My issues with modern gaming...

[NICKT]

FPS is the worst when it comes to modern gaming, as a whole.

Yes, even worse than Farm Simulator, even worse than Angry Bird, Flappy Bird, Dick Bird and I want to lick your face Bird.

 

"Oh hey, we want realism in our games, cause that's cool!"
Alrighty, well here's your regenerating health, HUD, little icons showing where the enemy is, the fact a leg shot doesn't stop you dead in your tracks, no recoil in most FPS titles.

 

"But that's too realisitc, that's not fun!"

You know what's also not fun? Dying in a matter of seconds because some guy got the jump on you.

 

In gaming, removing the player's ability to act should only come as apart of narrative or as punishment to the player. This is one of the major thing that gets me so frustrated with modern titles because in the lapse of difficulty, this is what we get in turn. Sure, sometimes there's an exit you forgot to cover, or you took too long running between buildings, whatever, but when there's five seperate entry points into a position that only you are occupying, you're fucked.

Of course, you can say that in that situation, the game is designed for you not to be alone, well, that'd be good if it wasn't for the fact that everyone's fucking got solo mentality.

 

When I first picked up Battlefield 4, I went medic, not because it was default but because whilst I was learning, it still allowed me an avenue to be useful to my team. I see so many people just running around aimlessly and without bearing that it's saddening. People for the most part, namely in FPS titles, have no sense of team-play, they may as well be playing with a bunch of NPCs. Oh wait, Titanfall has that covered? Oh joy, one step closer to having the last inch of the bat slowly inserted deeper into my rectum.

 

Now that gaming is slightly more acceptable in our modern age, with us becoming more tolerable of all different aspects of life, as people, we're seeing a shift in gaming. Different mentalities, different development methods, design choices, all these things are changing and I fear it's not really in a positive light, at least for those who gaming is actually a major hobby or past time and take it seriously.

 

In case you haven't noticed, the recent Battlefield 4 DLC Naval Strike just came out, four new maps which feel incredibly the same despite only a few differences between them, a new mode which essentially is conquest and rush slapped into one and new guns which for some reason came out before the patch went live so subconsciously my mind doesn't even consider it apart of the DLC. Now, people paid for this, hell, I paid for this, I stupidly paid for premium and that's what constituted DLC for Battlefield 4, a bundle which should have been free.

 

"But Nickt, but Nickt, extra development time means they have to charge to pay developers!"

 

Well, true, but let's put it this way.

Yesterday I walked into a video game store, well, I actually didn't because who the hell goes outside anymore, but just imagine with me for the sake of our love.

I walk up to a rack of games and notice two games priced exactly the same, being fresh releases on the latest console.

Game A was made in 1 year.

Game B was made in 2 years.

Now, shouldn't game B cost more? It seems logical, as it had a longer development time, meaning more wages, etc.

But it doesn't, which is something that still irks me, how we pay the same price, as if it's independent of what's actually within the game.

That's like going into a Wedding Cake shop, seeing one of their main offerings and then have it being the same price as a cake they made using a pre-boxed kit from a supermarket.

 

But anyway, the point I wanted to focus on was the fact that if Game A released paid DLC and continued after-release development, then people expect us to pay more, but why?

If Game A spends a year developing DLC, then their development time matches Game B, but to buy it all, I have to effectively double my purchase, which I did due to Battlefield 4 and their premium service.

This never used to be a thing.

 

SWTOR is a major offender of this, it doesn't have DLC but is has a cash shop, which it calls the 'Cartel Market'. The first problem I had with this, is it uses a store currency, that's one of the major things you need to keep an eye on, whenever there's money involved, see if you buy the currency, it's psychological. If I pay $40 for an amount of 'cartel coins', and I go to the store, I'm seeing things in cost of those coins, it's a step that subconsciously removes the thinking that there was a sum of money involved. If you walk into a store, with your money cold dead in your hand, you're going to be a lot more tight fisted with it in nature, because you know the value of that money. However, with an in-game currency, there's a disconnect, it allows the developer to pull bullshit on you.

 

Case in point? Christmas Mount, SWTOR.

This thing was 20 bucks, now of course, what it actually was, was 2000 cartel coins, which with conversions is $20 jesus christ you get the picture.

Hey, do you actually want to see the mount?

Sure!

Boom, what a piece of ugly shit. The best part? It's not even a new model, it's literally a re-used model with a new skin, some added tinsel and a muffler that produces snow or some stupid shit.

The audacity Bioware and EA had to release this, even if only collectors bought it, I don't care, the absolute nerve they had to put this in the cash shop, bloody hell.

There was no way to obtain this in game, that I can remember, it was cash shop or nothing.

Now, I'm not a betting man, but when something is only obtainable in the cash shop, then that's fucking bullshit.

 

DLC? Hell, I've seen games sell you things like weapon packs, skins, stupid shit, shit that was in the game that you used to have to unlock, it was a reward, something you got for doing something cool or interesting. Got 10 headshots in a row? Sweet, you now unlocked a new gun, or a new camo. Nope, nowadays everything's behind a paywall and people are surprisingly ok with that. We put up with so much shit from developers and publishers, including but not exclusively, paid-DLC, DRM, always online, bugs, crashes, server issues.

 

Is anyone else also uncomfortable with the fact that despite a game not working to 100%, you're still getting sold extra things that add on to the game?

Does anyone remember War Z? A game which despite being absolutely nigh on unplayable still had a perfectly functioning cash shop.

Of course, everyone called bullshit on that game, but that's one incident, yet it happens so much more frequently that it's becoming increasingly ridiculous just how much developers are getting away with things.

 

I personally feel that this is because of the modern mentality within video gaming, the accessibility, the need to make things more friendly and casually approachable, dumbing things down and spreading to a wider audience.

The part that upsets me the most about that concept though? Is the fact it means we are worthless, developers and publishers are looking at you dead in the face and are saying you are not enough.

 

I just finished playing about two hours of the new BF4 DLC, Naval Strike, overall I've put about 500 hours into the game and I have to say, the gaming community is so much more horrible than I remember.

To think that I was proud to call myself a 'gamer' at any point in my life is embarrassing in retrospect, to be a part of a community that will down right harass you because you killed them.

 

Also, what is it with people and sniping? Ever since CoD it's the whole, "oh bro, 360 no scope get on it faggot lol 240 blaziken" deal. Personally? I'm a 'camper', and that gets me so much hate whenever I decide to snipe. I hate 'aggressive snipers' with a passion because it's just so ruining of the concept of what sniping is. Now, I'll be sniping whilst 'camping' on the edge of the map, next thing I know, three other guys will show up and join me sniping. This is just ridiculous and retarded. What is it with the modern age and with people being incapable of processing coherent thoughts and logic? Hm, maybe this sniper here has it covered from this angle, perhaps I should move to a different location so we have more sniping coverage of the map? Nope, they'll stand there, standing, mind you, straight pull, no bipod, in other words, these people came into the fray expecting NOT to kill anyone in a single shot. In that round, in all the time I was sniping, I fired three shots, two head shots and one miss was due to me panicking in close quarters trying to no scope cause I was using a 40x scope.

(That reminds me, why the fuck is that in the game? Not to say it's bad, I love it and I'll use it until I stop playing, but hell, if you ever look through one of those things, the game takes a sudden turn to the ugly.)

 

The reason I had that problem with close quarters? It's cause those people that joined me on that escarpment were just continuously firing shots. Now, if as a sniper, it takes you more than two shots to kill someone, then at least give up on that one individual and fucking move. Don't spawn on a sniper then immediately start shooting, that's just giving away his position, next thing I know, boom, helicopter to the face. So I decided, to hell with it, and I sniped from the carrier instead, for the most part, can barely see shit but at least no one is going to hassle me from there. So I look through my scope and see a guy on the roof, about 570 meters away, no big deal, I make the shot, headshot, nice. Then one of his team mates gets on the roof immediately after, not to revive or anything, to literally do what his team mate was just doing. (Which was using an assault rifle against an attack boat...)

 

I sniped him as well, headshot. Then a third team mate came up, at this point I was literally swearing incompetence and was surprised when he actually revived the other two, so I then killed all three of them.

They then took to chat to harass me. Saying I was a noob, complaining how I was camping and all of that ass-hattery, now, because I'm an idiot. The thing is, why didn't they get off the roof? The second and third guy saw a dead team mate, that's sign that something is capable of killing you if you stand in that vicinity. So what do they do? Exactly that, even after the first two were revived, they just stayed prone, didn't even try to get off the roof where they definitely knew there was a sniper capable of taking them out. Then, whilst they continued to harass me, one of them got in a helicopter and flew all the way to exactly where I was and road-killed me.

It's safe to say that's when I rage-quitted.

 

Maybe it's just me, maybe I just have a nostalgic view of things, but for the life of me, gaming for me was never this hostile, and for the most part, it's in FPS games that I see it. It's become part of the genre now, to expect people to be raging, swearing, talking stupid shit, it's essentially now part of the charm for some people. They were saying things like I was a noob, and that really shocked me, I made a headshot at 570 meters, how is that in any way a noob? But no, I decided to take the bait, and in response to me asking how I was a noob, apparently it was due to the rifle I was using? Apparently there are OP weapons?

 

Well, the rifle I was using SRR-61, the reason I chose it was muzzle velocity, and even still I'm not comfortable taking moving shots, but at 500 meters, it becomes a little easier to take a shot and not have to sit there and watch as the person moves after you take the shot despite sitting there for almost a minute beforehand. So, what these three guys would have me do, is willingly take a weaker, less capable rifle because that would mean I'm not a noob.

Now, I ask you, which is better: A good player with a good weapon, or a good player with a shit weapon?
Yeah, I know a lot of people depend on the weapons, I'm not a great player, I personally feel that I'm 'bout average so why shouldn't I use a weapon that balances it out a little bit?

 

I wouldn't have minded if this egocentricity stayed within the FPS community, I couldn't have cared less, but the fact is it's seeped into gaming as a whole, whenever there's competition between players.

"Oh you killed me, that sword you're using is OP, use a shittier sword you fucking noob piss bucket!"

"But, you're using the same sword..?"

"Er but I'm not a noob you faggot lolol hail the magic conch shell WOLOLOLO"

 

Oh, right, I suppose afterall, gaming is not that bad, is it? I mean, we have a few hidden gems here and there that make it all worthwhile.

NO!
Fucking NO!

 

Good games should not be the minority, I shouldn't have to spend hours researching games just to find a good one that is worth the money, then find it was made a decade ago.

We put up with all these low points and it's made the gaming industry a joke.

Game of the year? Oh yeah, it's a game that should seriously be the standard for all games, what the hell happened?

What happened to all the people who made games because they themselves were gamers?

I know gaming is diverse, I know a single game isn't going to please everyone but when should that be used as an argument against criticism, against when a game is destroying the fundamentals of an enjoyable experience?

 

Also, why the hell are consoles still a thing?

The modern home personal computer has become so much more affordable, versatile and useful that it's almost absurd that people are still against using a PC for gaming.

 

"Er, but consoles are more powerful, man."

Yes, but welcome to the modular design of computers, where you can buy one that can play games today on average, then in five years, you won't have to go out and buy an entirely new computer, just a new part, unlike console.

 

"Er, but the screen is bigger on console."

No, you can plug any size screen into a computer, the reason why you see less of big screens is because of things that I don't fully understand and can't be assed researching to make this sentence actually have any purpose. So no, just no.

 

"Er, but I like using the controller, keyboard is too hard for my puny brain." (anyone else think puny is a really weird word? Just me? Ok...)

Well, my good puny brained sir, you can use a controller on PC too.

 

"Er, but consoles have exclusive games that aren't on PC"

Yes, true, completely true, which is actually a very, very pathetic fact.

Do you know what games are developed on? A computer.

Do you know what consoles actually are? A computer.

Well, if a game that runs on console was made on a computer and could run on a computer, and actually perform better, then why doesn't it?

 

Imagine if there was no more consoles, fuck the console war, there is absolutely no reason consoles should still be around, ever.

Instead of consoles we would have services like Steam, maybe one by Nintendo, Sony, where you can go and buy games published by them, etc.

 

All in all, I just rage-quitted cause a guy called me a camping faggot for sniping him and his two retarded mates so I decided to rant.

I'm out, I haven't slept in two days and I really, really need to have a wank.

 

 

 

[totjup5]

DayZ adresses your difficulty/ realism problem. That game is not afraid to fuck you over.

[Shd0w2]

I just want to pooint out a fps game thats actually accurate to what you want... its on steam in beta called Arma3 and one other

[Paralectic]

I've read your thread completely with attention.

APRIL FOOLS.

tl:dr

:-)

[dragosudeki]

Thats a long rant. In terms of realistic fps shooters there is truly none. No game is realistic enough as they want something different than real life. If a game was truly realistic and emulated real life it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people (I find them kinda boring in my opinion). You will die almost immediately, won't be able to respawn, get tired after walking a long distance (yes walking not sprinting), and such. 

In terms of cash shops and paying for downloadable content, I have to agree, but they are squeezing money out of the game. Most of the game's sales are within the first week and after that it dies down. Cash shops and DLC are just ways to get more money. If you want to solve that, then I suggest making you to make a non profit publishing and developing studio or make the world not revolve around money. Good luck. 

[Createinator]

Still playing Quake 3 Arena ~ and yes Rail Guns are OP! You can just spawn camp away with a rail gun! And nobody can touch you ~ at least not nowadays

[RelentlessAF]

The only thing I have to add to this is that you shouldn't camp and snipe. One of the most important rules of sniping in the military aside from One Shot One Kill is Kill 2 and Move. You shouldn't stay in one spot you should Kill a couple enemies and relocate.

[MrTomnus]

I feel your pain.

 

On your first point about difficulty in game: completely agree. From the modern FPS we've come to expect that you should be one man who is supposedly capable of destroying an entire infantry's worth of soldiers and surviving it all. I think that's the reason why there is health regen etc. - simply because the body count is too high. For a meaningful realistic experience you would need much fewer enemies to fight and put them in tactical situations in the game - none of this "follow the linear path to the objective and spray a bit on the way there" nonsense. If there was a game that had infrequent close encounters with enemies who could do real damage to the character, who sustains injuries in the places they were injured (similar to Fallout 3's damage system, just more advanced. Say you get shot in the leg. You literally CANNOT walk unless you find either medical treatment or something to help you walk with one working leg) and has to use the environment to their advantage. I want a game like this to come out so badly. But the majority of people prefer fast paced action, explosions everywhere, people dying left right and centre. Sigh.

 

This also leads on to the point about online play. People don't play tactically because their is no inherent consequence to them or the team on their death. If your health bar goes to zero, you just either wait for someone to revive you or you just respawn. You have virtually infinite ammo so there's no need for conservation tactics, and if you get hurt you just sit around for a bit and automatically regenerate health. People are also allowed to join games solo, which reduces the likelihood of any team communication going on. You have no personal value to your team. I'm ashamed to say I've been a culprit of this. I'm sure many people can say it too. For online play to work like you want it to, it would need

 

-You to be in a pre made party of friends or people you want to play with, to encourage tactical communication;

-A limited amount of ammo for each player, with the ability to ration ammo;

-A damage system such as the one mentioned previously;

-Players to only have ONE life. That is most important of all. It teaches players to be careful about what they do, to trust nobody, to read everything they can see.

 

But according to publishers people don't want this, and they don't want to take any risks with losing the massive piles of cash they're sitting on. It's always going to be about the majority and what they want, and there's not a huge amount that can be done about that, unfortunately. So I think the closest we can get is a "realistic" difficulty setting where you are slowed if you are shot, and if that shot happens to be in the head then you're dead instantly. It would be much simpler to make a modded server with the mentioned multiplayer features though.

 

Also about the three guys on the roof - people are stupid. They're so conditioned to being invincible in games that it's just another death to them, like I've already mentioned. And playing the way you are just won't fit because the pace of the game is too fast. 

 

If nothing like this happens by the time I am 30 I am making this game myself god dammit!! 

[NICKT]

DayZ adresses your difficulty/ realism problem. That game is not afraid to fuck you over.

My problem isn't in difficulty and realism for the most part, just that people go between the two when arguing mechanics, when you say mechanics aren't fun, it's because they're realistic and yet some mechanics are in the game that aren't realistic but are in there cause it's fun.

 

Plus it's a game, so it can't be super realistic, but we like to forget that fact once in a while.

 

Though, what I've seen of DayZ looks fun, though very much seems to be the game you'd burn out on quick if you were alone, I figure. I don't have any friends so I'd end up being a loner eating beans in the corner of Electro.

I just want to pooint out a fps game thats actually accurate to what you want... its on steam in beta called Arma3 and one other

I saw a video of Frankie1080p playing Arma and it actually didn't look too bad, though I'm naturally hesitant of making any purchases recently.

But I will check it out, read a couple reviews, that sort of thing, so thank you for the suggestion.

 

 

I've read your thread completely with attention.

APRIL FOOLS.

tl:dr

:-)

This makes me sad.

 

Thats a long rant. In terms of realistic fps shooters there is truly none. No game is realistic enough as they want something different than real life. If a game was truly realistic and emulated real life it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people (I find them kinda boring in my opinion). You will die almost immediately, won't be able to respawn, get tired after walking a long distance (yes walking not sprinting), and such. 

In terms of cash shops and paying for downloadable content, I have to agree, but they are squeezing money out of the game. Most of the game's sales are within the first week and after that it dies down. Cash shops and DLC are just ways to get more money. If you want to solve that, then I suggest making you to make a non profit publishing and developing studio or make the world not revolve around money. Good luck. 

Hm, seems I may have not come across in my original post as I'd have liked.

My complaint was more that we haven't really come to terms with what we're ok with in regards to realistic and what isn't realistic but we're ok with cause it's fun, or it maintains balance.

Things like different weapons having different bullet drops, as far as I can tell is unrealistic? But it's there for balance and it's not impeding on gameplay or your ability to enjoy the game.

Being able to run non-stop like you said, is unrealistic but making the player's character get tired would be impeding on gameplay, so it's alright.

However when I get shot twice and die, without me even having the chance to do anything, when I say that from a gameplay perspective, it feels cheap, people pipe up and say it's realistic, if you got shot you wouldn't have time to do anything, that sort of thing.

I know it's to get more money, but I just feel that you should at least deliver on the concept of making what you're selling worth the price. Like, is a re-skinned vehicle really worth $20? For that same price, I could get entire games on Steam, so it just begs to wonder at what point we're all going to get savvy as a collective whole of consumers, in regards to everything we purchase, and put the effort in to actually push things to be substantial enough to warrant their pricing. It's why I brought up the game A and game B point, because it begs to question why game A is priced the same despite having a shorter development cycle, potentially meaning less content. However, it could be inversed, of course, imagine if a game had a stellar team on it for one year, made an awesome game that was polished to boot, but because of it's short cycle, it was made for cheaper than a title that had longer work hours but was filled with bugs and didn't even work properly.

 

I don't mind paying for expansions, if I was playing WoW I wouldn't mind putting down what is essentially the price of an entirely new game on the expansion because it's actually a substantial upgrade. I tried googling the price of BF4's DLC but didn't find anything, but what I did find was this: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-4-s-buy-everything-dlc-costs-50/1100-6418616/

So you can buy weapon unlocks. Shit like that just seems ridiculous. Of course, people say, if you don't like it then don't buy it, but the notion that they're offering such a service in the first place is an insult.

All in all, I'll pay $100 for a game that I feel is worth that money. I paid about $140 for Battlefield 4 and premium and I feel absolutely cheated out of my money.

 

 

The only thing I have to add to this is that you shouldn't camp and snipe. One of the most important rules of sniping in the military aside from One Shot One Kill is Kill 2 and Move. You shouldn't stay in one spot you should Kill a couple enemies and relocate.

Haha, yeah, I learned that the hard way.

When I'm sniping though, I don't usually fire much, so I can spend half the match in one spot doing nothing but spotting and helping my squad out and because I haven't fired and I'm out of the way, I haven't really compromised my pos.

Though, when I was sniping from the carrier, wasn't really anywhere I could go, so I took the roadkill.

 

It does make me wonder though, how these people who snipe in the open manage to survive so long, I see people fire off 5 rounds and finally kill their mark and then they just stay there, or they'll move a little around their little area, but that's it. Makes me feel like I'm a noob and doing it wrong, I wish spotting was more of a thing though, so many instances where I see a guy I can't shoot sneaking up on a team mate, or a team mate walking up to a corner which has bad guys near by out of his sight, spotting in those situation helps a ton and can secure a flag capture for sure, yet I'm just sitting off the edge and on the bottom of the scoreboards, with people calling me a "useless camper". /sigh

But yeah, will definitely keep it in mind.

 

I feel your pain.

 

On your first point about difficulty in game: completely agree. From the modern FPS we've come to expect that you should be one man who is supposedly capable of destroying an entire infantry's worth of soldiers and surviving it all. I think that's the reason why there is health regen etc. - simply because the body count is too high. For a meaningful realistic experience you would need much fewer enemies to fight and put them in tactical situations in the game - none of this "follow the linear path to the objective and spray a bit on the way there" nonsense. If there was a game that had infrequent close encounters with enemies who could do real damage to the character, who sustains injuries in the places they were injured (similar to Fallout 3's damage system, just more advanced. Say you get shot in the leg. You literally CANNOT walk unless you find either medical treatment or something to help you walk with one working leg) and has to use the environment to their advantage. I want a game like this to come out so badly. But the majority of people prefer fast paced action, explosions everywhere, people dying left right and centre. Sigh.

 

This also leads on to the point about online play. People don't play tactically because their is no inherent consequence to them or the team on their death. If your health bar goes to zero, you just either wait for someone to revive you or you just respawn. You have virtually infinite ammo so there's no need for conservation tactics, and if you get hurt you just sit around for a bit and automatically regenerate health. People are also allowed to join games solo, which reduces the likelihood of any team communication going on. You have no personal value to your team. I'm ashamed to say I've been a culprit of this. I'm sure many people can say it too. For online play to work like you want it to, it would need

 

-You to be in a pre made party of friends or people you want to play with, to encourage tactical communication;

-A limited amount of ammo for each player, with the ability to ration ammo;

-A damage system such as the one mentioned previously;

-Players to only have ONE life. That is most important of all. It teaches players to be careful about what they do, to trust nobody, to read everything they can see.

 

But according to publishers people don't want this, and they don't want to take any risks with losing the massive piles of cash they're sitting on. It's always going to be about the majority and what they want, and there's not a huge amount that can be done about that, unfortunately. So I think the closest we can get is a "realistic" difficulty setting where you are slowed if you are shot, and if that shot happens to be in the head then you're dead instantly. It would be much simpler to make a modded server with the mentioned multiplayer features though.

 

Also about the three guys on the roof - people are stupid. They're so conditioned to being invincible in games that it's just another death to them, like I've already mentioned. And playing the way you are just won't fit because the pace of the game is too fast. 

 

If nothing like this happens by the time I am 30 I am making this game myself god dammit!! 

 

Now that you brought it up, I actually agree immensely on the idea of how we've been trained to be that 'one guy' in gaming, from my experience in FPS storyline's it tends to stay true there too, despite not always being very workable in the narative. In a game like Halo, it makes sense for Master Chief to be able to do all these different things, he is the one guy, not us, he's trained from a kid to be the ultimate badass in everything.

Yet you drop into CoD and your CO is yelling at you to pick up a rocket, shoot down a heli then pick up a sniper, drop a couple of nuggets and then enter close quarters with some russians whilst using a combat knife and a spork. Your character is meant to be a regular guy, it just creates such a disconnect in-game but when it comes to us as players, we don't notice it because we feel empowered.

It's like those moments in CoD where you're firing off at a wave of enemies, they won't stop until you move forward, which I never knew so I'd spend an hour waiting to be told to move up or something to that effect, but it never happened. I then carried that mentality with me for the next few FPS games I played, I jump into BF4's story and there's a segment where you're escorting a tank or some crap, I was ahead of it, walked up to a road where there were cars and couldn't move forward at all, I had to wait for the tank to come up and then crush the cars in some cinematic scene that I could have missed if I was turned away, it was pointless and jarring and just made me realize how games are developed in the sense of pacing and who leads the game in regards to narrative and events.

Hell, I wouldn't mind a game that wasn't even super realistic but had a more reasonable portrayal of actual weight in combat. So, if you got shot in the leg, I wouldn't mind if they just made you walk slower, or limp, I could live with that, it gives weight to the game, makes things matter, instead of just being an action movie hero who yells and screams and blows shit up.

Mm, I agree with you on the no consequences and the respawning, though I wouldn't mind the respawning, just have it actually be impactful. Like, if I get shot whilst defending point Charlie, I shouldn't be able to just wait 10 seconds then spawn back in on the exact same spot and kill the guy who just killed me.

I can understand the need to have regenerating ammo, after playing Battlefield I can understand the development decision, though if I was at the helm, I'd have ammo boxes only restore a certain amount of ammo before the box became empty, and you'd only have two boxes on you. It allows a lot more breathing room but it still has that restriction at the end that'll hit you if you're not careful.

It's sad that we're at the point in the entertainment industry as a whole in regards to mainstreaming and how we want to access more people. I suppose that's why people are so invested in the indie crowd, it's because it's more of a, "Hey, I'm making a game that'll appeal to the small crowd of people who like this certain thing" instead of a game like CoD where they make it and definitely want millions of people to buy it and play it.

So there may even be a game that fits our needs out there, but it's niche and we'll just have to hunt for it, though, as shallow as it may seem, I'd miss the polish that some triple A titles get. Some, because BF4 was a joke despite being triple A.

Haha, yeah, I'm with you on that last part.

I actually was thinking of a game, hm, I doubt you've played it but there was an RPG called Resonance of Fate on the 360 a couple of years back that had an interesting gun-modding system. Basically, in the menu you'd go to the customize option and you'd see the gun on a grid with a bunch of attachment points on it. Basically you could clip more ammo onto it, or a scope, barrel, handgrips, things like that. It wasn't an FPS so everything was just a stat upgrade, nothing actually legitimately usable in that game, but if you carried over that system to an FPS I could see it being amazing.

So, basically you'd have a bunch of frames, maybe default weapon types or something? Long range, medium, idk. But then on that frame you'd be able to change things like the stock, scope, ammo, barrel, all the way to the firing mechanism, which is probably way unrealistic but allows customization.

So you'd pick a gun frame and then add whatever you want to it, but every addition will add weight, that will effect you going between guns and aiming down sights, it would also effect how much energy you'd have whilst sprinting. So you could choose to pack light and sprint for a longer period of time than someone who's running with a heavier gun.

You'd also have the ability to take whatever weapon you want, no classes. You wouldn't be able to carry everything, but if you wanted to be a one man army, you could try. It'd also allow players in groups to co-ordinate, sharing the load so that they can spread the weight and still be able to take down whatever comes their way.

It'd allow players to be able to deal with a varied amount of situations without having to die, respawn as a different class and do what they wanted to do originally.

So, I could take a sniper rifle, go prone on the edge of the map and also have a stinger missle on my back, if the enemy comes out with a heli, I could have a team mate lock on with a laser designator and take it out, it reduces the wait of the guy who is moving around actually capturing objectives whilst the sniper who isn't moving much has most of the weight.

/shrug

There was also another thing I had in my mind whilst I was watching someone play Ground Zeroes on a live stream. How cool would it be if there was an infiltration game mode? And I'm talking really advanced infiltration. You would be a team of five, and you'd send each guy to monitor an area or something, protecting a certain object from being taken by the enemy I guess. You'd be able to communicate via in game VOIP but you'd also have an area sound produced. So if you were infiltrating, you wouldn't be able to talk on VOIP to your team mates because if you did, you'd alert the guy guarding nearby if he heard you.

If you were defending the object, you could have regular check ins every minute or so, and if someone didn't respond you knew they were not trying to give away their pos or they were dead, cause if you're dead you can't talk. You could interact with things like in BF4, make things blow up to distract, stuff like that.

Oh, the ideas that I think of and wish I had money and a company to make them..

Lastly, not sure if you've seen the video, but Star Citizen on their youtube chanel put out a video of their AI system, and in that video they had adaptive AI where it would notice changes in the environment like a stack of boxes falling down and would go around or find a more suitable route. Well, I really liked the part where they showed the boxes falling down and thought that would be awesome if things like that happened more in FPS titles. Say you were hiding behind a wall and there was no cover ahead of you but a support column further up? Well, take out your grenade launcher, shoot the column and have it tumble over, now you can move up and use it as cover.

Small things like that would allow more freedom and give the game a fresh feeling when you could do all these different things to take different aspects and scenarios that come against you.

Hm, or maybe they're stupid ideas, haha.

Idk, I think a lot, I have too much time on my hands...

[Split-56k]

The worst part is that there are people who actually defend EA's practices.

 

We can't even rely on game critics/journalists to warn people because video game journalism is a joke right now. I mean just look at places like Kotaku and Rock Paper Shotgun. Loads of click bait and useless articles.

[dragosudeki]

Meh, I don't really like modern fps shooters because its overplayed. In terms of the damage system, usually the first person who shoots is the person who wins the gun fight, which does seem fair to me. Maybe you did get shot a twice and died, do you think you would have survived or killed the other person after he has two more shots on you? The modern fps genre has died long ago for me. CoD ruined their series by releasing reskins of the game (cause the mechanics were pretty much the same) and Battlefield is known for being buggy. Its a genre that earns money from hype because people buy into it when there really isn't much change.

Which also ties into my second point. They don't care about quality once you pay for it. This is why the system of early access and pre-ordering sucks because there is no obligation for them to do anything once they have your money. Buying the full game to get early beta access is pretty bad as well. As far as re-skins go isn't that how sequels usually are? They usually use the same engine and just reanimate and retexture and add a couple of functions. Mind you, pricing of content and EA don't mix.

One company that I will actually trust is From Software because they have admitted they failed their port to PC (Dark Souls) was shit and are trying to improve it. Their culture doesn't have those type of games on PC which they could have used as an excuse, but instead accepted blamed themselves. I understand this company is from a completely different culture, but I support companies like this. Though I prefer companies from the eastern part of the world anyway.

EA's content, however, is only worth it when its on sale or for free, which happens after a long time of being out. Don't be an early adopter of EA (or other bad companies). They've had experiences similar to that (BF3, SimCity).

[ManOfDisguise]

one sec gon take a shower have to prepare for this huge wall of text

[ManOfDisguise]

 

anyway I reccomend the game Insurgency! Like wow this game is good! Its very tactical and people in this game are actually using their mic to say useful things!(not just rant). I cant believe I played htis game for 6 hours straight when I got it. This is coming from me a guy who hates and is tired of COD, BF, ARMA, CS, and all the other big shooters.. Sure Insurgency doesnt have the best graphics or animations or stuff like that but the PURE gameplay is so intense, knowing that 1-2 bullets from any gun can kill you just makes you think twice before running carelessly through a corner. This is a game for the patient, this isnt a game where the person who has the faster reflexes or sees the other person first wins this is a game where the person who has better positioning in the map and terrain, makes better use of cover and peeking wins! 

[MrTomnus]

-snip-

 

I agree with all of that

 

On the subject of that customiser thing, what you're describing sounds a lot like the weapon crafting in Loadout. Maybe you should give that a go if you haven' tried it yet? It's quite entertaining because it's supposed to be fast paced and is actually a nice change to the FPS genre. 

 

Those game modes sound awesome too - I really do miss the tactical approach. The closest I ever got to that was playing search and destroy with friends on Call of Duty.

[JustTooDank]

So...You sniped some guys...And they got upset...And they killed you with a helicopter...And you ragequit?

YOU are the problem with modern gaming.

[Almercenary]

Although I agree with basically all you are saying, and will replay in more detail once I get home from school, but there's two shooters at the moment which are generally realistic (insurgency and the Arma series), but I don't think we want a truly realistic game imo. Takes the fun out of it. If you have played Arma, you would know that even a half sim like that is, often isn't fun. You sit and wait for half an hour, then get one shotted with an m107.  That's NOT what the masses want to play, even though people like you and me do, so they are never going to take off.