Special Ops Paintball: Video Games Suck - Special Ops Paintball

Jump to content


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Video Games Suck Donkey Balls (and here's why) Rate Topic: -----

#16 User is offline   cdrinkh20 

  • The Dragon Reborn
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,296
  • Joined: 23-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Albert, AB
  • Brigade Name:cdrinkh20

Posted 19 April 2011 - 12:32 AM

Battlefield 2 was sweet though because people are generally more mature on PC and people didn't abuse voice chat just to scream it actually got used for teamwork (curse you, Xbox! I honestly went with it for Halo and cause my friends had them...now PS controllers feel too small in my giant hands).

Teamwork makes games great too - even ones with absolutely no single player. Seriously pumped for BF3, gonna try to get a new computer or at least spiff up my current one minimally to make it run lol.
0

#17 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 19 April 2011 - 02:58 AM

View Postcdrinkh20, on 19 April 2011 - 12:32 AM, said:

Battlefield 2 was sweet though because people are generally more mature on PC and people didn't abuse voice chat just to scream it actually got used for teamwork (curse you, Xbox! I honestly went with it for Halo and cause my friends had them...now PS controllers feel too small in my giant hands).

Teamwork makes games great too - even ones with absolutely no single player. Seriously pumped for BF3, gonna try to get a new computer or at least spiff up my current one minimally to make it run lol.


Yes, dissapointing campaign and customization aside, the multiplayer is fairly good. The big maps with controll points give you plenty of freedom to mmanuver strategically and still provide concentrations of enemies for you to decide to stay clear of or plow through. Squad based gameplay gives you the ability to co-ordinate teams to achieve objectives. And perks like spotting, defribulator, med kit, ammo pack, vehicle repair etc not only encourage teamwork but actually re-enforce it by rewarding you for it. One of the most legit multiplayers out there.

I think we deserve epic multiplayer AND a good campaign for our money. Before game makers and consumers developed an unhealthy obsession with online multiplay used to be that game knew that, and HAD to live up to the standard to move product.
"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

#18 User is offline   ger 

  • Shine
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,676
  • Joined: 31-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western PA

Posted 19 April 2011 - 07:27 AM

The developers definitely went where the money was: online mp. Personally, I'm like Pirate. I play for the online experience w/ my friends, it's much more a social thing than anything else. I rarely, if ever, play when my buddies aren't online w/ me. I'll play alone when I have to in the first few weeks of the games release just to get used to it, but after that it gets boring by myself - that's usually when I turn to the campaign mode...

Most campaigns are pretty much garbage. BO was way too dragged out. W@W was ehhh & didn't deliver in the end. The first MW was okay but not great, MW:2 was barely a little better - the Special Ops game mode was pretty cool, at least I felt I got a little more for my money. I liked Army of Two & the Rainbow6 Vegas games, but only because you could play campaign splitscreen w/ a friend. The original Resistance was pretty cool, second not so much. Bad Company was too repetitive for me. The Metal Gear series does a really great story mode & has for years. For my money though, IMHO - Medal of Honor had the best campaign I've ever played. It was really short but still pretty intense. Yeah it was linear but I'm okay w/ that for the most part, or at least I've come to accept that aspect of how games just are - pretty much have been since the dawn of video games.

This post has been edited by ger: 19 April 2011 - 07:27 AM

ger
You bought the brand, not my allegiance.
0

#19 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:08 AM

View Postger, on 19 April 2011 - 07:27 AM, said:

For my money though, IMHO - Medal of Honor had the best campaign I've ever played. It was really short but still pretty intense. Yeah it was linear but I'm okay w/ that for the most part, or at least I've come to accept that aspect of how games just are - pretty much have been since the dawn of video games.


Medal of Honor has been the best recent game in terms of campaign. MW2 had a ridiculous story, <<SPOILERS>> soldier/spys imbeded in terror cells helping to carry out terrorist attacks against our allies: Really? Isn't the whole point of getting spies in teror cells to PREVENT terrorist attacks? Massive super powers going to war with whatever nation one terrorist happened to come from, with no regard what-so-ever for who actually sent said terrorist: Oh yeah kinda like how we immediately went to war with Saudi Arabia after 9/11 just because most of the terrorists were from there, right? Oh wait no, I forgot, we actually found out who sent them and went to war with those CORNHOLIOS instead of the place these guys just happened to have been born in... That story just kept getting stupider at every turn.

I knew MOH would be so much better than all the others just because it's supposed to be based (probably very loosely) on actual operations. So there wouldn't be any of that ridiculous crap by default.

But what do you mean by linear? Is that plotwise or the structure of the levels? I myself have only played the first one or two maps because my computers giving me a hard laggy time with the campaign for no particular reason. But I did notice they did seem to be pretty well boxed in so far and that has been dissapointing.

If that's what you're refering to I would implore you to change your position of complacency towards hyper-controlled, boxed in, unimaginative gameplay. If we all just "come to accept it" it's never going to get any f*&%#ing better. And for the record this hasn't even been close to the status qoue (however you spell that) since the dawn of video games. Even back in '85 when the mario brothers progressed in a completely straight line from begining to end of each level there were other games like Zelda that were COMPLETELY NON LINEAR. And then one of the first first person shooters DOOM was anything but linear evey level was half maze and half puzzle, one of the more recent fps SOCOM WIDE OPEN maps and gameplay. So please stop accepting the crap in a box that's being sold to us now, and start demanding better smarter games in the future. This crap is only going to work so long as we're dumb enough to keep buying it.
"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

#20 User is offline   cdrinkh20 

  • The Dragon Reborn
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,296
  • Joined: 23-January 10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Albert, AB
  • Brigade Name:cdrinkh20

Posted 20 April 2011 - 05:43 AM

Although...

I know there has always been some poorly structured games that just piss me off when I can't find some switch on a wall in a dark corner somewhere and I have to look up a walkthrough just to continue... not because it's hard, but because I just want to play. A scavenger hunt is alright, just not when it's repeated...over and over.
0

#21 User is offline   ger 

  • Shine
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,676
  • Joined: 31-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western PA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 08:42 AM

Re: MoH - By linear I meant both: plot & level. You can't choose to have your helicopter not crash in the cut scene. You can't wander off into the mountains to avoid a fight, there are certain boundaries within the level you have to adhere to. It has set parameters - accomplish x,y,z before you can move on to the next level, you can't choose to complete x, skip y, then finish off z & be allowed to move on.

Non-linear or "sandbox" (Zelda) type games were/are the exception to the rule, the Linear (Mario) type games were/are much more prevalent. Even games like Pac-man, Centipede, Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, etc... all were basic linear game types just confined to one screen. The majority of games today are no different just w/ scrolling screens, better graphics & more buttons, but fundamentally the same - you have to accomplish x,y,z before you can move on to the next level. You aren't free to roam the board, skip y & choose how the story unfolds as in games like Fallout or GTA (which again, are the exception).

Side note: DOOM ftw - our computer lab in college had a bunch of stations w/ pirated versions, we played that game for months-on-end instead of working, lol.

I'm obviously sensing that your complaint isn't just that "video games suck" but rather that "linear video games suck." I'm not going to get into an argument about which game type is better: linear or non-linear. That is totally based on opinion. Some guys like the open world feel & some like more structure, neither type is better or worse than the other as both offer completely different experiences. /disclaimer ;)

Just to clarify: my complaint isn't that I want all the FPS games to adopt a sandbox style (I don't), I just want them to do a better job developing the campaign mode. As stated, the MoH campaign was awesome imo but it was a linear game & I'm okay w/ that. My complaint wasn't that it was linear, but rather that it was too short.

Whether you or I are complacent or not isn't going to change the industry. I did some "quick arithmetic": you could rally 100,000 like minded gamers to revolt & at $60 a game that's only $6mil - COD:BO sold $1bil in the first month... that's less than 1% of the total sales they'd be losing because of us not "accepting" it anymore.
ger
You bought the brand, not my allegiance.
0

#22 User is offline   MejorQueNada 

  • it is better to watch something than to do something
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 03-April 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winston Salem

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:07 AM

Do you only play FPS games? Maybe you need to switch hit for a while, change up the pace. Alot of these FPS games tend to get repetitive, which is why I never bought W@W/MW2/BO/MoH cause I already had COD4, DOD:S and BFBC2. FPS's have a special place in my heart too, but you gotta let them sit sometimes.
:P
0

#23 User is offline   ger 

  • Shine
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,676
  • Joined: 31-August 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western PA

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:23 AM

I agree, I can get tired of FPS's real quick & like to change it up. Over the last couple years I've thrown in some Gran Turismo, Civ Revolution, Little Big Planet(my son & I have fun w/ that), etc. Helps me regenerate.
ger
You bought the brand, not my allegiance.
0

#24 User is offline   Pirate 

  • I aim to misbehave.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,592
  • Joined: 17-February 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Fight Four Oh!
  • Brigade Name:PirateCaptain

Posted 20 April 2011 - 05:56 PM

View PostShipwreck!, on 18 April 2011 - 10:24 PM, said:

Oh God, that is... horrible. I almost never play campaigns, but only because they haven't made any games with a good campaign in a decade! And why? Exactly because of people like that.

Thank you Pirate, thank you.

Both Modern Warfare games had a good story/campaign. Sorry it wasn't 100% realistic, but [OH SNAP!] it's a video game. They get to make up whatever gosh darn story they feel like. Medal Of Honor had a great storyline for the campaign. It was a little short for my tastes, but whatever. Black Ops had another short campaign. It was clear they were focusing on Online Multiplayer.

Ya know why, Nancy? Because that is what the people want. Ever since Halo: CE had their local multi-player and people said 'You know what would be AWESOME??? If we could do this, but with people on the other side of the country!', that has been the driving force behind video games. You have a crappy Multi-Player, it doesn't matter what your single player is like. Black Ops is the highest selling game of all time, because people enjoy the Multi-Player. Before then, people would pass around games to friends after they beat the single player, then sell it off for the next one. Now, everyone is buying their own copy so they can all get online and shoot each other.

Sorry people like me ruined video games for you, because I'm having a blast!

My job is to be an asshole. I excel at the position.
We put our glass to the sky and lift up. And live tonight 'cause you can't take it with ya. So raise a pint for the people that aren't with us. And live tonight 'cause you can't take it with ya...
Austin Michelle Cloyd, Forever in my heart. We love you, Ayesha! Rest in Peace Tyler Hackett
Rest in Peace, Dave Brockie! Cam Cam #83
0

#25 User is offline   I.K.E. 

  • A Militia of One
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,686
  • Joined: 03-April 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kansas
  • Brigade Name:I.K.E.

Posted 07 May 2011 - 06:59 PM

Barely read enough to get the gist, and skipped all replies just to add this:

Thinkin about it WAAAAAYYYY too much. No wonder Oprah don't wanna be yer sugar mama.

:P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :laugh:

This post has been edited by I.K.E.: 07 May 2011 - 06:59 PM

"I love Kaesie because Florentine said so."Bushball is Australian for Woodsball. SOFA Best Grammar '010
Grammar Police Co-Commander Badge #1 IKE & Ike '09 STUDMUFFIN Debater of the 1st Order of Ashrak ASH123
"Overkill is underrated." -Col. John "Hannibal" Smith
Posted Image ... another Staff granted wish.
0

#26 User is offline   ClumsyNinja 

  • Eschew Obfuscation
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 25-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:a van, down by the river.
  • Brigade Name:Grimace

Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:10 PM

I myself stopped at the Mormon bashing.
Apparently things haven't changed much since I was on here a couple years ago.
"Hi, I'm not the local nut, but ClumsyNinja is..."--Styro

CONFESSIONS OF AN ARMCHAIR NINJA..NOWUPDATED!!
0

#27 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 12 May 2011 - 09:59 PM

View Postcdrinkh20, on 20 April 2011 - 05:43 AM, said:

Although...

I know there has always been some poorly structured games that just piss me off when I can't find some switch on a wall in a dark corner somewhere and I have to look up a walkthrough just to continue... not because it's hard, but because I just want to play. A scavenger hunt is alright, just not when it's repeated...over and over.


Sorry for the delay, I got distracted...

Good point. Getting stuck in games like this can be really annoying.

Doom was just one example of a non linear game, but at the same time, you're not exactly alowed to move freely. It's more of a shooter/puzzle/maze game. And that's cool but what I really think the best way to make a game is is actually giving the player that freedom to move as they please. And that's ESPECIALLY important for war games, although you'd never know it by playing any of the big titles :|

The basis of all warfare whether its of the ancient, contemporary or future variety; from a boots-on-the-ground perspective, is TACTICS. And if you have no freedom what-so-ever to choose where you're going, how you're going to get there, observe your enemy from a distance or decide how you will approach your enemy or IF you will approach any given enemy (which is almost always the case in video games these days - ModWar2, BC2 campaign, MOH) then you have no ability to come up with or use ANY TACTICS! Which is the most un-war-like way of making a war game there ever could be, it really is nothing short of self defeating.

I have no interest in dumb, mindless run and gun gameplay ESPECIALLY when it's supposed to be representing combat. The reason I liked SOCOM so much is that its the only war game I've ever played that gives you that freedom, and as a result you can play a single section of a mission (instant action) a dozen different times and have a completely different experience EVERY time! That's called ACTUALL replay value, as opposed to replay value GIMICS like ModWar2's "Prestige Mode" where I have to give up everything I've spent dozens of hours unlocking just to have something, anything left to do with the game.

And I'm not just trying to sell SOCOM here, I don't really care. And I have no idea if the new instalment is based on the same principles that the old ones were, if you've played please let me know. In fact before all these next gen games started coming out SOCOM annoyed the hell out of me! I liked alot about it, but without a myriad of horrible games of a similar genre to compare it to I came to focuse more on all of it's flaws. Like the limitations of its weapons customization, the horrible AI of the squad members (you literally have to physically push them to where you want them to be sometimes) the horrible representation of the some of the weapons (for example MK48 Light Machine Gun and SR25 are both chambered in 7.62 so obviously they are equally powerful per shot, but in SOCOM the MK48 is magically much less powerful just because it's automatic, effectively defeating the purpose of the weapon).

It's only after I blew my money on ModWar2, MOH, AND BC2 and saw worse campaigns, even more limited customization (on the rare occassion it's even available), equally bad representations of weapons etc etc that I realized how good SOCOM was. And it really pisses me off. I've always been of the mind that things are supposed to get BETTER as time progresses. So if we've got a game with customization, open environments allowing for the application of tactics, and usefull AI controlled squad members we can controll via orders to help achieve our goals, that's good. So next time, we should have better customization, more open environments, and better AI with more advanced controll. But instead as games progress through time I'm seeing LESS of all of that, NONE of some of it! And I'm spending MORE money to get it!

As for the argument that linear games can be just as good as non-linear. Maybe, if you're playing a game about running track, or racing in NASCAR, those activities ACTUALLY ARE contained on narrow tracks, so a video game with such containment would be a legitimate, accurate, fair and perfectly good representation of those things. But war? No. Sorry, no. In fact HELL no. That's just not how it works, that's not how it's supposed to work, that's the very ANTI-THESIS of how it works! In fact going back to Drink's criticism of excessive repetitiveness in video games... that's exactly what linear war video games are. The same thing over and over again, point A point B, run between them shooting. Wow, I don't know about you, but I'm not impressed or entertained. If I want a video game that I have such extremely limited controll in, I wouldn't want a video game. I'd want a movie! If I wanted something like ModWar2's campaing I'd just put a ten minute segment of Black Hawk Down on a loop!
"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

#28 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 12 May 2011 - 10:02 PM

View PostI.K.E., on 07 May 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

Thinkin about it WAAAAAYYYY too much. No wonder Oprah don't wanna be yer sugar mama.


That's the problem with video games these days, if you try to think AT ALL you're thinking too much.

You're supposed to just push the joystick forward, and hold the trigger down until you get to the end of the level :|

Oh God... the Oprah conversation should never be mentioned again! Hahaha! That went places man was never ment to...
"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

#29 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 12 May 2011 - 10:38 PM

View Postger, on 20 April 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:

...all were basic linear game types just confined to one screen. The majority of games today are no different just w/ scrolling screens, better graphics & more buttons, but fundamentally the same - you have to accomplish x,y,z before you can move on to the next level. You aren't free to roam the board, skip y & choose how the story unfolds as in games like Fallout or GTA (which again, are the exception).


Agreed, so exactly what was the point of developing massively greater processing capabilities and adding the third dimension, if after all of it we're still stuck with the same damn scrolling screen we had in friggin Mario??? Why am I the only one to whom that sounds stupid? Don't get me wrong, Mario was friggin' great, I have all the ROM's and some of the originals for my broken nintendos. But I don't think I'm out of line expecting WAAAAYYYYYYY more several decades and countless generations of computing capabilities later. :|

Quote

Side note: DOOM ftw - our computer lab in college had a bunch of stations w/ pirated versions, we played that game for months-on-end instead of working, lol.


That's awesome! When I was in Navy A-school we had an arcade game in the baracks that someone cracked open and found the right wires to connect to put it in the free demo mode. Squandered many many many hours on that thing. Not to mention 16 player halo parties, no not the lame online kind that come complete with lag, poor connections, poor hosts, poor servers, poor players, cheaters, glitchers and uber nerds that are just way too damn good at the game to enjoy playing with. I mean the awesome system link in person, anihilating your friends then gloating in their face, only to steel their reserve to achieve revenge thus leading to your ultimate downfall in a side splitting laughter filled trash talk battle royal kind of Halo parties! What can I say? We were contained in the barracks by sub zero temperatures most of the time.

Quote

I'm obviously sensing that your complaint isn't just that "video games suck" but rather that "linear video games suck." I'm not going to get into an argument about which game type is better: linear or non-linear. That is totally based on opinion. Some guys like the open world feel & some like more structure, neither type is better or worse than the other as both offer completely different experiences. /disclaimer ;)


Good because you would loose that argument :P Would you agree that life can be quite rigidly structured? I know it can, yet life is the ultimate open world experience! Linear game-play isn't structured gameplay its CONTAINED gameplay devoid of thought. At the risk of sounding like your Local Regional Assistant Douche-bag: just like thinking, you gotta play out of the box!

Quote

Just to clarify: my complaint isn't that I want all the FPS games to adopt a sandbox style (I don't), I just want them to do a better job developing the campaign mode. As stated, the MoH campaign was awesome imo but it was a linear game & I'm okay w/ that. My complaint wasn't that it was linear, but rather that it was too short.


Uhhh... agreed. It'd be a sad world if ALL video games were made the same way, even if that way was the right way. But there should be SOME non-linear options, and so far none of the new major titles are! Which means that they are ALL made the same way, LINEAR! Which is a crappy way! Anway, MOH gets a pass in terms of plot since its based on real world experiences which is awesome! But the gameplay I've experience so far is extremely controlled, maybe to stick to the stories, but still the whole point of playing a reality based scenario (logically speaking) would be to see what you might do in a similar situation for the sake of entertainment, but the linear gameplay makes it less of a game that you can play as you want and more of a movie that you just go through the motions of. So NO pass on linearness! But still easily the best of the three Campaignwise. Multiplayer BC2 probably wins. The only game so far to include a functional open environment where you can do what you want, instead of what the game tells you to. Even MOH multiplay is a straight line progression forsakeing the spirit of actuall tactical action. Seriously what if their pre-determined order of objectives isn't the best order to achieve the objectives in? The whole purpose of such a team conducting such an operation would be to figure out the best way to get the job done and do it the best way possible, not go down a friggin checklist with no regard for events as they unfold.

What's that? The enemy roadblock is heavily defended? Oh, well maybe we should send a small contingent around their flank, attack an objective at the rear, drawing their attention away, then take out the roadblock while they're distracted and get our vehicles in there. NOPE, you're magically not "allowed" to, instead you have to keep running headlong into enemy fire until the game is over, enjoy.

Quote

Whether you or I are complacent or not isn't going to change the industry. I did some "quick arithmetic": you could rally 100,000 like minded gamers to revolt & at $60 a game that's only $6mil - COD:BO sold $1bil in the first month... that's less than 1% of the total sales they'd be losing because of us not "accepting" it anymore.


Well it's good to know that it's a mathematically proven fact that the world sucks. And thankyou for bringing that to my attention. Haha!

Seriously though, if the Egyptians can rally in the spirit of patriotism, freedom, and democracy to overthrow a U.S. backed dictator and establish their nation as a free state for the first time in decades if ever, based on facebook and a whim... we should be able to demand that major titles make their games better!!!
"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

#30 User is offline   Shipwreck! 

  • The Mad Scientist
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 898
  • Joined: 13-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SoCal! IE! 909!
  • Brigade Name:SHIPWRECK!

Posted 12 May 2011 - 10:51 PM

View PostMejorQueNada, on 20 April 2011 - 09:07 AM, said:

Do you only play FPS games? Maybe you need to switch hit for a while, change up the pace. Alot of these FPS games tend to get repetitive, which is why I never bought W@W/MW2/BO/MoH cause I already had COD4, DOD:S and BFBC2. FPS's have a special place in my heart too, but you gotta let them sit sometimes.


Not only although by far the majority of my gaming is fps. I noticed that too a while back and started trying to branch out with some more kiddy adventure type games like Ratchet and Clank, which was both awesome to play and hilarious! I loved how creative the weapons got in that game, that's what first drew me to the fps games back in the day with DOOM, just seeing what the next big gun would look like and how it would work haha! Then customizable weapons and loadouts in the newer ps2 games made me like the genre even more! And now all of that cool stuff seems to be on the decline.

Anway, I started brancing out with adventure type games, I've always loved Gran Tourismo, love GTA open world games, recently started getting into sci-fi's like Mass Effect, actually by far my favorite over all! The plot is awesome, Sci Fi has always had an extra special place in my heart, not enough good action sci-fi's out there. Anyway the point is no I don't only play FPS games, and that's a good point.

Although I still play ME games less than my FPS, simply because the ME games are so involved! You can't just pop it in and jump in to some action. You can spend an hour traveling around to different planets talking to different people just to progress the game to a part where you can blow some scum bags away! So you just wanna throw in a game and shoot some badguys with the use of TACTICS which massively enhances the experience! A rare GOOD fps is the way to go. It would be dope if ME3 had some kind of instant action mode, so I don't have to make a save prior to every firefight and manage not to delete them accidently later on, so that I can go back and jump straight into some action...

But the thing is if FPS's were less linear they would be RIDICULOUSLY less repetitive and would be WAY more entertaining over WAY longer periods of time and WAY more unique from one title to the next. Just because with more controll and more possibilities that come with it, you don't necessarily know EXACTLY what you're going to get every time you play. Even if it's a mission you've beaten a dozen times!

This post has been edited by Shipwreck!: 12 May 2011 - 10:58 PM

"If they wanna be asinine about this, we'll just be asinine right back."
A5 Evolver!



Posted Image
0

Share this topic:


  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users