks good. It looks really good.

And yet it suffers from graphics lag on good machines. Couple that with the low hit rates on guns that really should mow down enemies if used correctly - and you end up with a game that is more luck than skill. It stops being fun...

...whereas in BF1942 DC - an accurate player could make all the difference. Heck, there was skill involved in the accuracy because the guns were capable - the maps didn't lag computers to a standstill. Your win / lose chances hinged on how good you were, not how lucky you were.

That's why I'm so uninclined to fire up BF2. It improved itself a lot over BF:V but it simply didn't have the right stuff. I've a horrible feeling that EA took all the goodness of DiCE and Trauma Studios and raped it out of them so that they could whore their corporate selves.

As for the M60.. yes, in BF:V it was a super-weapon. Accurate in any situation - anyone who picked it up stood a good chance of getting the top score. Fun for those that had it.. and no fun at all for those without it. It divided the community into those that scorned it and those that figured "it's in the game, so using it is fair enough". DiCE balanced it too late and the game never really hit the market properly.

Meh... maybe one day they'll get the mix right again.

[aldo_14]

I think BF2, to be fair, is far better in terms of performance than BF:V.  BF:V was the only game I've ever returned because of bugs.... it lagged in single player.

[Mefustae]

You actually returned it! Wow...Personally, i've long since gotten used to the whole 'EA uses the buyers as beta testers' thing, and learned to live with whatever bugs i find until around the 4th or 5th patch that usually makes it playable...BF:V became surprisingly fun - but not without its fair share of bugs - after a while, and mods like Point of Existence really turned a respectable game into a really good buy...What I haven't gotten over is how - as Kalfireth so eloquently put it - EA seriously raped and gutted both Dice, Trauma Studios (the whole business surrounding the cancellation of that deal was really rotton), and pretty much the entire Battlefield franchise, periodically destroying one of the greatest games on the PC with low-quality sequels...

[aldo_14]

I think I returned  BF:V with the statement "it doesn't ****ing work, and I'm not waiting beyond the return period for a patch to fix it"

[karajorma]

If more people did that we'd get games that don't need patches.

Too many games ship with stuff the developers know are broken because they know that people will wait for a patch.