Honestly, why is there hate for Duke Nukem Forever?

opoipo · 2012-05-25T17:52:57.214255+00:00

I feel the same way about Homefront, except I paid $7.50 for it. I probably would have paid $15 for it, but not a dollar more.

KingCalsium · 2012-05-25T15:55:35.759111+00:00

They likely did break even on what they spent on that game, but they spent millions and millions more on Copernicus.

HotMoosePants · 2012-05-25T15:20:25.437934+00:00

It's got a 960x544 screen. Is that really HD?

juwking · 2012-05-25T14:51:56.647783+00:00

It was poor marketing, but Brutal Legend was the best way to do an RTS with a controller.

bfogarty27 · 2012-05-25T14:50:47.806290+00:00

The VTOL level was cut from consoles?! Man, console Crysis players really missed out.

jerryconnelly · 2012-05-25T14:32:01.750151+00:00

Halo in particular is painfully slow for me.

The maps that are large have vehicles. The maps that are small don't lend themselves to fast movement speed. The maps that are in between usually have jump pads and such. The pacing of that game can best be described as "slow, with bursts of speed". If it's not your thing, it's not your thing. It still requires skill.

feel free to cite some clear examples of the skill and tactics involved

I mentioned how all maps have 2 or 3 ways to get to any spot on the map in a Call of Duty game, and you say this leads to lucky kills, but that's far from the truth. When you play the game right, everything is deliberate. You need to keep moving, but you need to move slowly, in a way. The general strategy is to check all entrances to a given location on the map, move there, do some damage, and move on, but you still have to keep an eye out for people who might be trying to flank you. It's not a binary state of "checked" versus "not checked", because there may be people lying prone on a cat walk, there may be people hiding behind cover out in the next opening, so you can choose to flash bang the area just in case at the expense of being able to use that flash bang later, etc.

But why would you need 2 close range weapons?

Because Call of Duty isn't a 1v1 game. You have other people on your team who, if your team plays smart, will satisfy other roles. Short-range weapons tend to have smaller clip sizes, so you might want to have a shotgun and a pistol, since it's faster to switch to your pistol than it is to reload; either way, you're ill-equipped to take on a sniper. Why wouldn't you go back the other way? Maybe the other way is a death trap as well, filled with people who are camping the area with grenade launchers. It may be better to drop a smoke grenade and run through the place the sniper is watching because they can't cover the whole area with an explosion like the grenade launcher guys can.

The thing is, you chalk a lot of kills in CoD up to luck, but forgetting to cover a particular entrance in favor of trying to score more sniper kills is no more luck than forgetting to build more units at your main base in StarCraft while you're in the middle of a battle at the center of the map. It's a player taking advantage of a mistake of another player. It's not luck, and if you don't believe me based off of my explanation, you never will, and you might not until you've put a good chunk of hours into the games' multiplayer. I highly recommend you check out one of the Modern Warfare games' multiplayer, as it's highly addictive, and you'll see what all the fuss is about. During the Steam summer sale, you could probably get Modern Warfare 1 and 2 for less for $30 total.

This just looks like willful ignorance to me here. You list one skill required to do well in CoD (good aim), and then go on to say tribes is trivial because it "only" requires the exact same skill (good aim)

I think you read that wrong, or at least, not the way I intended. I was talking about how easy it is to learn Tribes and start scoring a lot of kills compared to Call of Duty. The thing I've found in Tribes (I only play TDM as opposed to CTF) is that there's always someone vulnerable to go after, which isn't always true in Call of Duty. Skiing is really easy to do, and you can cover a lot of ground really quickly, making it easy to get to an area where you're not surrounded by enemies. Now find a guy who is facing away from you. Start shooting at him. You've got a huge advantage already, especially if he's in a firefight with someone else. If he starts shooting back at you, do you think you can kill him before he kills you? If not, run like hell while weaving back and forth a little bit, and that will help you survive long enough to get to your team to outnumber him, 9 times out of 10. Once you get your speed up, assuming you haven't lost your pursuer, you can turn around and start shooting back at the guy pretty easily. By comparison, Call of Duty requires a lot of attention to the layout of the map because everything is hidden, as opposed to Tribes' open hills where you can see practically everything at all times.

gamelord12 · 2012-05-25T11:54:47.329454+00:00

What's wrong with wanting something in a game? And what the hell is with your hostility?

gamelord12 · 2012-05-25T01:57:31.720754+00:00

But Nintendo is stopping us from getting those old games with the same competitive mechanics and online leader boards and more characters.

zakislam · 2012-05-25T01:55:36.657400+00:00

I like ME3's multiplayer too, but if you like that, the same formula is pretty much done better in Gears of War 3.

gamelord12 · 2012-05-25T01:42:25.648481+00:00

The frustration isn't that Smash isn't competitively balanced enough; it's that Nintendo went out of their way to make it less competitive in Brawl even though that's part of what made Melee so popular.

jerryconnelly · 2012-05-25T01:06:22.806142+00:00

Counter-Strike is much more skill-based than any of the games we were just talking about, and look at how fast you move in those games.

From the way you wrote out that response, I don't think you've ever played any of the newer Call of Duty games online. Play for like two hours, and you'll see all the cool shit that all the people who are better than you can do, and you'll wonder what they're doing that you're not, even after watching the kill cam. Then it might start to click a little bit, and you'll get a kill or two, and maybe one of the low kill streaks like a UAV or something, but it'll be a long, long while before you ever see the chopper gunner or AC-130, and I never once got a nuke. The reason it looks so easy to kill someone in Call of Duty is because you're watching players better than you taking more precise shots.

Compare that to Tribes: Ascend, and you realize really quickly that you can just ski in the same direction and pretty much the same speed as your target, and then it will only take a shot or two to realize where you need to aim to properly lead your shot.

When I said to list other games that had kill streak rewards, you listed other games that had perks. They are far from the same thing. The kill streaks are about what makes CoD about momentum and snowballing. Perks are just something that need to be asymmetrically balanced to fit a variety of play styles. There are advantages to each one.

Watch this MLG CoD final, most of the kills are either random blindsides or unlucky stumbles into people around corners and not quite being as quick on the draw. There is also a fair amount of sweeping spray too. Compare that to a random strenx vs rapha game where half of the action is tactical positioning on the map, redirection of opponents, and aiming precision is MUCH more important.

I can do the same thing:

Watch this Quake: Live match, and you'll see it's pretty much just the two players constantly switching levels and shooting where they think the player might be, and then when they see each other, they just jump sideways back and forth until one of them gets a luckier shot than the other. Compare that to this MLG match of CoD, and you'll see that the players are constantly checking around corners to catch an enemy player out of position and not just running through the levels like in Quake, and they can even shoot from the hip and spray a little to try to force the other player behind cover, giving them time to escape from a bad encounter.

Now, obviously Call of Duty isn't as competitively focused as Quake: Live is, and you picked one of the Treyarch Call of Duty games as well, which have much worse design than the Infinity Ward Call of Duty games, but I hope I made my point.

Also, limiting weapon selection to two weapons inherently REDUCES the tactical options available to you, how would it make games more tactical?

Doesn't reducing the options available to you cause you to think about how to use the tools available to you? Now you have to be creative when crossing this clearing because you only have close-range weapons, and there's a sniper watching this position. You can toss a flash bang grenade or a smoke grenade, or maybe find another route; at least in Modern Warfare 2, what made the map design so great is that there was always 2 or 3 ways to get to any spot on the map, so you were hardly ever out of options, and you were never in a position that made you invincible.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T23:45:28.259313+00:00

And that's the rationale for abolishing the ratings board? Because 15-year-olds want space? They can get it in their rooms when the movie comes out on video, if their parents let them have the Blu Ray. I give up, reddit. I really do.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T23:38:51.920046+00:00

Under the current way theaters are operated, a parent can attend a movie with their child if they want to allow them to see an R-rated movie. How is that so awful?

EDIT: I don't even know why I'm still arguing. Clearly the hive mind does not approve of my opinion.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T23:29:15.157605+00:00

The point is that parents can't go see every movie that their child has an interest in, and the rating is a guide. Only on the line between R and NC-17 do movie ratings have any issues. It's very possible to make back a large investment on R-rated movies, and as for NC-17 movies, we live in a digital age. They can sell the movie direct over the internet if they'd like, and they'd get all the revenue. Anyone who was looking for that kind of movie will be able to find it. Not an ideal solution, but again, the problem is with the perception of NC-17 movies being essentially porn and not with the ratings board itself.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T23:20:34.570427+00:00

Because kids have 6 hour school days and little to no responsibilities whereas the average family now has two working parents, if the parents are even together, and both of those parents have 8+ hour work days and things to do after work.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T23:10:02.867115+00:00

The theaters don't stop you from entering a PG-13 movie if they suspect you're under 13; they only care about R and NC-17 movies. They don't "get studios to edit out content"; they give a rating, and the studio can take it or leave it. The Matrix was developed to be PG-13 but got an R rating and kept it.

And I don't care what parents think

And parents don't care what you think. I'm sure they'd rather have a ratings system because it helps them figure out what kind of content their kids will be okay to watch. You're not raising someone else's kids.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T22:55:15.138258+00:00

They can give information but they shouldn't censor anything.

They don't. They put a rating on a movie, and if the studio doesn't like it, they can edit the movie and have it reviewed again.

Nothing bad is going to happen if some 11 year old sees a breast in a movie.

Parents may disagree. If you want to see a breast in a movie, you can go see an R-rated movie. The MPAA didn't hinder you from doing so.

The MPAA is hugely biased against indie films and Asian/European films.

I don't buy that, even after watching most of that documentary.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T22:50:11.830646+00:00

That won't fly in the US. Movie studios here would get sued left and right by people claiming that they weren't well informed enough to know that their kids shouldn't have seen a particular movie. The only problem with the ratings system isn't the ratings system; it's the stigma associated with NC-17.

mehgandavid · 2012-05-24T22:29:30.573259+00:00

This was probably another MMO started during the subscription era that was going to release during the F2P era, as well.

jerryconnelly · 2012-05-24T22:22:57.054527+00:00

Pretty much every weapon is the same, they all have absurd ROF's and sizable spread so that you can spray and sweep and still hit with a reasonable amount of bullets, not to mention the lack of recoil and time penalties for reloading.

I can tell you that the subtle differences between weapons make huge differences: clip sizes, rate of fire, recoil, and accuracy are all different, leading to a different feel for each gun. Everyone will find their favorite that fits their play style. It's not a drastic difference between each and every assault rifle, because it's using real guns, for the military gun enthusiasts. Old-school shooters tend to stay far away from realism, and when you're making up guns, you need them to be very different. I promise you that you cannot sweep and kill unless someone else already softened your target up.

Movement is slow to make tracking and shooting enemies easier

No, movement is slower because these games try to stay closer to reality. Have you ever seen that post on 4chan with the guy who did the math on exactly how fast DoomGuy can run with a full arsenal in his pockets? This leads to a style of play that is more tactical as opposed to more run-and-gun. It's just a different way to design the game.

Then there is perks and killstreaks, these are becoming more and more common in fps games, they aren't exclusive to CoD any more

Okay, kill streak rewards might also be in Homefront, but I can't think of any other game that has them apart from Call of Duty.

The very idea of getting a snowballing advantage bonus goes against the idea of 'skill based'.

Not necessarily; it takes skill to get the ball rolling, doesn't it?

If you put a CoD Pro against a random noob 1v1 the score might end up 40-10 or something like that, but in a good skill based shooter it should be more like 100-0. The noob should NEVER be able to get 'lucky' kills on a more skilled player.

Look, Call of Duty isn't the most balanced shooter in the world, but even as a guy who put something like 100 or more hours into Modern Warfare 2, I'd be surprised if I could even get one kill against a pro CoD player. I don't know how Tribes: Ascend's matchmaking works, but I do really well in that game considering it's the first old-school-style FPS game that I've played for about 5 or 6 years, and I've never played a Tribes game before. My kdr is something like 2.0 or 3.0 if I recall correctly. If anything, I'd say that those shooters have much lower skill requirements than booting up a match of Call of Duty on Xbox Live.

EDIT: I just want to add here that I know how unrealistic Call of Duty's multiplayer mode is, but the point is that it's GROUNDED in reality.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T22:09:48.940533+00:00

I watched about 45 minutes of it, and I have to say it's far from the most objective thing I've ever seen. It really is a shame that NC-17 carries such a stigma and is so hard to market, but what would you have the ratings board do? Not rate movies? Parents can't screen every movie for their kids. This Film is Not Yet Rated portrays the ratings board as this evil oligarchy, when really they're just parents trying to give other parents a guide on whether or not a movie is right for a particular audience.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T20:51:20.494441+00:00

I really don't think that would be the difference between an R-rated movie and an NC-17 movie.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T20:35:16.071651+00:00

Yeah, but seriously, is there anything you can say in a movie that would get it rated NC-17?

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T20:34:33.486332+00:00

Really? As I recall, they didn't really show anything; there was only enough visible that you could tell what was going on.

IAmWilliamFriedkin · 2012-05-24T20:00:51.774910+00:00

Why wouldn't it? I saw The Exorcist (granted, it was a few years ago), and I don't recall anything that you couldn't get away with in an R-rated movie. Anything in particular that prompted this question?

gamelord12

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login