Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/11/11 05:27 PM, idiot-monarch wrote:

At 7/11/11 05:17 PM, naronic wrote:

At 7/11/11 05:05 PM, idiot-monarch wrote:
"It's an assassination game that reacts to how violent you are

oh God Bethesda no duel character bull please...

Jesus Christ, stop calling it Bethesda's game.

This is all your fault, OP!

well then whose game is it?

any more on the CAMPAIGN

snes games are still good

I wouldn't go back to the snes now if you've already been spoiled by today's games really, its like bringing a model T on a modern car show.

or if you really want to don't expect anything phenominal

At 7/11/11 05:05 PM, idiot-monarch wrote:
"It's an assassination game that reacts to how violent you are

oh God Bethesda no duel character bull please...

Superman 64
surprised no one mentioned this.

steam

get steam

I find it funny how people say Call of Duty 4 is really good, but then say Modern Warfare 2 is shit, yet they're the same game also.

What the FUCK are you smoking Cole?

Actually that's part of the reason I didn't like mw2, all it really did is replace the animation for walking so that instead of looking like your bum-screwing the butt of your gun, you look more like your walking like a duck...

and taking the disorganization of the multiplayer even further, that's a big one

I laughed pretty hard at that.

Lol. Nothing has never been further from the truth... CoD 4 and MW2 aren't very similar at all...

they both have bad multiplayer
that's one similarity

half life

epic
just epic

At 7/7/11 11:41 AM, LulzCal wrote: So, this is looking pretty exciting. Bethesda's new game, being developed by Arkane Studios. Its team has various people from Half Life 2 and ---

sold

F3 searched "half" on the web page...

Lets just say it's disappointing

At 7/7/11 06:25 PM, Cootie wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this genre needs to return?

yes, and it has,

In the form of multitudes to multitudes of indie games
so I don't think you have anything to worry about

counter strike source and team fortress 2 blows it out of the water I'm afraid

when I look at a game trailer and I see something other than MULTIPLAYER, UNLOCKS, BIG BREASTED ATHLETIC SLUTS, GOOD CUT-SCENE DRIVEN STORY

what would you like battlefield 3 to have?

It's an age old question mods and game designers alike have asked themselves.

do you prefer instant respawn or timed respawn, and under what circumstances?

I came across this game in late 2010 when a friend on steam told me about this supposedly generic, half life 2/ fallout ripoff crossover that came out recently.

I actually looked it up, people said it was a lot like half life 2, it had a great atmosphere, and the gameplay video was pretty awesome.

I don't know but all I can think of is this steam sale going on and how I want in on all the potentially good single player games.

I have half life 2 for xbox but...

I MUST GET IT FOR PEESEE

At 7/3/11 04:26 PM, EricSach wrote: i dont think they will be making half life 3!

they were saying the exact same thing about hl2

I can feel it, the portal series just ended this year, no info on that yearly cash cow L4D, and TF2 is now free to play. All they have to work on is...

HALF LIFE 3

And indeed that's probably what the team has been working on for some time now.
Just wait any time now- a leak- a gameplay video anything concerning hl3 will be released.
So let's talk, what do you think will be introduced this time in hl3? How will valve WOW us this time?

I think tying in the 1st portal story in episode 3 (or HL3) would be the best road to go for the series if they're looking to tie them in anytime soon.

relevent (i hope)

hey, at least indie games have some variety due to not being crippled by the crummy standards of triple A games.

no but i did play call of duty 2 and its multiplayer

good times before cod 4 came around and reduced the multiplayer to nothing but spam, rank whoring and general stupididy

I wonder

At 6/28/11 02:10 AM, Makeshift wrote: I only bought Team Fortress 2 a few months ago and I've played about 10 hours of it. I feel like everyone who purchased TF2 before should get a game for free. As for this auto-kicking business, I think it's great. Free to play games are always filled with people who have computers that can't run the game.

not true
im f2p and i can play the game -_-

server mod free to be kicked

^ all examples that we've reached a forte for realism in games

At 6/25/11 12:18 AM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 6/24/11 09:25 PM, naronic wrote: battlefield 3 pretty much tops the potential of realistic fps games from mechanic to mechanic,
give me reasons why it does not and then give me a synapses of what could be improved.

You can't select semi-automatic fire on any of the rifles, that's a big one. In combat, assault rifles are almost always used in semi-automatic mode.

that may be one but its definitely not big.
There's no technological boundary to simply programming that in any fps game and most have semi-automatic rifles anyway.
Probably left out for balance issues, although i know for a fact that scoping in with an AUG or an SG552 in Counter Strike changes your ROF slightly so if you want to accept that under your realism wing be my guest.

The bullet drop is not realistic, though I heard it's been tinkered with in BF3.
There is no bullet drift, as in the bullet drifting due to the rifling of the barrel. There is also no wind, but I guess that is pretty much impossible to program into a large game like this.

wind can be added into flash games, once again there's no technological boundaries to programming that in a game so I'm pretty sure it was left out for balance issues.

Ricochets, there are none in battlefield.

but they are present in Time-splitters 2 and Halo, 2 less realistic games.

When aiming, the aim never drifts. Fear, excitement, and physical activity are going to greatly to affect your ability to aim the rifle.

idle sway (especially with snipers) has been a present feature in both call of duty and battlefield so what are you talking about?
Do you mean having the game decide whether your tired, excited or scared and change your aim accordingly? Don't those things control naturally whenever you PLAY a game?
How would that work exactly? It would just be an annoyance and cause nothing but balancing issues and de-immersion.

Your ammo is measured as a total, and not in magazines.

And measuring in magazines would change... what?

You can switch from your rifle to your sidearm in less than a second.

correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure quick switching to your pistol is something they do in the army for intense close combat battle situations when the ammo for your primary is inconsistent.

There are many more things that could make it realistic, but you see my point that we are far from the pinnacle of realism in FPSs.

were practically close enough to stick our tongue on it, I'm pretty sure your just being picky.

At 6/24/11 03:03 PM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

simplistic mechanics that can easily be programmed into a game if they don't already exist

And then what would happen? You lot would cry at the difficulty of the game and never play it again.

thanks Psychic Sylvester.
your pretentious jerkoffery sure showed me how superior your opinion is -_-

once a combatant was wounded severely they would need actual patching up and evac,

Patching up? You mean medics?
And how much fun would an evac be? Where would they take you? How long would you have to stay there bored out of your mind? Wouldn't respawning just be the better option?

Pick one. Realism, or fun-

fun and functional
that's why i would play a game

firefights would be at greater distances between 75 and 200 meters,

75 to 200 meters is half your throwing distance in call of duty
not to mention in bfbc2 you hardly ever get to see your assailant before you get sniped across 3 sets of obscure hillside.

Sounds like you suck and have little situational awareness. I'd love to meet a soldier who can throw a grenade 75 meters in real life. Grenade tossing is not indicative of firefight range.

It sounds like you didn't understand the context of this quote at all.
I'm trying to show that the mechanics we already have in shooters today exceed that expectation, and that there's no more room for innovation in that area.

Realistic games exist, you guys just don't play them and likely have not heard of them.

Are you kidding me? THEY'RE RE-RELEASED EVERY NANOSECOND LIKE GNATS REPRODUCING IN A BAKERY.

Call of duty, battlefield, and the medal of honor franchises are NOT realistic. Remove head from arse.

Here's a tip, instead of pulling dried up raisin wit from your freshly PMS'd vagina, come up with actual points to counter mine instead of "Oh your wrong on every point because I think so why don't you pull head out of your arse HUR HUR HUR IM FUNNEH YOU NEVER HEARD THAT B4 LOL"

battlefield 3 pretty much tops the potential of realistic fps games from mechanic to mechanic,
give me reasons why it does not and then give me a synapses of what could be improved.

Rpgs would be incredibly inneffective against mbts, individual riflemen would perhaps only be able to take three 5.56s to the chest/back,

simplistic mechanics that can easily be programmed into a game if they don't already exist

once a combatant was wounded severely they would need actual patching up and evac,

Patching up? You mean medics?
And how much fun would an evac be? Where would they take you? How long would you have to stay there bored out of your mind? Wouldn't respawning just be the better option?

firefights would be at greater distances between 75 and 200 meters,

75 to 200 meters is half your throwing distance in call of duty
not to mention in bfbc2 you hardly ever get to see your assailant before you get sniped across 3 sets of obscure hillside.

Realistic games exist, you guys just don't play them and likely have not heard of them.

Are you kidding me? THEY'RE RE-RELEASED EVERY NANOSECOND LIKE GNATS REPRODUCING IN A BAKERY.

An example of one, would be project reality; a mod for battlefield 2. Tanks take 15-20 minutes to spawn, can only be repaired at ammo dumps/garages, sniping takes actual skill and patience, as you are unable to lie prone and immediately make an accurate shot, no ammo counters exist, and computer and guidance systems must warm up on a tank or other vehicle before turrets can be rotated, guns fired, or helicopters take off. Did I mention the incredibly long respawn times of 45 seconds to 5 minutes to simulate redeployment of forces?

Good, now lets just update that every few months to satisfy the red pill junkies so I can get back to flying in inter-dimensional space-time with my BFG fixated on alien foreheads.

At 6/19/11 10:36 PM, RazorHawk wrote:

Just sounds to me like you're expecting Battlefield 3 to suddenly break out of context and do something that's unrealistic that would ultimately deviate from the scope and setting of the game.

what I'm saying is were reaching the forte of potential for realism.
There's not much you can do after you've included destructible environments outside of simply updating the gameplay every release.
What I'm hoping is that game designers realize this and these kind of fps games go out of style soon so that we can advance in the creativity department.

BF3 is going to possibly be a great game if it follows up with its established formula but its the ceiling for this sub-genre