Things that you hate to see in games.

[Ray]

When they're repetitive like the CoD series...

 

LET'S JUST TAKE MODERN WARFARE 2

AND NAME IT MODERN WARFARE 3!

Why is that a bad thing?

 

It's just a matter of opinion, some people prefer not to see basically the same thing with just new skins in all the sequels, but let's move on Cod is a dangerous topic kinda like politics, What I hate seeing in games is decent graphics and decent gameplay but a story that just sucks so much.

[Axeldeath]

Games with no story are usually great when they focus on gameplay (see every old platformer ever), but it's when the devs put some half-arsed story in there that the game becomes bad.

 

If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

[Ray]

Games with no story are usually great when they focus on gameplay (see every old platformer ever), but it's when the devs put some half-arsed story in there that the game becomes bad.

 

If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

 

Ya that's what I mean, I mean for games like Mario...who needs story, But I mean games where they try to make it serious but it just...fails so hard

[Alyxx Thorne]

Are you serious? You think that lack of innovation and shameless cash-ins are a good thing?

I think a good game is a good game.

 

Let's look at the facts:

 

* MW3 introduces some new gameplay modes, most notably the Kill Confirmed mode where it's not enough to just kill a guy, you have to get his dogtag too to confirm the kill, which cuts down on camping a lot

* MW3 includes a totally new service for console gamers (at least they ATTEMPTED it) in Call of Duty Elite

* MW3 makes it possible to connect to Facebook in order to make it easier to play with people you actually know

* MW3 has probably the most balanced multiplayer of the franchise

* MW3 is not more expensive than other titles of the same genre, and if it is, you're being ripped off, I got it for about 60 bucks which is NOT a high price, it's what I EXPECT to pay for a game these days.

* MW3 includes brand new ways of using killstreaks which makes the multiplayer a lot more fun and easier for newcomers to get into

* MW3 has reduced hacking to pretty much 0% on PC, and reporting hackers is easier than ever

 

Is that lack of innovation or is it just not innovative enough? I guess I can't speak for the haters, but personally I think it's a much better game than MW2 or BO ever was.

 

I dunno about you but I think MW3 is a great shooter and I'd rather judge it on its own merits rather than compare it to any other Call of Duty title or game out there. It is what it is and I'd rather enjoy it for what it is than hate it for what it isn't.

I have fun playing it and I love playing it, despite its flaws. I think in the end that's what truly matters.

[Pinkie Pie]

When they're repetitive like the CoD series...

 

LET'S JUST TAKE MODERN WARFARE 2

AND NAME IT MODERN WARFARE 3!

Why is that a bad thing?

 

It's just a matter of opinion, some people prefer not to see basically the same thing with just new skins in all the sequels, but let's move on Cod is a dangerous topic kinda like politics, What I hate seeing in games is decent graphics and decent gameplay but a story that just sucks so much.

Honestly, I kinda like getting more of the same in my sequels. Improvements sure, but take tge Uncharted series for example, it hardly changed gameplay-wise, and the games are amazing regardless. Or the Batman Arkham Asylum series. When it's more of the same, it really makes me feel like I'm playing part 2 of something, instead of another game entirely.

 

Some exceptions however, like when a game changes too much. Like XCOM, which I believe was an RTS when it first came out, is now a first person Mass Effect. When you change too much, it becomes unrecognizable in the series. But that's just my opinion.

[The Scoutman]

I guess there aint much to innovate, COD will be COD, i have no problem with they updating the game graphics, adding a few changes and calling it a sequel, that would be okay if they didnt make it every single year for christsake.

 

I mean, its not like their games will look terribly outdated in only 2 years, if they want to add new stuff just release it as a 15 bucks DLC, not a 60 bucks updated version of the same game, it is less of a dick move

[Axeldeath]

I never said more of the same in a sequel is a bad thing, take a look at the change from Fallout 1 to Fallout 2. Exact same mechanics, exact same graphics and the exact same gameplay as Fallout 1. But a way bigger world, way more content and innovations with the mechanics they already had.

 

Contrast this to the change from MW2 --> BO --> MW3. Same MP with a few extra game modes, another "story" with the exact same length as the others, a few extra maps and the removal of older maps to be sold as $15 DLC later in the year. Unless you buy the games for the SP you may as well be playing MW1's multiplayer.

[Kirkreng]

I don't mind games that are the same but more. But the problem is that CoD is hardly anything more. I don't think small improvements are a bad thing, but not for €60. At €60 I want a new game. With LOTS of new/more stuff. Not just a reskin with small improvements.

[Ray]

I warned ya Cod was a dangerous topic

[Eedo Baba]

Someone needs to make a new kind of shooter. I mean, consider we've really been playing the same basic style of tps and fps games for the last 5 to 10 years. They might have mixed elements of different genres in, or been innovative in different ways, but no new shooter mechanics have really ever been invented in the last 5 years or so. I mean, can anyone think of anything? And I'm not talking about weapons or powers that expound on the shooter mechanics, I mean new shooter mechanics.

[Kirkreng]

Well at the core the FPS mechanic is: You click, you shoot. There isn't really much to change without turning it into another genre.

[Eedo Baba]

Well at the core the FPS mechanic is: You click, you shoot. There isn't really much to change without turning it into another genre.

 

Well, that's what you think before someone decides to innovate. Look at the platformer. In 1990 it was strictly limited to a definition including only 2D sidescrollers. Crash Bandicoot and Mario 64 completely changed that.

 

And I'd say there's a lot of things to change.

For example, the shooter as we know it allows you to get shots several times and eventually walk it off, be it through regenerating health or a medkit. What if games started using realistic consequences for injury? Like, getting hit in the leg would be a massive blow to your movement speed and rapidly drain your overall health from bleeding, getting hit in the arm would possibly limit your use of guns to a sidearm in the other hand, and getting hit in the chest or head would be a one hit kill. It would completely change the way a shooter is played. Gameplay would no longer be about jumping out of cover and spraying fire, It would be about precise, tactical use of cover and distraction. Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

[Axeldeath]

For example, the shooter as we know it allows you to get shots several times and eventually walk it off, be it through regenerating health or a medkit. What if games started using realistic consequences for injury? Like, getting hit in the leg would be a massive blow to your movement speed and rapidly drain your overall health from bleeding, getting hit in the arm would possibly limit your use of guns to a sidearm in the other hand, and getting hit in the chest or head would be a one hit kill. It would completely change the way a shooter is played. Gameplay would no longer be about jumping out of cover and spraying fire, It would be about precise, tactical use of cover and distraction. Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

 

Many mods already do this on PC, only the very hardcore enjoy it. I could perhaps see something like the ARMA series having a hardcore mode similar to what you suggest though. Also-

 

Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

 

You've played games online so you should know that this would never work in a pub.

[Eedo Baba]

For example, the shooter as we know it allows you to get shots several times and eventually walk it off, be it through regenerating health or a medkit. What if games started using realistic consequences for injury? Like, getting hit in the leg would be a massive blow to your movement speed and rapidly drain your overall health from bleeding, getting hit in the arm would possibly limit your use of guns to a sidearm in the other hand, and getting hit in the chest or head would be a one hit kill. It would completely change the way a shooter is played. Gameplay would no longer be about jumping out of cover and spraying fire, It would be about precise, tactical use of cover and distraction. Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

 

Many mods already do this on PC, only the very hardcore enjoy it. I could perhaps see something like the ARMA series having a hardcore mode similar to what you suggest though. Also-

 

Like, using part of your team for covering fire, while a strike force flanks the enemy.

 

You've played games online so you should know that this would never work in a pub.

 

lol, well I wasn't talking about online gaming actually. I'm very aware that an average public server would in no way be coordinated enough to handle it. I was thinking more along the lines of a single player game where you can take command of a squad of soldiers and give them complex commands.

 

Also, I didn't intend it to imply a simple difficulty spike. That would simply be making the game harder, which isn't what I meant. I mean to actually design a game around these principles. Perhaps you could switch between members of your squad at will, and when your player character died you assumed the role of a different soldier in your squad, so that the difficulty of the mission would grow as your team dwindles, with less resources to plan a strategy. Perhaps each member of your team could have a specialty, so doing something cocky as one team member would be risking an important asset to the team. If the guy with the rocket launcher runs up to take out a tank and gets shot down in the process, you'll have to complete your mission without that resource.

Actually, if the teammates were coordinated enough, it *could* work as a co-op game if one side was A.I.

 

Just letting ideas flow.

[Blightmare]

sounds like Battlefield 2(xbox version) meets the old Rainbow 6.

[Axeldeath]

Battlefield 2(xbox version)

 

Was that the one where you could switch soldiers via being some sort of body-possessing spirit?

[alphabetagamma]

Battlefield 2(xbox version)

 

Was that the one where you could switch soldiers via being some sort of body-possessing spirit?

Oh god, that battlefield. After PC battlefield 2... ugh.

[Eedo Baba]

sounds like [...] the old Rainbow 6.

 

Looked up gameplay. That's just about exactly what I mean.

Never played a game like that myself. The idea of persistent class deaths sounds like exactly what I was going for there.

[Ray]

Speaking of rainbow 6, there's a new one coming out, I hope it does better than Rainbow 6 Vegas did

[Kirkreng]

Why are we talking about stuff that we WANT to see in games in a thread about what we DON'T want in games. Get your bum back to hating on Call of Duty.