That's what I should have wrote about CoD rather than trying to explain it...Subbax wrote:It's just too mental at the moment.
Mod74 wrote:You're not saying the attempt to lock them down never happens are you? Because it's only both teams attempting it that prevents one team from actually doing it. If one team didn't contest the weapons the other team would have a lock down.
It's the altering of gameplay that I dislike, not the success rate of the endeavour. At best it forces people into a power weapon stalemate. Power weapons are 'balanced' because both teams play by the 'rules'. In which case why fucking have them...oh yeah, because it makes things more interesting and moves the game along. If we're talking about the future of FPS lets think of some better ways to make the game interesting and keep it moving without having to resort to plonking super weapons on the map.
It's the perks/weapons/killstreaks altering the way people play a game and moving it away from a pure position/aim/shoot/kill mechanic I dislike.
Halo power weapon 'management' is a less egregious phenomenon than kill streaks which I why I added it as a related afterthought. I don't particularly like the mechanic but I don't hate it like the COD killstreaks.
Mod74 wrote:Hrrm.
There's plenty of ways to make a game flow and be interesting without plonking weapon pick ups on a map. If you're saying the game needs them to flow and be interesting I'd say that points to a pretty big fucking hole in the underlying gameplay. Or maybe not.
Either way it's horses for courses, some people like on map weapons and some people don't. We all at least have that choice. Reciting Game Design 101 to try and prove why one is better can go take a running jump though.
Facewon wrote:Or trying to find matches on older versions of halo.
Errm, can you think of a modern FPS that uses on map weapons? I can't. Maybe there's a very obvious one but it's not coming to me (Gears is TPS, remember).I don't think it has the legs you want it to to support a whole game.
Mod74 wrote:Errm, can you think of a modern FPS that uses on map weapons? I can't. Maybe there's a very obvious one but it's not coming to me (Gears is TPS, remember).I don't think it has the legs you want it to to support a whole game.
If every* other game manages without them I don't see the argument they're essential otherwise boredom and camping ensues.
*probably.
Which is part of the reason people get so tired of your opinions on Halo, Mod. The starting weapon for the majority of gametypes is the most versatile and arguably the best overall gun in the game. It wasn't always like that, but by midway through Halo 3's life you typically started with a BR, right? And a DMR for Reach? Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, but I'm fairly sure that was the case. Someone who has played the games more recently than me would know.Mod74 wrote:I don't have to remind you that "The starting weapon is a piece of shit and the only way to kill is to get something else" has been my Halo refrain for, well, ever.
RamSteelwood wrote:Just jumping back a page, I really liked the 'age of chivalry' mod, so that 'full fat' version has me interested. Â swords are definitely better than guns, therefore the future of FPSs should be that the S stands for Swords, not Shooter!
...and 4 places above Halo 3 is GTA IV, a game that launched just 6 months later.Diluted Dante wrote:That's Halo 3 in 18th place. A game that launched in 2007. Just above Medal of Honor Warfighter.
Roujin wrote:Is it that most people want to play CoD or is it that a modern era military FPS where you shoot terrorists while being a dude from the SAS or whatever is a more appealing and less nerdy aesthetic from the point of view of your average young cunt on the street?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!