The Six Most Ominous Trends in Video Games

2011-06-15 08:05:13

#51

-_{MoW}_-Assasin: Member; +13|6718|Australia

War Man wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?

Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.

The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.

ArmA series of games

Warfare maps are pretty much that

1 commander per team

225sq/km of area to fight across

unlimited amount of combatants (limited only by the hardware of the server and clients)

Last edited by -_{MoW}_-Assasin (2011-06-15 08:08:56)

2011-06-15 09:08:51

#52

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|6756|UK

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Maybe if you look past AAA console releases you will find more interesting games. There is a hell of a lot of variety in PC games, exactly because a lot of them are not this corporate franchise syndrome.

Indeed, even on online and iphone games there are some nice new ideas such as http://games.adultswim.com/soul-brother … -game.html

2011-06-15 09:22:25

#53

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6453|cuntshitlake

The article is about console gaming so any point it makes is moot. I mean seriously it holds wii bowling as the highpoint of gaming. Console gaming has always been (and is supposed to be) about spending an hour or two relaxing in front of their TV, which purpose most mass-marketed shit games fulfill pretty well. People are getting what they demand.

PC gaming, however, does not need new mechanics but rather better application of the same old ideas.

Last edited by DUnlimited (2011-06-15 09:23:45)

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2011-06-15 09:25:33

#54

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6461

it surprises me that some people in this thread demand new technology to bring a lease of life to pc gaming... when the same people worship bf2 and old games as being far superior. why would new technology suddenly make a game great again? i'll take dx9 and aged bf2 over the new shiny dx11 bc2, anyday...

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-06-15 11:44:24

#55

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6681|Devon, England

Maybe you're looking at the wrong technology.

I think if more people had better connections then games such as BF2/3 could have their 128/256 players. Pair this amount of players with a playable map with good objectives, maybe a variety of objectives for one game, and you have a pretty awesome, new game right there that I'm sure would appeal to any fan of PC FPS games.

That would be good, but impossible to mass-market with what we have at the moment. I'm sure it's been done before, but not with features that BF2/BF3 offer/will offer.

My thoughts, any way.

2011-06-15 21:00:06

#56

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6704|Purplicious Wisconsin

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
War Man wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Plenty of room for innovation if anybody can figure out how. There's even some genres that could be revived.
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?

Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.

The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.
ArmA series of games

Warfare maps are pretty much that

1 commander per team

225sq/km of area to fight across

unlimited amount of combatants (limited only by the hardware of the server and clients)

Is the commander able to deploy buildings and research technology?

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-06-15 21:01:24

#57

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6762|PNW

Tech upgrades would be so corny in ArmA.

2011-06-15 21:03:14

#58

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6704|Purplicious Wisconsin

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Tech upgrades would be so corny in ArmA.

In that case, it isn't the way I want it. A commander is one thing, a commander that actually at least summon buildings and researches technology is another thing.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-06-15 21:05:09

#59

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6762|PNW

Certain kinds of defensive structures would be fine.

I seriously wish Tribes 3 wasn't such a let down for people. Everyone went back to 1 @ 2.

2011-06-15 23:34:23

#60

TimmmmaaaaH: Damn, I... had something for this; +725|6430|Brisbane, Australia

Have you played Natural Selection War Man? It is not as huge as you want, but it has the commander building and upgrading thing. Is Sci-Fi Aliens vs Marines and not MODERN COMBAT though.

https://bf3s.com/sigs/5e6a35c97adb20771c7b713312c0307c23a7a36a.png

2011-06-16 04:40:11

#61

iNeedUrFace4Soup: fuck it; +348|6536

Two erect pixel dicks about to fuck a snake wearing a George Lucas Halloween mask.

2011-06-16 04:40:17

#62

Brasso: member; +1,549|6620

uhh what exactly is wrong with gun sights?

and the rest, yawn. we already knew that.

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"

2011-06-16 04:44:11

#63

Kampframmer: Esq.; +313|4833|Amsterdam

I can only 100% agree with the lack of originality. the rest is just a grey blurry mess that cant be applied to most games.

2011-06-16 07:40:27

#64

-_{MoW}_-Assasin: Member; +13|6718|Australia

War Man wrote:
-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
War Man wrote:
MMOFPS with each side having 1 commander?

Imagine a game with a battlefield with 4 sides of 30-100 players per team, each with a commander. Commander spends resources gathered from current territories captured on vehicles and buildings. He also orders people around and researches technology.

The battlefield would be constant and intense with many players battling eachother to capture any territories in the frontlines.
ArmA series of games

Warfare maps are pretty much that

1 commander per team

225sq/km of area to fight across

unlimited amount of combatants (limited only by the hardware of the server and clients)
Is the commander able to deploy buildings and research technology?

yes

Have to "research/upgrade" tech as you earn money and supply

Supply is used to deploy buildings and unlock/upgrade tech

money is used to purchase squad mates, vehicles, and for the commander to unlock/upgrade tech

Last edited by -_{MoW}_-Assasin (2011-06-16 07:41:56)

2011-06-16 08:16:00

#65

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +563|6704|Purplicious Wisconsin

Hmph, interesting.

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
Have you played Natural Selection War Man? It is not as huge as you want, but it has the commander building and upgrading thing. Is Sci-Fi Aliens vs Marines and not MODERN COMBAT though.

Era/setting doesn't matter much, although I do prefer sci-fi or near future with rts/fps hybrids. Yes I have, but 1 side is that way, not both, so it doesn't count.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-06-16 14:05:18

#66

LaidBackNinja: Pony Slaystation; +343|6699|Charlie One Alpha

Aiming down gun sights is the one recent development in gaming I actually DO like. Because that is the way you fire a weapon if you want to hit something. You aim down the damn sights.

As for all the other stuff, I agree with the article completely.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell

2011-06-16 14:33:03

#67

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6762|PNW

Aiming down the sights works for types of games that are actually making gestures towards realism. For a Duke or Serious Sam game? Naw...

2011-06-16 14:38:59

#68

LaidBackNinja: Pony Slaystation; +343|6699|Charlie One Alpha

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Aiming down the sights works for types of games that are actually making gestures towards realism. For a Duke or Serious Sam game? Naw...

Of course not. But then again, Duke and Sam don't have down the sights aiming, so that's alright. But I mean that I'd rather have aiming down the sights than regenerating health.

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell

2011-06-16 14:55:19

#69

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6558|Mountains of NC

I'd like to see more realism

example : 2 combatants on BF2 ...... you stand there shoot each other and after a few rounds you're dead or a head shot and its one shot one kill

now add realism : 2 combatants ...... I shot in the hand : you can either hold your rifle with one hand and can not raise it to look down the sights or hip shoot and your rounds are going all over the area or switch to pistol and you can look down your sights - shot in the arm you can raise the weapon but its very unsteady - shot in leg : you go limp or crawl no running

of course if this was ever placed in something like BF3 then everyone would be complaining that they wanted like it was where they run around take a few shots but they keep wanting more and more realism

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2011-06-16 15:27:39

#70

ghostinvisiblex7: Mr Southbeach.; +9|4736|USA.. duhhh

i just think games are released too fast without any notible or innovative substance.. my two cents

2011-06-16 15:37:13

#71

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6657

With Windows 8, touchscreen FPS!!!! Woohoo.

2011-06-16 15:46:32

#72

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6762|PNW

LaidBackNinja wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Aiming down the sights works for types of games that are actually making gestures towards realism. For a Duke or Serious Sam game? Naw...
Of course not. But then again, Duke and Sam don't have down the sights aiming, so that's alright. But I mean that I'd rather have aiming down the sights than regenerating health.

Sam had zoom for the sniper rifle. In the new Duke, you can zoom down your fists. I don't know if that's just to make fun of down-the-sights cliche, but with every other concession to the Halo/CoD crowd, I doubt it.

2011-06-16 16:57:12

#73

wah1188: You orrible caaaaaaan't; +321|6450|UK

ghostinvisiblex7 wrote:
i just think games are released too fast without any notible or innovative substance.. my two cents

Consumers are lapping it up though so it doesn't matter.

2011-06-16 19:39:25

#74

-_{MoW}_-Assasin: Member; +13|6718|Australia

SEREMAKER wrote:
I'd like to see more realism

example : 2 combatants on BF2 ...... you stand there shoot each other and after a few rounds you're dead or a head shot and its one shot one kill

now add realism : 2 combatants ...... I shot in the hand : you can either hold your rifle with one hand and can not raise it to look down the sights or hip shoot and your rounds are going all over the area or switch to pistol and you can look down your sights - shot in the arm you can raise the weapon but its very unsteady - shot in leg : you go limp or crawl no running

of course if this was ever placed in something like BF3 then everyone would be complaining that they wanted like it was where they run around take a few shots but they keep wanting more and more realism

It's funny how that seems to work

Because thats pretty much exactly what ArmA offers

Yet, the people are complaining that it's "TOO REAL"
With battle fatigue, rocket backblast and different woundings + realistically simulated projectiles.

I guess some people will never be happy

2011-06-16 19:47:33

#75

Adams_BJ: Russian warship, go fuck yourself; +2,053|6613|Little Bentcock

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
SEREMAKER wrote:
I'd like to see more realism

example : 2 combatants on BF2 ...... you stand there shoot each other and after a few rounds you're dead or a head shot and its one shot one kill

now add realism : 2 combatants ...... I shot in the hand : you can either hold your rifle with one hand and can not raise it to look down the sights or hip shoot and your rounds are going all over the area or switch to pistol and you can look down your sights - shot in the arm you can raise the weapon but its very unsteady - shot in leg : you go limp or crawl no running

of course if this was ever placed in something like BF3 then everyone would be complaining that they wanted like it was where they run around take a few shots but they keep wanting more and more realism
It's funny how that seems to work

Because thats pretty much exactly what ArmA offers

Yet, the people are complaining that it's "TOO REAL"
With battle fatigue, rocket backblast and different woundings + realistically simulated projectiles.

I guess some people will never be happy

It is confusing the first time you can't move without being prone though

BF2S Forums The Six Most Ominous Trends in Video Games

War Man wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:

War Man wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

War Man wrote:

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:

War Man wrote:

TimmmmaaaaH wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

LaidBackNinja wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

ghostinvisiblex7 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

Board footer