|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:47 am
Zombicide Nter Zombicide But BioShock was better than CoD 4 and Crysis. BioShock's powers were a bit cooler, and it was FAR more creative than CoD 4. You should be put in a Psych Ward. Maybe Bioshock did a great job giving people the general feeling and atmosphere of a would-be underwater metropolis but CoD4 provided tons of thrills, tons of immersion and arguably the most detail in any military FPS I've seen to date. And can we really count Bioshock as an FPS? Isn't it somewhere in the same category as a game like Metroid Prime? FPA? Look's like you need some electric shock treatment, buddy. I found almost nothing that separated Call of Duty 4 from almost every other military shooter out there. The core gameplay was very similar to every other military shooter out there. The only things I found different were the "thriller" segments, and the high graphics quality. BioShock had a lot more of a story than CoD 4, and it had some really intense thrills as well. As in, intense to the point of ********. CoD 4's thrills were just popcorn-flick thrills. You know, a guy gets hit by a helicopter, an so on, so forth......yeah, I've seen so many action movies where thrills like that occur. @ Death Blues Mix: And Call of Duty 4 is essentially a warped around version of its predecessors, so you have no argument there. The only difference is that the original games were set in WWII, and this one is set in some fictional modern-day setting. By the way people, enjoy this setting while it lasts, because Call of Duty 5 is ditching the modern setting for another World War II setting.Why? There are many other wars (don't have to be fictional) that can be done.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:44 am
Most likely its because WW 2 is their comfort zone they don't want to step to far out of their comfort zone cause if they do they risk making something people might hate also they did one fictional and the WW2 was a highly popular war at that time cause we were attacked and hitler was evil and it gave everyone something to fight the korean war and the vietnam were not very popular wars so they are very leary about doing those because of the subject matter as far as wars perdateing world war 2 the style of combat was very diffrent where both armies still lined up and shot at each other and there were mass casualties they could try to do one of those but to do so in order to suit the taste of most gamers they would have to make them incredibly historicly unacurate and what they have generaly tried to do is make them as acurate as possible so most likely will not see a pre WW2 era war unles they can break out of this comfort area of WW2 and Fictional Wars with upto date modern tactics then thats all u will see
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:29 am
General_Cerberus Most likely its because WW 2 is their comfort zone they don't want to step to far out of their comfort zone cause if they do they risk making something people might hate also they did one fictional and the WW2 was a highly popular war at that time cause we were attacked and hitler was evil and it gave everyone something to fight the korean war and the vietnam were not very popular wars so they are very leary about doing those because of the subject matter as far as wars perdateing world war 2 the style of combat was very diffrent where both armies still lined up and shot at each other and there were mass casualties they could try to do one of those but to do so in order to suit the taste of most gamers they would have to make them incredibly historicly unacurate and what they have generaly tried to do is make them as acurate as possible so most likely will not see a pre WW2 era war unles they can break out of this comfort area of WW2 and Fictional Wars with upto date modern tactics then thats all u will see Do you work for Infinity Ward? o.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:13 am
no but I can make an educated guess based on what can be easily observed as well as a through knowledge of combat styles and wars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:34 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:44 am
I didn't say it couldn't I said it would take a lot of work and that it would be highly unlikely that we would see one at least not for a long while
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:57 am
Arvis_Jaggamar I've played Super Mario Galaxy. My verdict: it's irritating and underwhelming. My little sister thinks it's irritating. My roommate, who would marry Nintendo if he could, thinks it's "meh" and just keeps playing Fire Emblem. This is the SAME roommate who LIKED Super Mario Sunshine!!!! So why is everyone in Internet Land going bonkers for this game? It really isn't that great!
3 vs 500,000.
I wanna see who wins.
*sits down with Popcorn and Rush mixtape*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:37 pm
Arvis_Jaggamar I've played Super Mario Galaxy. My verdict: it's irritating and underwhelming. My little sister thinks it's irritating. My roommate, who would marry Nintendo if he could, thinks it's "meh" and just keeps playing Fire Emblem. This is the SAME roommate who LIKED Super Mario Sunshine!!!! So why is everyone in Internet Land going bonkers for this game? It really isn't that great! Play Sunshine then Galaxy. Your roomate has no idea what he is saying. Sunshine sucked especially because it was boring. Galaxy is a trip. A damn good acid trip with Mario.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:05 pm
Nter General_Cerberus Most likely its because WW 2 is their comfort zone they don't want to step to far out of their comfort zone cause if they do they risk making something people might hate also they did one fictional and the WW2 was a highly popular war at that time cause we were attacked and hitler was evil and it gave everyone something to fight the korean war and the vietnam were not very popular wars so they are very leary about doing those because of the subject matter as far as wars perdateing world war 2 the style of combat was very diffrent where both armies still lined up and shot at each other and there were mass casualties they could try to do one of those but to do so in order to suit the taste of most gamers they would have to make them incredibly historicly unacurate and what they have generaly tried to do is make them as acurate as possible so most likely will not see a pre WW2 era war unles they can break out of this comfort area of WW2 and Fictional Wars with upto date modern tactics then thats all u will see Do you work for Infinity Ward? o.O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:32 pm
Am I the Only one who liked Big Red One?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:03 pm
Daxelman
Am I the Only one who liked Big Red One?
Big red one sucks. The problem was that that game came out around the same time that COD2 came out on the Xbox 360.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:05 pm
Griggle990 Daxelman
Am I the Only one who liked Big Red One?
Big red one sucks. The problem was that that game came out around the same time that COD2 came out on the Xbox 360.
It came out the exact same time as CoD2 came out.
I think Infinity Ward can make a good game, no excuse they can't.
EA can do it, anyone can.
EDIT: I meant Treyarch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:08 pm
HistoryWak Zombicide Nter Zombicide But BioShock was better than CoD 4 and Crysis. BioShock's powers were a bit cooler, and it was FAR more creative than CoD 4. You should be put in a Psych Ward. Maybe Bioshock did a great job giving people the general feeling and atmosphere of a would-be underwater metropolis but CoD4 provided tons of thrills, tons of immersion and arguably the most detail in any military FPS I've seen to date. And can we really count Bioshock as an FPS? Isn't it somewhere in the same category as a game like Metroid Prime? FPA? Look's like you need some electric shock treatment, buddy. I found almost nothing that separated Call of Duty 4 from almost every other military shooter out there. The core gameplay was very similar to every other military shooter out there. The only things I found different were the "thriller" segments, and the high graphics quality. BioShock had a lot more of a story than CoD 4, and it had some really intense thrills as well. As in, intense to the point of ********. CoD 4's thrills were just popcorn-flick thrills. You know, a guy gets hit by a helicopter, an so on, so forth......yeah, I've seen so many action movies where thrills like that occur. @ Death Blues Mix: And Call of Duty 4 is essentially a warped around version of its predecessors, so you have no argument there. The only difference is that the original games were set in WWII, and this one is set in some fictional modern-day setting. By the way people, enjoy this setting while it lasts, because Call of Duty 5 is ditching the modern setting for another World War II setting.Why? There are many other wars (don't have to be fictional) that can be done. Call of Duty 5 IS going back to its World War II roots. However, I do think it would be nice to see a Vietnam setting this time. Whatever they do, PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT A FUTURISTIC SETTING.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
here here I agree with that it was nice to visit it once but lets not get stuck on the future so much in call of duty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:53 pm
Zombicide HistoryWak Zombicide Nter Zombicide But BioShock was better than CoD 4 and Crysis. BioShock's powers were a bit cooler, and it was FAR more creative than CoD 4. You should be put in a Psych Ward. Maybe Bioshock did a great job giving people the general feeling and atmosphere of a would-be underwater metropolis but CoD4 provided tons of thrills, tons of immersion and arguably the most detail in any military FPS I've seen to date. And can we really count Bioshock as an FPS? Isn't it somewhere in the same category as a game like Metroid Prime? FPA? Look's like you need some electric shock treatment, buddy. I found almost nothing that separated Call of Duty 4 from almost every other military shooter out there. The core gameplay was very similar to every other military shooter out there. The only things I found different were the "thriller" segments, and the high graphics quality. BioShock had a lot more of a story than CoD 4, and it had some really intense thrills as well. As in, intense to the point of ********. CoD 4's thrills were just popcorn-flick thrills. You know, a guy gets hit by a helicopter, an so on, so forth......yeah, I've seen so many action movies where thrills like that occur. @ Death Blues Mix: And Call of Duty 4 is essentially a warped around version of its predecessors, so you have no argument there. The only difference is that the original games were set in WWII, and this one is set in some fictional modern-day setting. By the way people, enjoy this setting while it lasts, because Call of Duty 5 is ditching the modern setting for another World War II setting.Why? There are many other wars (don't have to be fictional) that can be done. Call of Duty 5 IS going back to its World War II roots. However, I do think it would be nice to see a Vietnam setting this time. Whatever they do, PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT A FUTURISTIC SETTING. I still think a WW1 setting would be the best because there have been many Vietnam games in the past, and almost none of them were good. It is possible to make a WW1 FPS, it’s just that no one bothered to make one. Also every rifle has to be bolt action, the tanks were very slow, and most of the battles were trench against trench. But hay, if there will be a good WW1 FPS coming out, I will keep a good eye on it, and then I might even buy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
