I am left wondering....

(Mr.Fozzie) #21

Simply put, iron sights open up a greater variety of gameplay options. Brink’s core gameplay mechanics and level design seem to (from what we’ve seen so far) limit the effectiveness of a campy-style play. If someone is camping a particularly troubling spot, i imagine there will be plenty of opportunities to vault over them and give them the ol’ salty pickle from behind.

One might even argue that the inclusion of automated turrets and mines actually promotes more camping than iron sights ever could. Not that i’m concerned about this in the least, but it’s something to think on.

(tokamak) #22

[QUOTE=Senyin;274903]And by the way, stop assuming that everyone plays fast paced or “from the hip” games with a
mindless run and gun attitude.
It’s a flaw on your part believing that is the only way these types of games can be played.[/QUOTE]

Oh but I don’t believe that. I’m a huge UT fan, and I love the odd TF2 as well. Those games do fulfil the ‘mindless twitch drones niche’ though and Brink should be more than that.

See, COD is mindless in the other way, sighting is almost always the best approach which is wrong as well. It didn’t reward people who could think about which stance would be the best, it was only about the kiddies that could pull off the sight shooting off the best. Though I have to say, at least it made players weigh between moving and shooting, which is a great plus, it’s just that the difference was too big to require any real thought.

I believe in games with varied scenarios that constantly prod you to think about what you’re doing. ETQW is great, I’m not sure if it’s perfect but it’s the best example of iron sighting done right. It really prodded you to constantly weigh the pros and cons of taking the sights up. Sometimes in precarious situations, sometimes in well-controlled, planned scenarios.

And yes, people who want it any different obviously do favour cognitive skills over insight. Could be because that’s all they’re capable of, and it could be because they just like to see flashy things going on on the screen at which they can point their cross-hairs at. Good for them but there’s better games for that particular way of playing, why compromise a game that focus on multi-layered complexity?

(coolstory) #23

[QUOTE=tokamak;274875]

It’s the lack of an ironsight option that forces only one way to play, you always have to keep moving and the game is purely determined by twitch reflexes rather than a combination of cognitive skills, intuition and intricate cerebral thought processes.

I don’t know about you, but I prefer to be able to use my entire brain while gaming. But of course it makes sense that you oppose this form of diversity if you don’t have much going on in the other parts of your head.[/QUOTE]

What? There’s no skill required in using iron sights…only thing it does is slow down a game and add more realism. Nothing else. The cognitive skill , intuition etc comes when you make smart decisions on how to outplay your opponent.

Tf2 = mindless twitch drones niche?

(tokamak) #24

No matter how little cerebral skill iron sights require, not having to use iron sights because they don’t exists requires even less.

(coolstory) #25

yea so q3 requires less skill than some slow granny game that has iron sight?

(Jess Alon) #26

I like the low aim assist in bfbc2 with the iron sights. I can deal with that.

(Bridger) #27

[QUOTE=coolstory;274924]What? There’s no skill required in using iron sights…only thing it does is slow down a game and add more realism. Nothing else. The cognitive skill , intuition etc comes when you make smart decisions on how to outplay your opponent.

Tf2 = mindless twitch drones niche?[/QUOTE]

The only skill it does add is “when should I be zoomed in?” Some game systems make this choice more difficult than others. CoD’s system is basically “stay zoomed in all the time unless you suspect an enemy right near you” because the hip shots are so inaccurate.

It remains to be seen how big the tradeoff is in brink. For all we know the movement penalty will be such that zooming in will be a very specialized thing that you only do in specific situations, and it opens you up to being very vulnerable for that time.

(tokamak) #28

More cognitive skill, less thinking.

-time for that video again Sockdog…-

(DarkangelUK) #29

I’m a few replies late, but… IS doesn’t ‘promote slow-paced gaming’, slow pace is a side effect of IS, but mostly coupled with low bullet count for kills and a high hip fire spread promotes IS. Anything that causes you to stop/slowpace walk mid-movement attributes to slowing the pace down, nothing to do with promotion.

(tokamak) #30

Also a heavy emphasis on k/d ratios as well as no objectives and thus no necessity to move anywhere at all causes camping.

(Diablo85) #31

[QUOTE=tokamak;274942]More cognitive skill, less thinking.

-time for that video again Sockdog…-[/QUOTE]

Unless you play 1 vs 1. Then alot of thinking is required. All aim no brain won’t get you far there.

(Linsolv) #32

Well, luckily, that’s a nonexistent pub scene, and only a tiny percentage of the comp scene. So…

(figjam) #33

I form the other opinion that a fast paced gameplay keeps you on your toes and rewards people who can think fast, have good situational awareness and good reflexes. Isn’t that what games have been about since Pong?

If someone’s opinion is so caustic to you that it causes you to insult someone’s intelligence when your own can’t acknowledge that other people can have other opinions, you need help.

(tokamak) #34

It rewards a different form of thinking.

You can compare it to chess. Chess with a short time limit is a completely different game than chess with a long time limit. ‘Fast’ chess relies on gut-feeling, bluff and sowing confusion, it’s the ‘street-smart’ version of the game. High-end chess matches between chess masters almost have no relevant time-limit and may last a day, every move is being considered many steps ahead.
The most popular setting for chess are 5 and 10 minute limits (making the game last 10 or 20 minutes) it has facets from both extremes, you need to think on your feed but you still have leeway to carefully consider certain moves.

That’s what W:ET and ETQW (or at least the non-pro versions) do right. It has a perfect combination of twitch gameplay, however it’s only relevant on micro-scale, on a macro-scale it are the big decisions and strategy that matter. It’s the plans that decide the game, and it’s your cognitive skills that decide how easy you can pull off those skills.

That’s why I think the generally accepted premise ‘fast=good slow=bad’ is flawed. A game so rich in complexity and depth needs multiple paces of gameplay to truly shine. Fast fingers shouldn’t be the only thing a player can rely on.

If someone’s opinion is so caustic to you that it causes you to insult someone’s intelligence when your own can’t acknowledge that other people can have other opinions, you need help.

Nice, I appreciate the irony.

(Murderous Pie) #35

all I am going to say is that if you look at some of the leaked gameplayhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1IYDqhK9Uw&feature=related it seems like there will still be plenty of speed when you do walk with ironsights, just not enough to dodge people like you could with hipfire, which gives you plenty of reasons to use both.

(figjam) #36

[QUOTE=tokamak;274997]Chess with a short time limit is a completely different game than chess with a long time limit. ‘Fast’ chess relies on gut-feeling, bluff and sowing confusion, it’s the ‘street-smart’ version of the game. High-end chess matches between chess masters almost have no relevant time-limit and may last a day, every move is being considered many steps ahead.
The most popular setting for chess are 5 and 10 minute limits (making the game last 10 or 20 minutes) it has facets from both extremes, you need to think on your feed but you still have leeway to carefully consider certain moves.
[/QUOTE]

Still doesn’t mean we need iron sights for a balanced and diverse style of gameplay. I think that Brink will be diverse enough without iron sights.

W:ET is a completely different game to ET:QW. ET:QW never had the intensity of a hard fought ET match. ETQW had lots of running to get to the objective and ultimately boredom before you even get there. ET with its small maps, close quarters and emphasis on aiming well from the hip turned it into the fast paced and loved game it was. Most great ET games were less than 10 minutes long.

Making Brink half as good as ET will still make it 50 times better than ETQW. How about we take it all the way and make it as good as ET?

Following your chess analogy, how many people would be drawn to playing fast chess as opposed to slow chess? You want a well thought through strategy with diverse elements as well as iron sights, join the army. For all us other non-realism twitch players we’ll just stick to a video game.

(tokamak) #37

By far the most chess matches online are either 5 to 10 minutes per player long. Junkies in the park playing for cash like it at 1 minute.

I’m personally not interested in what most people will be initially drawn to. My concern is with what most people eventually will come to like and play the longest. And that’s where diversity comes in to play. That’s where you want to offer players more ways to approach the battles, and that’s why iron sights are such a good thing.

I’m not really sure what your problem is though, if you want to run and gun then that’s still possible so what exactly is the deal here?

Oh and I think ETQW is far better than W:ET. If you figure out where to gently push you can turn the entire oppnent team on it’s head.

(LyndonL) #38

figjam: Brink has ironsights. They will not remove them. Deal with it.

(Jess Alon) #39

I wish game developers would make an in between of the iron sights you see in most games. Where you have increased accuracy but you can still move around quickly, but you can do that full on iron sight in which you can barely move around for some reason and seem to have pinpoint accuracy. I hate games that when I’m trying to focus my fire I can’t avoid fire that’s incoming.

(Linsolv) #40

Lightning chess (less than 2 minutes a side, for the sake of discussion) is more like poker than chess. Since I know chess well enough to have certain reactions, but I’m not really great with complex strategy, it’s like heroin to me.

My father, on the other hand, would never play 90-seconds to a side. He likes to think about his moves, and play carefully, and have motives hidden in motives. I like to scare the **** out of my opponents.