Xbox one Vs PS4 for Exclusives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirimon

GoW and pvp do not go together well...

---

yeah that community is just not a very good one. the devs cna't balance it cause they worry about the whiners and lsoing the small online playerbase it has. GoW was a disappointment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoLeo

He's saying that he doesn't like the PvP.

---

Ah, I misread it then.

that's exactly what i was saying. I don't much care for the wack-o-mole game type of GoW (or rainbowsix for that matter). while I enjoy games that employ the use of cover, somehow it wasn't cover as we see it on the battle field. (btw.. I also don't care for the game itself... while it was fun, and the concepts were there, they were all too short, 3-4 hours of play to clear them on high difficulty. I think the shortness of the game comes from the limited size of dvd for one.. and since the xbox players are used to games not lasting more than the 3-18 hour average window, they can get away with less of a game and still ask for 5-60 bucks and none are the wiser.)

only issue I currently have with good games that do employ cover and different positions (crouch and prone) is that for some reason, those alternate stances tend to only make one get shot in the head easier.. when it should have a much greater effect on defense due to the reduced sillouette. Crouching, should never be instantly putting the enemy's barrel in my mouth..

on that note.. those who are familiar with combat and use of weapons know this.. holding a weapon up, any weapon, is tiresome.. the longer it's up in any unsupported position the less accurate the shot will be.. some of these shooters have you running through the whole game with the weapon always honed at center mass.. go ahead.. hold an assault rifle up for 5, 10 minutes and see what happens.oh, they are trained soldiers, who are much stranger and workout? while initially this does increase one's length of accurate bead time unsupported, the larger those arms get the harder it really is to hold them up, and they easily reach muscle failure due to the refractory period of muscles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirimon

that's exactly what i was saying. I don't much care for the wack-o-mole game type of GoW (or rainbowsix for that matter). while I enjoy games that employ the use of cover, somehow it wasn't cover as we see it on the battle field. (btw.. I also don't care for the game itself... while it was fun, and the concepts were there, they were all too short, 3-4 hours of play to clear them on high difficulty. I think the shortness of the game comes from the limited size of dvd for one.. and since the xbox players are used to games not lasting more than the 3-18 hour average window, they can get away with less of a game and still ask for 5-60 bucks and none are the wiser.)

only issue I currently have with good games that do employ cover and different positions (crouch and prone) is that for some reason, those alternate stances tend to only make one get shot in the head easier.. when it should have a much greater effect on defense due to the reduced sillouette. Crouching, should never be instantly putting the enemy's barrel in my mouth..

on that note.. those who are familiar with combat and use of weapons know this.. holding a weapon up, any weapon, is tiresome.. the longer it's up in any unsupported position the less accurate the shot will be.. some of these shooters have you running through the whole game with the weapon always honed at center mass.. go ahead.. hold an assault rifle up for 5, 10 minutes and see what happens.oh, they are trained soldiers, who are much stranger and workout? while initially this does increase one's length of accurate bead time unsupported, the larger those arms get the harder it really is to hold them up, and they easily reach muscle failure due to the refractory period of muscles.

---

I just want to point out ,that would be a crap gameplay mechanic. Games are meant for fun, don't forget that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack The Bear

I just want to point out ,that would be a crap gameplay mechanic. Games are meant for fun, don't forget that.

---

I agree.. but gamers who arent a part of the gimmie gimmie generation imo would prefer a game offers both a degree of realism to enhance the immersion and experience, and difficulty to enhance the joy of playing and the pride of completion.

I also would like to see an end of bunny hopping.... and similar garbage. I prefer some form of skill being involved in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirimon

I agree.. but gamers who arent a part of the gimmie gimmie generation imo would prefer a game offers both a degree of realism to enhance the immersion and experience, and difficulty to enhance the joy of playing and the pride of completion.

---

I've been shooting since I was 7, and have absolutely no desire to see the video game mirror of most of real shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirimon

I agree.. but gamers who arent a part of the gimmie gimmie generation imo would prefer a game offers both a degree of realism to enhance the immersion and experience, and difficulty to enhance the joy of playing and the pride of completion.

---

I can see that, especially from the shooter crowd. For me, however, I think of games with an MMORPG mind set. I enjoy the adventure. I enjoy the story, the gameplay is just a bonus. I could satisfy that medium with books or movies, and sometimes i do. But the adventure is just so much more fun when i am controlling it. Thats why i am looking forward to FF 14 ARR so much. I do also like the attention to detail that hardcore realism simulator games can bring to the table. They can be amazingly fun sometimes if the developers do them correctly.

The biggest problem? Those games do not sell. And no one would be CoD if it was any harder, hell they made the game easier. BF3 and i assume 4 is going to be as easy as it ever was. That new FPS, Titanfall, the guns had almost no recoil, but atleast they are set in the future. So really it boils down to a buisness desicion and the majority will win usually. Which is a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obderiath

I've been shooting since I was 7, and have absolutely no desire to see the video game mirror of most of real shooting.

---

hit the range every day, if it wasn't for the cost and physical demand I would do it all day long. But imo, these things would enhance the game. having the distance to aspect ratio actually be accurate, and the reticule in the scopes in game actually be functional is a plus I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirimon

hit the range every day, if it wasn't for the cost and physical demand I would do it all day long. But imo, these things would enhance the game. having the distance to aspect ratio actually be accurate, and the reticule in the scopes in game actually be functional is a plus I think.

---

So like sniping in BF3, and presumable 4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack The Bear

I can see that, especially from the shooter crowd. For me, however, I think of games with an MMORPG mind set. I enjoy the adventure. I enjoy the story, the gameplay is just a bonus. I could satisfy that medium with books or movies, and sometimes i do. But the adventure is just so much more fun when i am controlling it. Thats why i am looking forward to FF 14 ARR so much. I do also like the attention to detail that hardcore realism simulator games can bring to the table. They can be amazingly fun sometimes if the developers do them correctly.

The biggest problem? Those games do not sell. And no one would be CoD if it was any harder, hell they made the game easier. BF3 and i assume 4 is going to be as easy as it ever was. That new FPS, Titanfall, the guns had almost no recoil, but atleast they are set in the future. So really it boils down to a buisness desicion and the majority will win usually. Which is a shame.

---

I think it's less of a business decision and more of a lack of knowledge in the field of weapons and how to employ them. don't get me wrong, some of the games get a few of those points right, but that's not what made them fail, they failed because the overall gameplay was garbage, clunky, didn't run smooth. The bf3 got it a little closer, I would like to see some stamina implimentation to aiming, running and jumping. And ffs.. the sniper has a bipod, why is the rifle all over the place?.. snipers don't take giant gasps of breath before a shot, they go with their natural breathing rhythm. and the range guessing is bad.. the reticule is supposed to help calculate an estimated range. targets that look like they are about 800m-1km are actually like 300m away for some reason...

I understand the need to balance, but the figures can be adjusted in a proper way to achieve that.

a single shot from a m4 should not be doing any damage different than an m16. but for some reason in the games they alter the dmg figures despite the munition being the same. the dmg figures should remain the same given the ammo type, while the accuracy and rate of fire is all that should really change.