159 réponses à ce sujet

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

LPPrince wrote...

The logic behind having a sniper rifle in a CoD game just doesn't make any sense.

CoD devs discourage camping, and want players constantly moving and looking to get kills. Okay.

In that case, why include a weapon type who's purpose is purely to sit back and kill people from afar?

I can accept sniper rifles in Battlefield because hey, those maps are huuuge. It works(in theory).

If I get killed by a sniper in Battlefield 3, I'm not bothered. I just go, "Aww damn. Okay where's he at?" *watches killer cam*

If I get killed by a sniper in CoD, it depends on how the kill was achieved. The fact that the term "hard scope" exists is stupid as hell- thats how sniper rifles are intended to be used, but regardless, if I get "hard scoped" I have no problem.

If I get no scoped from two feet away, again. No problem. I mean what else was the dude gonna do.

But if its a quick scope utilizing aim assist from some far as hell location, thats annoying as hell. That DEFINITELY needs to be ended, but CoD devs don't think so apparently. So many players partake in it that they won't do it. I think they might even enjoy the quickscoping, which is sad.

So I won't support the franchise any more going forward.

Sorry I have to disagree. I don't mean this in a mean way though.

I'll note, I rarely snipe but I can quick scope ( I played a ton of CoD2, and 4 with snipers ). They have a place, and they do require practice. Blackops 2 also has tons of counters, a lot of people are too lazy to use them. I love camping snipers, LOVE em. Free kills, and guaranteed kill point for dropped ordnance.

An experienced sniper can play aggressively, especially in domination. Also if they removed snipers they'd literally be throwing away money. What I'd really be concerned with are shotguns.

Even then, want to know the best counter to anyone using a shotgun? Hold down chokes and run flanks with your own shotgun! I've straight up BROKEN lobbies with shotgun users by beating them at their own game. I HATE hijacked, and I hate the fact that people constantly vote for it back to back. My solution, SHOTGUN. They won't revote. Having said that, shotguns have appropriate range values so they aren't really overpowered.

Blackops 2 is pretty much one of the most balanced call of duties I've played. All the weapons are situational, although I still prefer SMG's. That being said, I barely play it...

Battlefield 3. The recon class is worthless save for semi autos and some of the gadgets. The only thing I'll say here is that they need to go back to Bad Co 2's damage values. Bolt actions should one shot center mass.

[Eternal Phoenix]

iiReaperZz wrote...

• Nobody EVER said CoD was realistic. Arma II probably takes the cake but it isn't PVP and it more or less a chore to play. CoD doesn't need to be it's a twitch based shooter, and the absolute best at what it does. I'm primarily a battlefield player, pick up and play experience I get with Call of Duty is unrivaled. And contrary to what a lot of people say, CoD has a definite learning curve. If fact, I'm still improving and getting better. The combat is rewarding and fast paced and the games afford a lot of customization options.

• Neither is it luck based. Sure you can spray and get a kill, but your performance shows throughout the match. I can die 5 times to B.S. only to come back with 60 kills, a boat load of killstreaks, and tons of lulz. It's a fun game, and it plays differently depending on lobby and gametype. I enjoy that aspect.

• I'll note about halo as well. Sorry, halo lacks any sort of compelling customization options and plays slow by compare ( well 4 is an improvement ). It doesn't take any more skill than CoD or Gears, they borrow on different talents.

• I have no effing idea why this points are appearing. Anyway, Gears and Battlefield take the longest to master. If you want a better sense of realism with polished gameplay and many mechanics to master...play BF3. The bad battlefield players outnumber , proportionally, the bad call of duty players so I suppose your average player probably wants the more reflex oriented option.

Actually people have said CoD is realistic otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. To say no-one has *never* said that implies that literally no-one including this guy has never said that.

Slow is better. It makes for a more grounded and solid gameplay experience. Guns actually feel like guns and not just likes toys which can be instantly switched for the next one you have equipped. The reasons you like CoD are the reasons I hate games like CoD.

I might not have played any of the recent ones but I don't need to, to say that the twitch-based mechanics (also found in recent Medal of Honor games and Battlefield) provide a rather inane experience at least for me. Halo being slower is what is most appealing about it. Even with the sprint ability they added into Reach and 4, the multiplayer still feels like single player, you're just fighting against other players and the character's ability is still the same.

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

Elton John is dead wrote...

iiReaperZz wrote...

• Nobody EVER said CoD was realistic. Arma II probably takes the cake but it isn't PVP and it more or less a chore to play. CoD doesn't need to be it's a twitch based shooter, and the absolute best at what it does. I'm primarily a battlefield player, pick up and play experience I get with Call of Duty is unrivaled. And contrary to what a lot of people say, CoD has a definite learning curve. If fact, I'm still improving and getting better. The combat is rewarding and fast paced and the games afford a lot of customization options.

• Neither is it luck based. Sure you can spray and get a kill, but your performance shows throughout the match. I can die 5 times to B.S. only to come back with 60 kills, a boat load of killstreaks, and tons of lulz. It's a fun game, and it plays differently depending on lobby and gametype. I enjoy that aspect.

• I'll note about halo as well. Sorry, halo lacks any sort of compelling customization options and plays slow by compare ( well 4 is an improvement ). It doesn't take any more skill than CoD or Gears, they borrow on different talents.

• I have no effing idea why this points are appearing. Anyway, Gears and Battlefield take the longest to master. If you want a better sense of realism with polished gameplay and many mechanics to master...play BF3. The bad battlefield players outnumber , proportionally, the bad call of duty players so I suppose your average player probably wants the more reflex oriented option.

Actually people have said CoD is realistic otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. To say no-one has *never* said that implies that literally no-one including this guy has never said that.

Slow is better. It makes for a more grounded and solid gameplay experience. Guns actually feel like guns and not just likes toys which can be instantly switched for the next one you have equipped. The reasons you like CoD are the reasons I hate games like CoD.

I might not have played any of the recent ones but I don't need to, to say that the twitch-based mechanics (also found in recent Medal of Honor games and Battlefield) provide a rather inane experience at least for me. Halo being slower is what is most appealing about it. Even with the sprint ability they added into Reach and 4, the multiplayer still feels like single player, you're just fighting against other players and the character's ability is still the same.

[*]I can't imagine anyone making such a statement. But anyway, SLOW is not better. Is your aiming a little more deliberate, YES. It has to be, your character runs around with tons of health and an air Jordan hop. Halo still operates on twitch motor reflexes, target acquisition is the exact same.
[*]Battlefield on the other hand actually requires a lot of skill to be competent with its weapons. Look at the average accuracy ratings of typical players, it's dismally low. Like less than 15% and that's with 5.56 chambered weapons ( easiest to use next to certain pdw/smg's ). Your rounds are physically affected by gravity and distance, and every gun has a unique and prominent recoil pattern. Halo's guns have no such patterns, they have a mild spread pattern that is easily negated and most people opt for the BR ( which I admit I'm partial to ).
[*]I'm not saying Halo is bad, but it really isn't qualitatively better per say, just preferential in your case. I still enjoy the series, but they've really offered very little by way of innovation. With CoD I don't mind, because atleast we get new guns and settings. I still don't buy every CoD that releases, I purchase one every 2 years at best.

[Eternal Napalm]

The target finder is original in the fact that it makes the game easier for less skilled gamers...and is abused by skilled players. Either way, its horrible in its implementation, and extremely overpowered. I may be ok with it if it had a mega recoil penalty to balance it, but it does the opposite and make weapons have hardly any recoil. It's rediculous. Just today I was on a roll and got popped way off by a lmg/target finder duo. Never would have ever happened without that lame attachment. 50 yards, big red box, no recoil. Lame.

[Eternal Napalm]

I indeed did need to learn how to be proficient in Battlefield 3 with weapons. Still learning, as I am a noob. Still, some games going +7 to +10 now, while usually in the equal to +4 range.

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

Eternal Napalm wrote...

I indeed did need to learn how to be proficient in Battlefield 3 with weapons. Still learning, as I am a noob. Still, some games going +7 to +10 now, while usually in the equal to +4 range.

Do you play on console?

I'm pretty much the ultimate tryhard/skill player. Battlelog is UnderADyingSun. I retired from battlefield but I can give you ALOT of tips. Also top percent vehicle pro, prefer air so if you want to know the tricks of the trade I'm here.

Recognize that Battlefield 3 was almost perfect before any patches. DICE kept ****ing it up OVER and OVER and OVER. Every patch has significantly change the way the game handles. They freaking killed below radar against stingers again LMAO talk about noob friendly, Whatever, me and my gunner will just run air radar and zoom optics and pwn from a million miles away.

Anyway, my killspreads are high running ground because I either run with a squad or just know where to post up/run flanks. Movement is so important.

PRO TIP, make sure someones running counter suppression, your game ground game will improve from that alone.

[Mendelevosa]

Eternal Napalm wrote...

Also, the target finder, a scope that reduces almost all gun recoil and provides big red boxes and highlights players in them, even if otherwise undetectable on screen, is the dumbest and most OP thing I have ever seen ever. If I had a dollar for every time I died from a lmg with a target finder, I would be rich.

Don't forget that the standard maps (I haven't bought any of the map packs yet) are too claustrophobic and they each have way too many flanking points, making you vulnerable to fire from 99 different directions no matter where you go.

[LPPrince]

Mendelevosa wrote...

Don't forget that the standard maps (I haven't bought any of the map packs yet) are too claustrophobic and they each have way too many flanking points, making you vulnerable to fire from 99 different directions no matter where you go.

Another reason I like MW2. It has its mix of spots that are easily flanked and spots that aren't so easily flanked.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I prefer Rainbow Six myself. I really hope Ubi finally gives us some details on that at E3 this year.

[HiddenInWar]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I prefer Rainbow Six myself. I really hope Ubi finally gives us some details on that at E3 this year.

I played RS on mobile once, it was okay. Never played any more after that point.

But which is better, Patriots or Vegas?

[HiddenInWar]

Eternal Napalm wrote...

The target finder is original in the fact that it makes the game easier for less skilled gamers...and is abused by skilled players. Either way, its horrible in its implementation, and extremely overpowered. I may be ok with it if it had a mega recoil penalty to balance it, but it does the opposite and make weapons have hardly any recoil. It's rediculous. Just today I was on a roll and got popped way off by a lmg/target finder duo. Never would have ever happened without that lame attachment. 50 yards, big red box, no recoil. Lame.

To be fair, the SCAR-H (and a few other AR's) and pretty much very few of the SMG's work poorly with the TF (even if you have the fore grip attachment), but with LMG's, it works wonders. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

HiddenInWar wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

I prefer Rainbow Six myself. I really hope Ubi finally gives us some details on that at E3 this year.

I played RS on mobile once, it was okay. Never played any more after that point.

But which is better, Patriots or Vegas?

Patriots is the one that is currently in development. Only two Rainbow Six games have been released this generation. Vegas and Vegas 2. The latter has far more customization options and the gameplay has been improved. I have it for Xbox 360.

But my favorite is still Raven Shield. I have it for PC and it's still, IMO, the definitive Rainbow Six experience. You really have to plan and use strategy to win without getting your team killed. Multiplayer is very competitive and unforgiving.

Vegas added a cover mechanic that turns the game into a third-person shooter every time you enter cover. Naturally, this has had a very negative effect on competitive play. It means people can camp behind cover (and rotate the camera to see from behind cover without fear of death) and wait until someone walks around the corner (this person is not in cover, so they are in first-person view) and learn out and shoot them while only having to expose themselves for one second.

The Vegas games are still good, though. But they aren't ideal for compeitive play. Co-Op modes like Terrorist Hunt are fun. Anyway, Rainbow Six has always been the thinking man's shooter. I don't mean to condescend, but if you grew up on COD, it's unlikely you'll enjoy it. The market speaks for itself when COD sells in the millions each year. That's why it has taken so long to get a proper sequel. I'm hopeful but also worried that they may end up turning it into COD in fear that the classic formula will doom the game to failure.

We'll see.

[Eternal Napalm]

Yeah, I play on 360. And thanks for that tip. I started out horrible, as most noobs do...but the atmosphere hooked me and its a blast. Starting so late I have no idea what things were like pre-patch, man I wish devs would just stop that and let the game be as is. Bugs, yeah patch, but other things get annoying. I need to run in a squad more, i tend to play solo while helping my team and knowing my role. I sucked when I first started. I'm a capable gamer, but being brand new in a new IP that has an established base with everything unlocked has been a challenge. I try to do my best. Still have a lot to unlock. But loving it...any tips would be sweet.

[Eternal Napalm]

I CoD, I use the Type 25, PDW-57, Chicom, Remmington (also OP), and my beloved, dear SMR with full metal, laser and ironsights.

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

Eternal Napalm wrote...

Yeah, I play on 360. And thanks for that tip. I started out horrible, as most noobs do...but the atmosphere hooked me and its a blast. Starting so late I have no idea what things were like pre-patch, man I wish devs would just stop that and let the game be as is. Bugs, yeah patch, but other things get annoying. I need to run in a squad more, i tend to play solo while helping my team and knowing my role. I sucked when I first started. I'm a capable gamer, but being brand new in a new IP that has an established base with everything unlocked has been a challenge. I try to do my best. Still have a lot to unlock. But loving it...any tips would be sweet.

I'm away from my xbox for a while longer, so you won't see me for mths probably but add anyway... but do this....

Add UnderaDyingSun, me, and then add Mr Yummy Cheese ( look him up on my friends list ). Play with him and all my other friends ( a few won't give a noob the time of day, don't worry you won't see them. Not all my BF3 friends play together )  Tell him I said to not be a effing ******, you can quote me, and to show you the ropes.

Downside, you'll be A ra ping the enemy team game in game out. You'll probably be killing them in their  spawn most of the time.

AIR we ALWAYS got covered. There are less than 20 people in the world who can join in and give us any real trouble. Get used to a lot of tryhards yelling, but they'll teach you how to communicate, where to go etc... Don't be shy.

Add Kurnal Kuddles too, he's my number one wingman.

[OdanUrr]

I just saw this on Steam:



Oh, well, it didn't copy the price. It's available for pre-order for $120!!

This is the included content:

Enhance your multiplayer experience with the Call of Duty®: Ghosts Digital Hardened Edition which includes an assortment of bonus digital content:


- Call of Duty®: Ghosts Season Pass: Get four epic DLC Map Packs*, each delivering a collection of fresh Call of Duty: Ghosts multiplayer content. Plus, you'll receive the Team Leader digital content pack, a Season Pass-bonus that includes a unique MP character head, weapon camo, reticle, player patch, player card and player background, playable in-game upon purchase.

- Free Fall Dynamic Bonus Map: This brand-new dynamic downloadable multiplayer map drops you into a shattered skyscraper on the brink of collapse. Frantic action is thrown into overdrive as the skyscraper continues to fall throughout the match, evolving gameplay in real-time.

- Digital Hardened Edition In-Game Item Pack: Stand out from the crowd with a unique in-game player patch, player card & player background, a collection of content only available in the Digital Hardened Edition.

- Ghosts Insignia Pack: Show your enemies what you stand for with an in-game Ghosts insignia player patch, player card & player background.

*DLC content in the Season Pass may be sold separately. If you purchase the Digital Hardened Edition, do not also purchase the standalone map packs, as you will be charged for them. Season Pass and DLC content may not be available on all platforms or in all territories. Pricing and release dates may vary by platform.

I'm nowhere near an expert on CoD but isn't this a bit too expensive?

Modifié par OdanUrr, 01 novembre 2013 - 10:17 .

[Liamv2]

Not really the DLC i see on PS store is always like £15 and it seems new DLC gets put out every 5 mins. So that is around how much it would cost anyways.

[wolfhowwl]

"Press X to bark"

LOL!

[AventuroLegendary]

Extinction looks like Aliens Colonial Marines but not completely terrible.

[bussinrounds]

krul2k wrote...

i'll stick to my Tom Clancy games i think

   Too bad the Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon series went to **** after GR1 and Raven Shield, with UBI catering to CoD kiddies instead of tactical shooter fans.

  

[HiddenInWar]

I think Extinction mode feels like a breath of fresh air. Cant know for sure until I play it though.

[LPPrince]

iiReaperZz wrote...

They have a place, and they do require practice. 

You'll have to convince me then.

I recall maps getting smaller and smaller after MW2. I hate that, as I loved big maps that allowed me to move around more freely and have lots of potential directions to go. Later CODs did that horribly.

Without the space of large open areas, sniper rifles are as I said, used as long distance shotguns.

An entire weapon class thats 95% misused is something they need to fix, not embrace.