is this how fps is now ?

Gerard said:
It really just does look like a graphically enhanced cod, all the in your face crap when you kill someone, the whole screen just gets very cluttered quite fast.

Seems games these days are just catering for 12 year olds and not much more.
Click to expand...

They are only doing it as they can. They would have probably done it in years past, but the graphics would not allow it. It might annoy some but it is adding more realism. Whether I buy it or not is another thing but regardless of that fact, you are only going to get more annoyed as time goes on as every single game ever made is going to include more of this 'realism'. That or just go back and play CSS or something.

Times move on, man. Us older gamers have to accept it or move on.
 
dogmanstaruk said:
**NEWS FLASH** He is the CEO of a multi-national corporate entity. He is paid to care about money. Why? Because he is responsible for the overall performance of the company. That his is remit.

I wonder about the naivety of Gamers when I read posts like the one I have quoted. The gaming industry is about one thing. To make money. It is no different from any other form of product or service based economic environment. Turnover, market share and ultimately profit is the objective.

The industry isn't a charity to keep Gamers with an over inflated opinion of their self-entitlement satisfied. I don't understand how difficult that is to understand. Ultimately if you can't handle the truth change your hobby. Unfortunately you will find out that no matter where you go the organisations involved with it only care about one thing. Money.
Click to expand...

Marvel makes a ton of money with risk-taking of their movies with super heroes ex Avengers.
DC comics not so much.

If the staff of DICE hired me the BF4 game would be a lot different than CoD cloned BF3 and actually be enjoyment.
the staff dont get what creates fun anymore and doing that differently and better than the competition makes money in the long run.

Lot of guys growing up with Bf1942 that simply put are older but also wiser and with jobs.
 
PapaLazaru said:
They are only doing it as they can. They would have probably done it in years past, but the graphics would not allow it. It might annoy some but it is adding more realism. Whether I buy it or not is another thing but regardless of that fact, you are only going to get more annoyed as time goes on as every single game ever made is going to include more of this 'realism'. That or just go back and play CSS or something.

Times move on, man. Us older gamers have to accept it or move on.
Click to expand...

What aspect are you referring to that is adding more realism?
 
reflux said:
I gotta say the same with regard to multiplayer FPSs. It's all just go here, kill that, be killed from miles away blah blah

We need more thought going into these games.. proper scenario-based competition, unpredictable world events, that kind of thing. No-one's really trying anymore.
Click to expand...

go play Arma 2.
 
fps have lost the fun aspect for me. I played BF2 a lot and before that MOH and quake/2/3 for a gazillion hours and to me those simpler games were just more fun , more competitive.

Better graphics has not equaled better game play and this is true for most genres.
 
this phenomenon of harking back to the good ol' days with the rosiest of rose tinted specs is nothing new.

I remember when it was called marathon/ah the mk1 golf gti is so much better than the latest/my pug 205 is still the best/ah I remember playing quake 3/1.6 is so much bette than csgo etc etc

I even caught myself bitching about how bad halo reach was and how halo 3 was way better!!
 
CS: Source was the first multiplayer FPS I got in to. Others like Call of Duty 2/4 and even Global Offensive have been and gone and I'm still playing Source 7 or 8 years later. CS 1.6 boys will think I'm crazy for not preferring 1.6, but I don't care :p

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 I can stand, well I enjoy them actually, didn't get on with Battlefield 3 though.

I think for me Source still has the best blend of graphics/gameplay even though the graphics are dated, but I don't want glossy paving stones all over my screen when I'm trying to kill an enemy so it suites me well.
 
badcompany said:
fps have lost the fun aspect for me. I played BF2 a lot and before that MOH and quake/2/3 for a gazillion hours and to me those simpler games were just more fun , more competitive.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It's odd that improvements in tech have, for the most part, resulted in improved aesthetics at the expense of gameplay and taking control away from the player. We don't have to work out where to go any more as everything's sign posted and highlighted . No longer do we have to select dynamite to blow up the objective, we just need the context sensitive use button. You could argue this is streamlining and good game design, but for me this makes games less less involved and less interesting. Games are generally becoming simpler to play too, especially fps. In many respects older fps were simpler, but in terms of actual gameplay, what the player could do and the skills required, current fps are painfully dumbed down in comparison. Strip away the blood splatters and needlessly cluttered hud and the gunplay in CoD and BF feels generations behind RTCW/ET/CS/Q3/Unreal/TFC/TF2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom