185 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorn Kregore]

[Gorn Kregore]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I'm going to be straight up honest with you. UT3 is "mindless" and and "stupid".
Even though they have gametypes, it's pretty much just run around and gun people down.

-Polite

You could call UT3 mindless and stupid, but that would be an unfair criticism since the game was never designed to focus on strategy and planning - the game is meant to test your speed and reflexes. You succeed in arena shooters by being faster than your opponent, not smarter.

UT3 is bad though... holy **** why did you even use it as an example? Should have used UT99 or UT2004.. now those are the real unreal tournament games..

[Mister Mida]

I personally am no shooter fan, but I do play them on occasion. I just bought Halo 3 a few days ago, beated it in two days. A real trial and error game.

[JeanLuc761]

I lol'd at the above image.



I think what people seem to forget is that Mass Effect has ALWAYS been a shooter/RPG hybrid, rather than a straight RPG. The shooting mechanics in Mass Effect 1 were in dire need of improvement, so Bioware did exactly that while keeping the RPG aspects roughly the same (though streamlining the actual stat increases).



I think people are upset that the RPG aspects didn't receive the same boost that the shooting mechanics got, and therefore think that Mass Effect 2 is more "shooter-oriented," even though both games have, I'd argue, an equally heavy focus on shooting combat.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

EtTuBrute wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...


BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

I have no complaints from MP since I don't really play MP games since they are all generally moronic in the sense that most people tend to just "run and gun" and B!tch about "campers". I'm waiting for a MP experience that requires strategy and tactics. I'm certainly not going to hold my breath. 

Ever played a match in any Battlefield game where strategy and tactics are used?
It's guddamn orgasmic.

Unfortunately no. BFBC 1 and 2 has an almost perfect mechanic for strategic MP. It has big maps, vehicles and destructible environments. My problems are: No prone, unrealistic vehicle damage/destruction, no prone, a lack of anti vehicle booby traps/mines/IEDs and NO PRONE.

I played BFBC 1 MP some time back and I had a lot of fun with it in spite of my issues.  

There are anti-tank mines and C4. The game is just better without prone, too easily abused

Well it's good to see that there are anti vehicle mines. IEDs on the other hand have never really been accurately portrayed. 

As far a prone being "abused" what do you mean by that? Do you mean "camping"? If there is one thing that ruins MP for me it's people whining about camping. To me it's a fair tactic especially if you are a sniper/rifleman/machine gunner. That's what environment destruction is for. If snipers are pinning you down then have a tank operator blast them out of cover.

I have nothing but contempt for run 'n gunners who seem to be the only people who cry about "campers". There is really no legit argument for not having prone except for the "dolphin diving"/instant prone issue. That problem could be easily fixed by making prone more realistic. (motion capture it to death) In real life if you are dolphin diving to prone you probably wouldn't be able to immediately fire your weapon. That's the problem plain and simple. 

[Cyberfrog81]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

I think people are upset that the RPG aspects didn't receive the same boost that the shooting mechanics got, and therefore think that Mass Effect 2 is more "shooter-oriented," even though both games have, I'd argue, an equally heavy focus on shooting combat.

The feel is different though. ME2 feels like a shooter (a darn good and special one at that), ME1 feels like an RPG that wants to be a shooter too. A bit awkward. They certainly did shooting better in ME2. I also enjoyed the story and the characters a lot, and I enjoyed taking on the role of Shepard (7 different Shepards, in fact). So to me, ME2 = successful RPG. But that's not to say they can't do even better with ME3.

So I don't hate shooter game mechanics. I suppose I don't hate shooters either, but nor do I play them. Particularly games with weak (or non-existing) single player modes don't appeal to me at all anymore.

Clearly some people still can't get over that ME2 is not "RPG enough" for them, to the extent that they feel the need to bash the game regularly. You see a LOT of it on the DA2 forum these days.

[KotOREffecT]

bjdbwea wrote...

But not every game has to be turned into a shooter, especially not an RPG.

Ugh.. You do realize that Mass Effect was a "shooter-rpg" to begin with right? Infact, thats what I recall doing as much of in ME 1 as I did in ME 2. Let me refresh your memory....

ME 1 - PEW PEW PEW "ENEMIES ARE EVERYWHERE GO GO GO!" PEW PEW! "I WILL DESTROY YOU!" PEWWWW!

ME 2 - PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW "ASSUMING DIREC-PEW PEW!-CONTROL" PEW PEW "I KNOW YOU FEEL THIS" PEWWWWWWWWWWW!

[s0meguy6665]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

Ok. if you want a pure shooter, go play one of the gazillion pure shooters. There's very few good RPG (series) though.

[Kitteh303]

I honestly don't have a problem with shooters. I think Modern Warfare 2 is a lot of fun, especially Spec Ops.



Perhaps people just don't like the "stereotypical" FPS player, who is depicted as a frat boy killing what little brain matter he has left with beer.

[Comrade Bork]

I play RPGs; I play Shooters. RPG's and Shooters have always appealed to me, and looking back at all my games for my first Xbox and onward, they have been one or the other. That said, combining the two in Mass Effect was brilliant, and the first time I played through it was awesome. Then I played ME2, and loved that too. I really thought the shooting aspect was improved, and the RPG experience was about the same. If ME3 capitalizes on the RPG aspect (story with choices, that's all that RPG means to me) while retaining the combat from ME2 I will be one happy camper. An expansion of abilities would be welcome as well.

Now, just some extra stuff about my shooter experiences. I could only stand to hear "Can you get me in a 10th lobby?" so many times before I go insane. I loved the Stories in the CoD games (they are usually written pretty well), and the single player campaigns are fun, but I couldn't stand the players anymore. They all boost, hack, glitch, and go against the spirit of the game (Marathon, Lightweight, Commando, Tactical Knife). Spec Ops kept me around for a while, but only for a bit. BF: BC2 really was the answer to my shooter prayers. Balanced gameplay, with a fun tactical style to it. I also like the fact that some can camp, but you can destroy their campsite (unlike many other games) so they're never too annoying.

Also, one of my all time favorite Shooter-Hybrids was Oddworld: Strangers Wrath. That game was one of my top five picks for the original Xbox.

[Agent_Dark_]

BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

you know you could run the body armour and completely cancel out their magnum ammo....?

[angj57]

MassEffect762 wrote...

That's because of how ME2 turned out. They vent their frustrations on them because turning on Bioware is  considered blasphemy.

That's just the way I see it. I thought ME2 was pretty lame by bioware standards and not because it lacked explosions.

Time to go play some Hardcore Team Deathmatch.

Lol, turning on Bioware considered blasphemy.

In my experience people on this forum are absolutely vicious toward Bioware, I certainly don't think there is any taboo about that.

And the way I see it, ME2 was the best thing Bioware has come out with, and I have played and loved all their games (except for Shattered Steel, MDK2, and Sonic Chronicles).

As far as I am concerned, "shooter" describes the style of game play, whereas "role playing" describes the style of story telling and character development, so the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[BomimoDK]

Bioware fans remind me of British Gentlemen... Scoff and snort at anything uncomplicated and entertaining and commands fake respect by making up sad hate jokes about ****ty shooters while they at the same time praise a ****ty shooter and worse RPG as the best RPG ever and get REAL pissed when the sequel decided to direct more attention at the shooter elements improving the game immensely....



It's tiring to watch and i would so love to see those people taught a lesson. no one is better than the other, but these guys should REALLY be taught a lesson about respect. "mindless shooters" like UT3 and MW2 are high speed and not too tactical. they're not bad, just... exploitable. among other genres we have complicated shooters that this board has no excuse to hate (the more complicated, the more awesome attitude much?) like Operation Flashpoint, Arma and Delta Force.



I litterally feel like punching many of these guys teeth in because they have NO reason to discuss "mindless shooter crowd" on a "full-of-themselves RPG community board"



(yeah, i can generalize too... doesn't take 5 years at virtual cambridge to learn that)

[ThePatriot101]

The hardcore RPGers propagating the hate against "mindless" shooters probably haven't played a modern shooter. Admittedly, older shooters could "potentially" be labeled as mindless but that's excused away by the technology at the time which did (believe it or not) limit what could be done in games - RPG, shooter, or otherwise. But nowadays as the consoles have gotten bigger and better along with the technology they are incorporating things they could do before including advancing enemy A.I., improving sound effects, and better gun & explosive physics. Despite the amount a strategy RPG advocates face in playing their games they don't seem to understand that shooters today require a strategy as well. However, the difference is in timing. In RPGs you have time to grind to level up your characters, stack up buffs and spells, collect loot etc. In shooters actions like taking cover in the right spot, taking out an enemy at a great distance, or fighting your way out of being pinned down requires split-second decisions and moves.

Now certainly, I can understand the criticisms regarding the moderately low lengths of shooters. It's not necessarily a bad thing because there's one thing that shooters trump RPGs most times out of 10: action. You need to have action in a shooter otherwise you are going to bore the players. Prolonging the length for the sake of making it longer is bound to bite back (i.e. Killzone seemed to feel like this in it's intent to be a Halo-killer).

As for the crowds of people who are overly immature, aggressive, and insulting on the multiplayer of those games, nobody ever came across a game that didn't have its bad apples. Even RPGer players have bad apples in their ranks. Like the people who chastise you because you didn't get this one special item from this side place even though you had no inclination in-game to get it. Believe me...I know a few of these bad apples. Though seeing as shooters do bring in a bunch of nuts you could also say the same about the Internet.

In truth, the only shooters that deserve to be called "mindless" are the ones intentionally made to be unrealistic. Also anyone who's played a shooter on the basic difficulty levels and calls it mindless has no right to make that claim.

Here's just some of what I've played in either category(for credibility):
Goldeneye 64, DOOM, Jet Force Gemini, Medal of Honor Frontline, Rising Sun, & European Assault, Halo 1-3 & ODST, Killzone 1 & 2, COD 2-MW2, Command & Conquer Renegade, Battlefield Bad Company 1 & 2, Mass Effect 1 & 2, Final Fantasy X, XII, Tactics Advanced, Xenosaga 3, Golden Sun 1 & 2, Pokemon series, Frontline, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, NA-released Fire Emblem, Front Mission 4

Modifié par ThePatriot101, 29 juillet 2010 - 03:07 .

[AClockworkMelon]

Anyone who's played the COD4 campaign and thinks it's mindless drivel is an idiot. Its story was better than DA:O's, tbh.

[Pocketgb]

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

you know you could run the body armour and completely cancel out their magnum ammo....?

Magnum rounds just bug me because it takes quite a bit of time to unlock them. If it was one of the first perks unlocked as opposed to one of the last it'd be fine.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Agent_Dark_ wrote...

BFBC 2 would have been so much greater if it didn't have perks from CoD, because it makes the game a lot less fun when everybody uses magnum ammo...

you know you could run the body armour and completely cancel out their magnum ammo....?

Then that's one less perk available to me. It shouldn't be necessary to have to use body armour.

[Latharion]

I've played a lot of games in my time, and shooters (both first and third person) are some of the more interesting and challenging games for me, where speed, reflex, and accuracy are concerned. Some of the shooter games I've played that are top on my list include...



Half-Life, both 1 and 2.

Portal

Halo series (all of them, including ODST)

Unreal Tournament 2004, and UT3

Uncharted (both games)

Gears of War (both games)



There are many many other shooter games that I have played, from Wolfenstein 3D (funny since it was a 2D game that simulated 3D), to CoD MW2. The shooter genre is as good as the others.



I have also played many, many many RPGs, and enjoyed those with similar preference. This includes ME and ME2, DA:O, Baldur's Gate (both games), Jade Empire, and NWN just to name the Bioware games.



As TheKillerAngel stated in his original post, different games reward the player for different skills (decision making and forthought for RPGs, accuracy, speed, and reflexes for shooters, strategic thinking and planning for RTSs). All of these skills are excellent skills to hone, and none of them decrease the enjoyment of the games they are associated with. There isn't a reason to show disdain for players of shooter games just because one prefers to make decisions instead of reacting quickly.

[kraze07]

I think the shooter fans who call rpg fans high-nosed elitist are just as bad as the rpg fans who call shooter fans mindless. I happen to love both genres because they each have many great games to offer. I also thought that the shooting mechanics were the least of ME1's problems so ofcourse I was a little disappointed when combat was the focus of ME2.

[Massadonious1]

bjdbwea wrote...
But not every game has to be turned into a shooter, especially not an RPG.

You constantly say this like it's anyone but BioWare's fault or responsibility that such a thing took place.

[Spornicus]

Making combat more streamlined and exciting in an RPG doesn't make it a shooter.

[The Interloper]

Shooters have already been my favorite. Maybe I'm just easy to please, but I actually enjoyed (somewhat) scripted campaigns like CoDs. RPGs are fun too, but personally I don't really have the time or inclination to tackle more than one or two at a time. I respect both sides, though.

I do like genre mixing, and shooter/rpgs are my favorite. One of the reasons I liked ODST so much was that they took the polished game mechanics of a dedicated shooter and mixed it up a bit. And ME2s shooter mechanics were almost as good as any dedicated shooter, and with the RPG elements thrown in it makes for what is in my opinion one of the best shooters of all time. It doesn't really quite stand up as a dedicated RPG though, but that's fine by me.

Then there's the games that are RPGs first and shooters second, like Fallout or ME 1. Sure, those usually have clunky controls and mediocre combat, but the more prominant RPG mechanics make up for it.

Basically, sometimes I want an intelligent experience, and sometimes I just want to waste goons. Both appeal to me. If I can do both at the same time, great. I do think that ME 2 was a little more dumbed down than I would have liked, but it's all by degrees at that point.

Modifié par The Interloper, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:06 .

[bjdbwea]

Massadonious1 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

But not every game has to be turned into a shooter, especially not an RPG.

You constantly say this like it's anyone but BioWare's fault or responsibility that such a thing took place.

Of course it's their fault in the first place, and their publisher's of course. It's also the fault of an audience though that buys mindless shooters in larger numbers than even the best RPGs.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 juillet 2010 - 09:25 .

[M1tt3ns]

First let me say that I love shooters. I have a ton of fun playing CoD4, I used to really enjoy Counterstrike back in the Beta days, I played Battlefield 2 for more hours than I'd care to admit. UT2K4 and Alien Versus Predator were some of the best LAN party games I've ever played.

All that said, I played all for the multiplayer. There's nothing wrong with mindless. Sometimes you want to kick back in a comfy chair, eat some popcorn and watch Bruce Willis kill a small army holding his wife hostage in Nakatomi tower. The end result is entertainment, which is ultimately the goal of any game or movie. You can be as preachy as you'd like, use brilliant symbolism and make poigniant social commentary, but if you fail to entertain your audience such things mean very little.

There are many different kinds of entertainment for different moods and different audiences. As I said, I love shooters, but most have very simplistic storylines and almost no character development... And even less than that if you're playing multiplayer. It's not a flaw of the genre, it's a facet of it, just like action movies, and there's nothing wrong with that. Moreover shooters take skill, and team based shooters take strategy. It's foolish to say that shooter fans don't like to think or some sort of non-sense like that.

Conversely RPGs are usually slower paced epics, that do contain action and adventure, but with larger measures of character development and world-building.

There's nothing wrong with either genre, they're just different, with different faults and different sorts of stories they excel at telling.

Asking yourself based upon your mood if you'd rather play Call of Duty or Mass Effect is no different than asking yourself if you'd rather watch The Rock or Lord of the Rings.

The biggest issue I personally have with shooters right now is that they're manufactured basically via assembly line, they all look the same, have the same mechanics and are just becoming boring. There's only so many times that you can reuse the same dark, washed out colored graphics, the same boring, non-customizable weapons, the same Halo-style regenerating damage, and play the same (space) marine trapped behind enemy lines and having to kill an army of aliens/terrorists/****s to get home again. Worse still the subgenres of shooter are melding together, where once Red Storm made amazing series of hyper realistic shooters, Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon feel just like Gears of War and Call of Duty.

Modifié par M1tt3ns, 29 juillet 2010 - 11:21 .

[Geth001]

M1tt3ns wrote...

You mean, if you take three screenshots from gritty military shooters with lip-service to realism and make sure all the screenshots are set to the exactly same scenario (being greviously wouned, with much of the screen being blocked) they'll look similar? Why, that's almost an argument!

If all you do is play crappy mainstream military shooters, then yes, you're going to notice that a lot of them play the same. Likewise, if you watch a lot of corny action movies, you're going to realize that almost all of them involve a muscely white guy murdering tons of terrorists with absolutely atrocious aim.

There are plenty of phenomenal shooters that don't even come close to fitting in this mold, you just have to look past the gigantic posters all over Gamestop. Check out Metro 2033, the Half Life series, or the STALKER series.

Or hell, if you want a game with decent shooter gameplay and RPG elements, check out Resident Evil 4 (I will punch anyone who calls this survival horror), or Alpha Protocol (which has stealth elements too!)

Likewise, if you only play the Final Fantasy series and other mainstream JRPGs, you're going to be convinced that the entire RPG genre is based off of taking teenagers with terrible haircuts to a variety of locales with schizophrenic technology advancement so they can angst about some girl.

Modifié par Geth001, 30 juillet 2010 - 12:39 .