"it's part of the game, deal with it" aditude.
Dealing with it on AG does nothing. It's part of game design and I wouldn't deal with it -- it's one of the reasons I don't play CoD. If I cared about the franchise then I'd say that it is indeed a significant balance issue and try and straighten it out. The likeliness of me being heard is minimal anyways because there is a population that supports it and furthermore it's reasonable to assume that the publisher -- Activision - is quite heavily on the business side and removing quickscoping would be . . . "inefficient".
i was expecting either you and slipscoccer to take the position you took last time
slipsoccer had the principle of leaving CoD with quickscoping right because it's part of the game -- or at least he implies. That doesn't mean to say, necessarily that I agree with "just hopping over to another game" or letting a flaw (as I see it at least) remain in one.
but i would say that America's Army is just about the only game that really strives for realism
From
what I've seen, yeah, whilst game mechanics are (reasonably) dumbed down, I do think that the things they include is pretty amazing.
Especially
considering it helped save a guy's life.respawning,
Haha, definitely so. However, some games have actually did this fairly well. This would be Section 8: Prejudice.
I'll just give you
Totalbiscuit's WTF Is ? on the game, and let you see it in action. It's cheap, and there is also a server ran by the previously mentioned Cynical Brit for Section 8 you should be able to join.
I didn't say everything that happens in BattleField is real.
Yeah, that means you would call it real. Not realistic. Think of it as "Real-ish-tick".
That and both meanings as shown here:
1)
expressed or represented as being accurate. 2)
Relating to the representation of objects, actions or conditions as they actually are or were. Are wrong in the case of Battlefield 3. If you're going to go into puerile technicalities that you know don't pertain to the colloquial vernacular that the majority of gamers on the Video Games' section exhibit in order to prove your point (which by another's definition you probably could), then the next step is either to step past it or for me to point out the ambiguity and the reasonable assumption I made, where I was not in the wrong.
BattleField is slightly more realistic than CoD is and that's what I meant by being realistic.
So you was
not really defending Call of Duty? Sorry but in context that hardly looks like what you was doing.
"
It's a video game relax. You want to play a realistic FPS game then go play BattleField."
- You, yesterday.
Unless you meant it in the sense of "There are other games so if you don't like it, I'll gladly see you on your way" kind of thing, then again I should point to its ambiguity (that I also looked at a little earlier).
How is my statement idotic and ignorant if I just said "it's a video game?"
And how many different ways can you interpret "It's a video game". Your logic is sound, in the sense that most games don't strive for realism but that means there isn't an established subjective value on what realistic is in terms of video games, and also could be interpretted in a multitude of ways, with the majority of them being insanely stupid.
Think about the majority of times you've heard "It's a (video) game". You can't support them being sound arguments.
Every FPS game is unrealistic in a way and that's what I meant by my statement.
This is alsow hat I saw that supports the lack of an established subjective value. Of course some could say that Battlefield could easily be perceived as realistic but it's too evident to realise it looks for strong, unique game mechanics and strives from apparent authenticity.
Who cares what the aim of DICE was?
The people who play DICE's games, perhaps? If making the game for the players isn't what they want, then you're doing it wrong. A lot of people stand by that if only for the idea that they're being used in order to get money. Others simply don't care - it's entertainment, is entertainment, is entertainment.
But take Blizzard in the case of Starcraft II -- strong eSport and the game's gameplay is focused entirely on balance (and is doing an excellent job). It feeds more organizations than just the creators and fuels so much people with such high quality entertainment that isn't purely derived from the creators. This is especially apparent in the Map Editor - where people can get much more longevity from the game, purely by the Mods provided and Blizzard gets NOTHING from it.
Although of course, to a lot of people, this is added value. However game companies nowadays would indeed value putting out DLC that caters to the largest demographic than letting their demographic do it for them -- because it's better for money, and all that.
Infinty Ward's aim wasn't to make a realistic game either was it?
What's your point with that question?
if you've played both BattleField and CoD you have to admit BattleField is more realistic than CoD.
Yeah, but by no means does that mean it's realistic to any real standards.
Aim assist is in most if not all FPS games on consoles.
If you're concerning Consoles that account for Aim Assist -- a fundamental game mechanic present in most FPSs that reduce the amount of skill. It's not cheap to use it -- it's part of the game and if it helps you win, you're playing it right.
Even then, I could go into the idea that controllers are flawed in terms of speed / accuracy of movement and thus creates the idea that talking about it on consoles for skill is pretty much irrelevant.
- H
