After I played CoD:MW2 some hopes I have...

(darthmob) #141

tokamak, what are your thoughts on Counterstrike? Those games manage to be slow and tactical without any iron sights.

(murka) #142

That’s because people must wait 5min if they die, so they camp like crazy to prevent that.

(tokamak) #143

On servers where the respawn shorter the gameplay is crazy fast.

(Senyin) #144

[QUOTE=tokamak;205299]
Sure for arcade shooter it’s all about movement, games like Quake and Unreal wouldn’t work with Ironsights, but in games where the objective isn’t just killing other players ironsights are a great addition.[/QUOTE]

The objective in fast paced shooters like Quake isn’t just killing other players either :confused:
Unless you play Death match only.
But when you play teamgames or duel it’s a whole different ballgame.
Outsmart, anticipate, ambush, control, predict, time, trick, pick right weapon at the right time,
smart teamplay, sneak, capture, mind games ect…
Only a fool runs around like a headless chicken shooting at everything that moves.

I really do not appreciate it when people label fast paced shooters as brainless.
(Not sure you did, went fast through some posts)
You can certainly choose to play it brainless ofcourse… =D

(tokamak) #145

Oh don’t worry, I DID. And yes, when I’m playing non-tactical shooters the logical part of my brain shuts off and I go in instinct mode.

I’m not saying brainless shooters are inferior to tactical ones, I’m just saying that the simpler shooting mechanics in them don’t belong in such an elaborate and complex game like Brink or ET, and yes, I think W:ET would improve if it had IS as well.

(DoubleDigit) #146

And why are you under the impression that fast paced shooters require just instinct? Maybe it looks like that for you but for one that’s used to that it’s just the normal speed things develop at, while he still plans things ahead and reacts to a changing situation.

But I don’t blame you, I thought those pro Starcraft players were only about speed and overwhelming your opponent with high numbers of troops, well, I was in for a big surprise.

Maybe it is you that’s too slow, too lazy and requires too much time to do something. Ever thought of that?

(tokamak) #147

Yeah, in fact I did, but it didn’t fly. It’s when the game employs simple mechanics there’s less difference between the people who can think fast and those who can’t, simply because there’s far less to consider and think about. It’s when you start adding complexity to the game your thinking speed starts to count.

Starcraft is a nice example, the game is manageable on a broad macro level, but also at extreme detail (micro). The faster a player can think, the more detail he can indulge into the more effective his combat strategies are.

Same for shooters, the more scales of complexity you add into the game, the more the fast-thinkers are rewarded.

(H0RSE) #148

shooters do not need ‘more complexity’ to have more rewards for fast-thinkers. It could be as simple as 'I keep shooting you first." The fast-thinker is rewarded by constantly killing you and winning the match.

(SockDog) #149

I don’t think it’s complexity being added, to me it seems more like simplifications and limitations.

Iron Sights for example existed in Q3, the user had the freedom of using any FOV or sensitivity they wanted. Iron sights on the other hand limit that to a predefined setting and penalise if you don’t use it.

But I guess there isn’t a right answer here. One man’s limitation or another man’s obstacle to overcome. What surprises me though is how we enjoy actual sports with very simple rules and limitations relying only on skills of the participants to add variation. In games we seem to expect the game to provide the entertainment and diminish the input of the player.

(DoubleDigit) #150

I’ve been saying this again and again, I like how iron sights were implemented in Quake Wars. They were not needed at close and medium range but beyond. This did not make the game crawl to a stop were everybody would just camp around and anyone crazy enough to jump inside a room full of people would be too easy too kill (kinda like counterstrike).

From what I’ve seen in Bad Company 2 they use iron sights even up close, without it the guns just spray bullets in every direction and I have a feeling I will hate that game for this.

(Senyin) #151

[QUOTE=tokamak;205700]Oh don’t worry, I DID. And yes, when I’m playing non-tactical shooters the logical part of my brain shuts off and I go in instinct mode.

I’m not saying brainless shooters are inferior to tactical ones, I’m just saying that the simpler shooting mechanics in them don’t belong in such an elaborate and complex game like Brink or ET, and yes, I think W:ET would improve if it had IS as well.[/QUOTE]

Calling them brainless (and non-tactical) sure sounds to me you think they
are inferior. ‘Brainless’ doesn’t exactly send of a positive vibe.

You can play any game brainless and without logic, that is a personal choice.
“I just wanne go in and shoot some people” is a choice.
(Very annoying when people make that choice in teamgames)
The people who do use their brain, think fast and use logic are the ones that excel,
in any game.

Anyway, it looks like Brink is going to accommodate to players who like IS as well as
to players who do not.

We all know that in Brink you will be up close to enemy’s a lot.
Which rules out exsessive use of IS already , forced IS upclose, like DoubleDigit
mentioned in Bad company,would be plain stupid, not to mention boring.

(darthmob) #152

[QUOTE=tokamak;205705]Yeah, in fact I did, but it didn’t fly. It’s when the game employs simple mechanics there’s less difference between the people who can think fast and those who can’t, simply because there’s far less to consider and think about. It’s when you start adding complexity to the game your thinking speed starts to count.[/QUOTE]I doubt it works like that. The more experience you get the more you rely on instincts no matter if the game is fast, slow, complex or simple. You come into a situation and instinctively do the right thing - there’s lots of unconscious decision making involved but it doesn’t sound right at all to say “he thinks more” or “he thinks less”. It’s the same in real life as well. For example kids learning to tie their shoes - they first try to remember every step and actively think about how it’s done (which often goes wrong). Learning something basically means that you don’t have to think about it anymore.

More complexity simply means more time spend on learning the game which can be frustrating and rewarding. Nevertheless having iron sights or not doesn’t significantly change the complexity of a game in my opinion.

(tokamak) #153

Whether the thinking happens concious or subconscious doesn’t really detract from my point. The more complexity, the more the player needs to have under his skull to be effective.

(DoubleDigit) #154

You mean big neck? :stroggbanana::D:tongue:

(Shiv) #155

They tend to slow down these games tho.

I could be rocket jumping allover the shop at high speed in quake or hoping to stagger round the corner in rainbow.
I dont think they have more under the skull.

(Ragoo) #156

Played some more TF2 yesterday, it has no IS and is still complex. Enjoyed it a lot.

Saying that games like Quake or CS are less complex is bullshit because the mindgame is on such a high level, ET:QW with all its complexity will never be because it has not been around for so long and not played competitively enough to develop such a high level of gaming.

I liked ET:QW the most when it comes to IS. Playing Strogg just felt right. For the Lacerator you didn’t need IS unless you shot long range and then you wouldn’t move anyway. I didn’t like long range sniping very much but it won’t be in BRINK. But Railgun short range with quickzoom was just the most satisfying thing ever, loved it so much and would like to see a similar thing in BRINK :wink:

Played some more CoD4 yesterday, it has IS and you have to use them all the fu**ing time. Hated it a lot.

(DoubleDigit) #157

So I guess, Tetris and Pacman require players with the brightest minds on this planet because they’re older than… well, most console players?

(Ragoo) #158

I don’t know about pro gaming in Tetris or Pacman :wink:
What I meant to say was that rather simples games like CS become very complex over time if there is a community that is interested in figuring out all the possible tactics and ways of playing (and the other way round, some complex games are never taken to this level of gaming).
Of course taking a game to a higher level requires both time and effort (big and good community -> eSports).

I guess that all the possible ways of playing Tetris are discovered so you can’t take it to a higher level :wink:

You know the wcg motto: “Beyond the Game” :wink:

(Nail) #159

hiding behind a box is complex ?
people play CS because it’s simple, camp, snipe

(Ragoo) #160

[QUOTE=Nail;205908]hiding behind a box is complex ?
people play CS because it’s simple, camp, snipe[/QUOTE]

Yeah, of course CS is only about hiding behind a box. That’s the only thing you see in pro matches. Camp and Snipe, no stupid tactics, team communication and mind games, only do that -.-