Remember good times?

[TheSomeone]

Remember when a guns in games shot somewhere in the vicinity of your crosshair? Remember when you could actually do what you wanted, and weren't restriced by frustrating balancing "features" like massive cones of fire?

What happens to games that are actually fun to just get in and get out of?

Developers these days are all taking on to the shittiest trend (excuse my language). They want to provide an immersive teamplay experience so bad that they're willing to sacrifice the power of the player. They don't realize it completely defeats the purpose. I always see mod and game developers flauting "Unprecedented teamwork, you will quickly realize that playing as a lone wolf will get you nowhere," which is some of the most pretentious BS I heard.

Basically, developers directly state that they are making the individual weaker in order to encourage teamwork. Unfortuneatly, we all hate being weak in a game. We hate shooting 50 bullets at some guy and having them land all around him, and for him to turn around and with pure luck, get a headshot with a sidearm. So yeah, working as a team is fun, but having your bullets land 5 feet from where you mean them to land isn't.

Not only that, but the idea is incredibly stale. It's come to a point where I don't even care if the game offers "an unprecedented team experience." I'm sick and tired of it, and I wish someone would come with something original, something else than "pick between this really weak class and this really weak class, but keep in mind that they complete each other." Oh yeah, I"m sure i'll find another player on a pub fully willing to pick that other class and follow me around. How many times in DOD, as a sub-machine gunner, have you followed around a sniper and just camped the doorway of his room to make sure he wasn't flanked? During the whole game?

Games who try to achieve such "awesome teamplay" are reminiscent of self-conscious teenage girls. They're absolutely no fun to have around, and it doesn't matter if they're beautiful, they're shallow and boring. They try so hard to be popular that it completely backfires. The girls who get all the guys are the ones who aren't afraid to be a little crazy, rather than trying to sell the same thing everyone else does (boobs but and small waists).

You know what the next hugely popular mod is going to be? No, it won't be the one with jaw-dropping media that promises unprecedented team-play in which "the lone wolf is worth nothing" (COUGHINSURGENCYMODCOUGH), it'll be the mod that get a release within two months of its start, with cruddy models and ugly maps, but with a fresh gameplay that focuses on the player actually controlling where his bullets will land. And yeah, you can mark my words.

 

[Dog--]

BF2 has fun teamplay though, you gotta admit, in that game teamplay does get you farther, some games are cool with teamplay and some arent, for example:

BF2 = good teamplay
Doom 3 = crappy teamplay (teams take away the scaryness of doom)

 

[TheSomeone]

BF2 did somewhat good with teamplay, I will admit. But DoD: Source just pisses me off sometimes.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

You know what the next hugely popular mod is going to be? No, it won't be the one with jaw-dropping media that promises unprecedented team-play in which "the lone wolf is worth nothing" (COUGHINSURGENCYMODCOUGH),

Okay, IMHO that's just plain rude. Sorry that people want to build mods that they want to play...

Now, let's take another approach to this... Since you don't think that Cone of Fire and Class-based systems work in games, what do you suggest? Don't flame something and then have no idea on how to fix it, and then try to pass it off to others to think of a way of fixing...

Now of course you will probably just say don't have a Cone of Fire, but then there's the problem that you will need many many more bullets to kill a person to balance that perfect aim factor out...

Then there's the class system where I'm guessing you simply want all players to be equal but to choose weapons of their choice from a list... Well then there's the problem of how do you get gameplay variety in that? You then need to make sure every weapon has it's perks and such... For example in FEAR, I pretty much choose between the Assault Rifle and the Penetrator, nothing else (unless it's one of the special weapons you pick up in the maps)... Now I hardly ever see the other weapons getting played, which makes them useless... Thus having a class based system where everyone needs to work together seems to work in SOME games (every game has different needs).


Now, suggest some ideas instead of flaming with no purpose.

 

[TheSomeone]

I'm sorry Iced eagle, you completely missed the point. I wasn't flaming with no purpose, as a matter of fact I wrote this entire mini editorial with a very big purpose, to point out there's aboslutely no need for pretentious promises of team-based gameplay.

I didn't say that classes should be eliminated, I think classes is fairly crucial to multiplayer-games these days. I meant that there should be differenct classes to give the player different experiences, not to make one be useless without being accompanied by the other.

And as far as "don't flame something you don't know how to fix." I suggest you read your opponent's point twice before you try to refute it, because clearly I implied a fix throughout my post: make bullets hit where they should.

So yes, I do indeed suggest to make cone of fire minimal, and you are telling me that you would need many more bullets to balance it out? Why? I don't understasnd why you people have the mindset that others should be hard to kill.

The funnest multiplayer game I have ever played, hands down, is RTCW and its free expansion Enemy Territory . RTCW has a very small cone of fire, which gets even smaller as you crouch. It's so small it doesn't actually matter at all unless your enemy is very far away. It takes 3 headshots and 8 body shots to kill someone. Yet somehow it feels 100 times more powerful than the DOD:Source thompson, which takes much less hits to kill someone.

And the original DOD. The Kar98 hit pretty much wherever you aim, and it only took one hit to bring someone down. Sure, there were a few whiners, but DOD was still one of the most entertaining games ever.

And look at CS. There's something to be said about a game where the primary "team tactic" is letting your buddy go first so he can bait. But it's one of the most popular games out there, not to mention it also has a very controllable and comprehensive recoil system.

I'll admit, I wasn't very clear about proposing my ideas in my inital post, well here they are: Developers, try focusing on the individual player's gaming experience rather than trying to force him into teamplay by making him suck. Give us more accurate guns, so we actually feel in control of our kills, so we actually get satisfaction from killing someone with a headshot. There's a reason for "spray-and-pray" being a derogatory term in the gaming community. Painfully innacurate guns are a lose-lose situation. The killer feels like he can't kill anything properly with it, and the killed feels like his killer just got really lucky.

 

[Fliko]

And look at CS. There's something to be said about a game where the primary "team tactic" is letting your buddy go first so he can bait. But it's one of the most popular games out there, not to mention it also has a very controllable and comprehensive recoil system.

Thats my tactic! Forgot the part of carrying the bomb so more people go ahead of you first and bait, and they do it purposely to protect the 'bomb'
Yeah... something is missing in Games now.

 

[Dog--]

Jeez, If you guys are gonna argue can you atleast put it into 1 paragraph? there are 6 posts and it takes up the space of a usual page.... I mean.. My god!

 

[KagePrototype]

Serious Sam 2

FEAR :O

Painkiller :x

But yes I agree, less silly team work and more ass kicking and chewing bubblegum.

 

[TheSomeone]

But yes I agree, less silly team work and more ass kicking and chewing bubblegum.

You pretty muched condensed my 4 pages of arguments right there.

 

[pvtbones]

got back to the Quake and Unreal tournament series then, I still play the orginal UT whenever I feel a little burned out, or even better yet try tribes 2, it all comes down to how well you can aim with the spinfusor and skii.

 

[Ames]

Rounds will land where you aim...

http://www.insurgencymod.net/info.php?p=features

 

[TheSomeone]

http://www.insurgencymod.net/info.php?p=features

That's not what I was criticizing insmod for.

I have prior, rather dissapointing, experiences with the INS community.

 

[WaterMelon34]

Gawd, just buy Serious Sam 2 or something v_v rofl.

 

[pvtbones]

so your judging the mod by the community before it's even released, not very fair to the mod IMO

 

[TheSomeone]

so your judging the mod by the community before it's even released, not very fair to the mod IMO

Well, I'm not saying INS is going to be bad, I'm saying that they're taking a deceivingly attractive, but misleading path to trying to be a popular mod.

To quote Erik:

I think the real mistakes are happening on the individual MOD teams themselves. They are becoming far too hesitant and conservative in their approach to how they design, develop, and release their games. If you go back and look at the first versions of Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, or Day of Defeat, you'll see rough games that focus around a single game play idea.

Sometimes it feels like the MOD community is becoming more and more like the "professional" game community, where products are being approached as something that should take a long time, ship once, and then everyone moves on to the next big project. MOD teams that are approaching building games from this perspective are throwing all of the advantages they have out the window, and are just competing with every other game developer in the world.

 

[Qonfused]

I remember playing a game with no cone of fire. It was Deer Hunter. The Uzi shot, like, 10 bullets a second into one little hole (no recoil). In short, was that game fun?: no.

 

[bam23]

But it did what you wanted to right?

 

[Qonfused]

It did what I wanted too much. It wasn't fun since all I had to do was shoot. I didn't have to run around, dodge, etc. It just wasn't fun.

 

[VirusType2]

I can't stand team games! They aren't fun. I don't want computer players stealing my kills, getting in my way, and using up all my machines resources. Character models are complicated and their AI uses alot of processing. I'd much rather you put all those resources to making more complicated scenery and effects.

And if you are talking multiplayer online team games. I don't those either. its teh suck
I like some MMORPG's but even those can sometimes be annoying when u get some people in your team that suck, or when you can't find anyone to group with or just people that piss you off and argue

Just give me the best 1 vs. the world graphics you can give me

I'd rather play the part of someone like Bruce Willis, Vin Diesel, Riddick, Max Payne, etc.

I could make a list of 30 but im sure you recognize what im saying.

something like bruce lee or something?

I like being like a 1 man army

He doesn't have to be super strong or super-human. Someone like Bruce Wills usually plays in movies.

Just a guy who is the wrong one to F with. Who could take on anyone. Like Doom1
:sniper:

 

[WhiteZero]

So... you don't like how games are becomming more realistic since technology now allows them to be? I see.

Yes, in a real life situation, being a "lone wolf" is usualy going to land your ass in the morgue.

I do somewhat agree though. Too many FPS' are going for realisim instead of plain fun. We need more games like Duke Nukem again.

 

[Gray Fox]

Well seriouse sam 2 has co-op which is really fun, you get to shoot with 2-10 people at literally hunderds upon hunderds of enemies with the most wacky weapons ever.

The cone of fire is not that bad, as long as it is made so that you are able to control the gun, but it just adds a little bit of extra things to think about.
I personally like the cs cone of fire, but for the same reason I do not like DoD.
It seems it that game I just fire one bullet and my smg is allready pointing 90 degrees up, but it's just probably me not takng the time to learn the dynamics.

As far as teamplay is concerned I like the way Bf2 did it. each class has individual strengths that can be put to good use going solo. But just get better when you are in a team. So it's not like you are useless when alone, and strong when in a team. But strong enough on your own, but even better in a team. Plus it adds other things that make teamwork important.

But for the most part I do agree with you someone.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I can honestly say it's never bothered me. The only game where I've ever gotten pissed off at the innacuracy of firing (in, for example, Dod:S I simply try and learn to cope with it...don't always succeed ) is Brothers in Arms, and I didn't mind that because it meant you were forced to use tactics rather than unrealisticly amazing sharpshooter skills. It created an entirely different kind of game - in even the most supposedly realistic of WW2 games it's possible to pick off the enemies with super-accurate rifle shots.

 

[Bait]

I can honestly say it's never bothered me. The only game where I've ever gotten pissed off at the innacuracy of firing (in, for example, Dod:S I simply try and learn to cope with it...don't always succeed ) is Brothers in Arms, and I didn't mind that because it meant you were forced to use tactics rather than unrealisticly amazing sharpshooter skills. It created an entirely different kind of game - in even the most supposedly realistic of WW2 games it's possible to pick off the enemies with super-accurate rifle shots.

BiA is a pretty good example. Accuracy was less than amazing in that game, and that goes for rifles too. But it's just fun as hell to exchange rounds between a german squad hunkered down behind a 3 foot wall, and then realzing there is an open flank on the left.

As for DoD:S, I've seen lonewolfs go on murderous rampages without a shred of help from an otherwise incompotent team. Heck, alot of times I see maps like Donner and Anzio won by a lonewolf who managed to break through and make a rush for the last flag or two. I like the feel of the weapons in DoD:S, they just take some skill and time getting used to. Lord knows the first time I played it was less than uber-tastic.

 

[TheSomeone]

I remember playing a game with no cone of fire. It was Deer Hunter. The Uzi shot, like, 10 bullets a second into one little hole (no recoil). In short, was that game fun?: no.

I'm sure the reason it wasn't fun has something to do with other factors. RTCW was fun, and it has no recoil.

So... you don't like how games are becomming more realistic since technology now allows them to be? I see.

Yes, in a real life situation, being a "lone wolf" is usualy going to land your ass in the morgue.

I do somewhat agree though. Too many FPS' are going for realisim instead of plain fun. We need more games like Duke Nukem again.

You know WhiteZero, I was going to rebut your point when I realized you did it for me in that last sentence. I'm part of the people who remember that we had an equal amount, if not more fun, 5 years ago playing RTCW, DOD, QUAKE 3, etc...

Real life isn't fun. If it was as fun as videogames, we wouldn't be playing videogames. War isn't fun, it's not even exciting. I know soldiers who get shipped to Iraq and die from a roadside bomb without having fired a single round, ever. That's realism. Putting your ass on the line without ever knowing when you'll die, and what it happens, it's over.

Cones or fire aren't a new technology thing, we've been able to make cones of fire for a very long time, it's just been a very crappy trend developers have been buying into in order to be "more realistic"

in even the most supposedly realistic of WW2 games it's possible to pick off the enemies with super-accurate rifle shots.

Ask anyone who's fired a WWII weapon and I guarantee they will tell you how retarded the BIA cone of fire is.

In any case though, BIA doesn't really apply to my logic since it's not a frag-game like DOD:S.

 

[Sulkdodds]

No, I'll admit BiA is a completely different kind of game. But that was kind of my point - the shittiness of the firing in that creates a situation where tactics, not sharpshooting, will win the day. Although sharpshooting helps too. I found that far more interesting in many ways than CoD (except not, because CoD had all them set-pieces). If your guns were as accurate there as in other games, there'd be no point with the flanking. You'd just pop the heads if the Germans as the peeked over their barricades. But then that would be too easy, so what do you do? You'll have to make the Germans super-accurate as well. And that just makes it frustrating.

I like cones of fire. I never have a problem with them. In fact, the thing that annoys me about DoD:S in comparison to the original is the treacle-slow speed of movement while aiming. But you get used to it.

Course, it depends on the game. Both extremes can work in my opinion. Look at Dystopia, they have very accurate weapons but it isn't that much about accuracy.

 

[TheSomeone]

The problem with a frag game depending solely on flanking is that everyone gets frustrated some time.

I don't know anyone who enjoys being flanked. You're just shooting forward minding your own business when you get shot in the back. It's frustrating, but that's how DOD:S works, and you have to play by the rules. On top of that though, flanking can be really hard, and most of the time when you flank, you barely have the time to kill one person before his buddy kills you. We then end up in a situation where again, both sides are frustrated. The flanked because he got shot in the back, the flanker because he went through all this trouble to go around the map just to be able to kill one guy because his gun went out of control.

And personally I don't like the Dystopia damage system, I think it was ruined by the "classes and their disadvantages" thing. (I know it seems like I'm never satisfied ) I'm just waiting for a game that's as fun as RTCW, haven't seen one yet.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Zombie Master?

Well, I once did an uber flanking manouvre on DoD:S and killed five people in a row...but I see your point. Still, I've got to say I've never gotten frustrated at my firing cone except in old HL1-engine CS, where it never seemed to be quite enough to spray your entire clip into your opponent's face. In any other game, I generally learn to live with it and take the recoil like short recoil. But then I have an amazingly high tolerance when it comes to games. I completed Stuntman.

 

[Absinthe]

I've reached the point where I entirely prefer more complexity in my games as opposed to out-and-out fragging.

So... I welcome the trend.

 

[TheSomeone]

Well, I once did an uber flanking manouvre on DoD:S and killed five people in a row...but I see your point.

I see yours too. I agree, when you pull off some awesome flanking, you feel like superman, and it CAN be fun. My beef with DOD:S is I alreay feel like I'm so precautious when I play. I crouch at every spot of cover, do a 360, check every corner and room, wait for the perfect opportunity, but I still get shot in the back more often than not because the weaposn suck too much for people to go into head-on encounters. What more can I do? I can't even properly defend myself when I get caught by surprise because the cone of fire is outrageous while moving.

 

[Ren.182]

I completed Stuntman.

HAHAHA!!!

I'm pretty much the same, games really dont annoy me if i lose. I see people slam the controllers on the floor or scream down the microphone and i just laugh at them. I don't play games to get frustrated, i play them for fun.

And about the firing cones... i've just grown to like them, i'm used to them now and they dont annoy me

 

[TheSomeone]

I've reached the point where I entirely prefer more complexity in my games as opposed to out-and-out fragging.

So... I welcome the trend.

I'll respect your opinion, I just don't understand why anyone would ever want complexity.

Soon enough, like designers, architects and artists, developers are going to realize simplicity is not only good, but crucial in order to have an addicting and fun game.

If I want complexity I'll go do my calc homework.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Isn't Enemy Territory quite complex though? The blowing up the doors, the arming/disarming the bombs, the classes, the airstrikes, the objectives...I know I sure was baffled when I first played it. Then again I was young and naive when I first played ET.

 

[TheSomeone]

It's complex if you really want to do the objectives . But it's so easy to just go in, pick the soldier with whatever weapon, and go out and shoot people. You just aim for the head and click, and sprinting won't even affect your accuracy. You don't have to learn how to handle each weapon, they're just aim and shoot. Then once you're familiar with that, you slowly, unconsciously learn all the other aspects

It just feels like DOD:Source has such a steep learning curve. I've had it for a week and the only weapons I can figure out is the K98 and the snipers, and I still can't get many kills with those. It seems like it tries to be too complex. The original DOD was so simple. Pick a weapon and click where you want to shoot, no need to familiraize yourself with every corner of the map and learn how much spread in what stances and so forth.

 

[TheSomeone]

Look at how ridiculous this is. How bad is it that it comes to the point where you're better off not actually aiming at the person but next to him.

 

[Ren.182]

But if you personally fired a gun at full auto... would every bullet go where you'd want it to?
I just prefer the realism, i don't like mindless death matches personally.

 

[TheSomeone]

But if you personally fired a gun at full auto... would every bullet go where you'd want it to?
I just prefer the realism, i don't like mindless death matches personally.

Mindless? What's mindful about spraying bullets all over the place?

 

[Jangle]

Mindless? What's mindful about spraying bullets all over the place?

The fact that you actually have to control it instead of holding down the mouse button.

 

[TheSomeone]

The fact that you actually have to control it instead of holding down the mouse button.

You can control recoil, that's not my point. you can't control cone of fire.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think the problem is if you're going to have super-accurate guns you need to make it harder to kill people in other ways. Take UT2004 - not the most realistic game in the world but everybody takes a hell of a lot of damage to kill someone and everyone leaps around like insane rabid bunnies on speed with springs welded to the bottom of their feet and rocket boosters stuffed up their arses.

I love UT.

EDIT: Yes you can...it's generally 'fire in short bursts, aim for the centre of mass, drag your crosshair down when it gets pulled up, make sure you're still and in the optimum stance...' isn't it?

 

[Jimmeh]

While I don't agree with the whole screw teamplay thing, I do agree about cone of fire in games, I'd prefer it if it were all down to recoil. The bullets should go where the gun is pointed (as they should do) but the recoil should make it so it's very diffucult to the keep the gun pointed at one spot. I just think that's much better than having completely random cones of fire, which you can't do anything about.