Page 2 of 2 First First 12

Thread: Do people actually debate this???

Do people actually debate this???

  1. #26
    Originally Posted by Blade_hunter
    Yeah I see you missed the point of my post.
    Help me understand it then please.

  2. #27
    I just try to prove that my previsions are almost right, not the fact that the removal of the RPG aspect from the combats is the worst thing ever.

    At least making us more or less efficient in combat isn't something crap, as long as the combat isn't completely based on luck...
    If you want to make enemies; just dumb something down
    The manderley song => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WnBeglPl7s

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,916
    Originally Posted by Exian
    LOL what a moron...
    LOL!! I know I'm not supposed to condone that kind of behavior... But hell, you're right. =P

    Yes, I suppose if someone played the game exclusively with combat in mind for every situation, the game could be disappointing, as truth be told, the game wasn't anything amazing if that's all you were focused on (But even then, I wouldn't say it sucks). I suppose the issue wasn't the game, but rather his focus upon it. He missed the forest for the trees. Well, a tree. A combat tree.
    "Square Root of 912.04 is 30.2... It all seemed so harmless..."

  4. #29
    That was ones of the problems of DX
    The combat wasn't crap, but it wasn't that amusing.
    The aiming system second how it was made pretty much reduced the fun of it.
    If you want to make enemies; just dumb something down
    The manderley song => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WnBeglPl7s

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,916
    Originally Posted by Blade_hunter
    That was ones of the problems of DX
    The combat wasn't crap, but it wasn't that amusing.
    The aiming system second how it was made pretty much reduced the fun of it.
    Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. It was something average in a fantastic game, and it showed as a result.
    "Square Root of 912.04 is 30.2... It all seemed so harmless..."

  6. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Oxford
    Posts
    7,374
    Could somebody help me understand what is so terrible about R6V combat? I haven't played the game so I don't have an opinion on it one way or another.
    Make a cup of tea. Enjoy a nice cheddar. Always bring a towel.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,916
    Originally Posted by Mr. K
    Could somebody help me understand what is so terrible about R6V combat? I haven't played the game so I don't have an opinion on it one way or another.
    I don't know about the others, but I found it very... Detatched. You can see and hear the weapons fire, but you couldn't "feel" them. It was also a tad debhilitating at times (Switching perspectives, going from very dark to hyper-bright).
    "Square Root of 912.04 is 30.2... It all seemed so harmless..."

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    394
    Originally Posted by Romeo
    ... Detatched.
    Yep thats about right. It's also the reason why people both here and on the T4 forum dont and didnt want a third person view.

  9. #34
    I stopped reading as soon as a second person claimed Half-Life "uses the gaming medium to its fullest."

    Only through the anonymity offered by the internet could anyone say something like that seriously. That or through unparalleled idiocy.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The highest ground...
    Posts
    23,047
    It's a strange world.
    signature image
    You are only minimally modified. Omar can help you correct this...

  11. #36
    Originally Posted by Mr. K
    Could somebody help me understand what is so terrible about R6V combat? I haven't played the game so I don't have an opinion on it one way or another.
    Vegas was... ok. It was far from the worst shooter I've played. Most complaints leveld at it are that it is a far cry from a "Tom Clancy game" -- which is right. It is far from realistic, and nothing like earlier Rainbow Six titles, which were practically designed to be hostage rescue simulators. Obviously the story was rubbish. Something about bad guys taking over Vegas...

    However, shootouts are intense and the AI isn't half bad. My major issue is that it was painfully linear, most of the weapons felt the same and it got quite repetitive. Plus some of the enviornments were too dark, bland, etc.

    If DX3 had the shooting mechanics of RB6 Vegas, I really wouldn't complain much. Better level design, slightly better AI and RPG elements to keep it from getting stale would clear up most of the problems I had with the game, personally.
    It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. ~Albert Einstein

  12. #37
    The repetitiveness is characteristic of those FPS using TP cover (and BTW the RH combined)
    And FarCry compared to R6V is an agreeable shooter, their cover system pretty much ruined the game, much more than the RH.
    And personally I hardly felt the intensity despite having a good amount of terrorists to shoot, the cover system is almost responsible of this since the feelings that we had in FP view disappeared when in cover.
    And the realism factor isn't part of the main reasons why I hated this game.
    That's mostly the gunfights, because otherwise the game have some good ideas.
    If you want to make enemies; just dumb something down
    The manderley song => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WnBeglPl7s

  13. #38
    Originally Posted by Corpus
    Yes it's confirmed, my point is it might play out better than you think. It's not a game breaking feature and immersion never really was a selling point for the original DX, nor for this one it seems.
    Oh really? I think you'll find the immersive game world of Deus Ex is in fact one of the main reasons many of us were drawn into the game. Judging from what you've just said I find it hard to believe you've ever played DX.

    If you think crappy gameplay and over-simplified mechanics can't ruin a game, look no further than Alpha Protocol.
    http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/xbox-...otocol-review/
    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/alpha...ol/review.html

    Originally Posted by Bit-tech.net
    Ostensibly an RPG at heart, Alpha Protocol also suffers a bit from the way it attempts to fuse this structure onto a shooter frame. It wants to be a new Deus Ex, but poor balancing and over-simplified mechanics mean it feels more like Invisible War at best.
    This should ring a bell.
    Originally Posted by Gamespot
    You control Mike from a third-person perspective, but the camera is often zoomed rather close to him, which is a hindrance to taking in your surroundings or navigating close spaces. If you stoop, the camera pulls away somewhat and you get a better view, though the way Mike scuttles about while crouching is laughably awkward. As you progress, you find the camera can cause mild headaches in other ways as well. For some unknown reason, descending a ladder or jumping from a ledge (always a contextual action, never a freely controllable one) causes the camera to swoop to an overhead view and remain there, which is unhelpful and disorienting. At other times, you might pop up from behind cover to take a shot, only to have the camera shift into a useless position or even have your own body get in the way. [B]These gaffes seem odd, considering most game developers seem to have worked through such basic obstacles years ago. You get accustomed to them, but these problems make the simple act of moving from place to place feel uncomfortable.

    The camera isn't the only issue with the cover system, which is generally workable but also inconsistent and occasionally buggy. At a basic level, cover works as it does in a third-person shooter like Gears of War: You press a button to take cover behind a barricade or wall and peek over or around to shoot at enemies. But like much of Alpha Protocol, cover isn't implemented well. Sometimes you encounter walls that you can't take cover behind for no discernible reason; at other times, the stickiness of the cover mechanic combined with the close camera can make it awkward to get out of the way of an incoming grenade. You might also run into glitches and bugs where cover is concerned. Some of these are bizarre but not likely to bother you too much, such as weird animation glitches or moments when you might slide a few feet to the side like the ground is coated with ice. Other bugs are more annoying. You might pop up from behind cover only to discover that your targeting reticle is missing and you can't shoot your weapon--a problem that can only be fixed by extricating yourself from cover. Or for some reason you won't be able to toss a grenade from behind a barricade. Again, basic mechanics gone bitter distract from the complexities that make Alpha Protocol special.
    Even a game totally designed to accommodate third-person gameplay is brought down further by the problems it entails.

    If you're not seeing a direct correlation between oversimplified game mechanics like third-person, health regeneration, and the crappy games it yields, that's to nobody's detriment but your own, and your argument.

Page 2 of 2 First First 12