Monday, 20/November/2017, 3:45:52 PM
Welcome Guest | RSS
[BS!]theBeardedSquirrels!
Main | Shooting Game for Q4 2011 - Forum | Registration | Login
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 41234»
Forum » Games We Play (MP & Others) » Others » Shooting Game for Q4 2011
Shooting Game for Q4 2011
Which FPS are you decided on? *choose 1 or more
1.Resistance 3[ 3 ][42.86%]
2.Uncharted 3[ 5 ][71.43%]
3.Modern Warfare 3[ 2 ][28.57%]
4.Battlefield 3[ 2 ][28.57%]
Poll has expired - Saturday, 06/August/2011, 2:57:45 AM
Answers total: 7
KuzuDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 2:57:45 AM | Message # 1
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
I would really like to get a solid consensus of what people are planning on buying for their next main FPS. We are such a small group of players, so spreading out our game choices is going to make us even less consolidated. I usually have my own set of guidelines within each game that helps me determine whether I buy the game or not, but this time I'm ready to follow the crowd. I would like to hear your top prospect, or if you are planning on buying more than one of the games mentioned. And also I would really like to hear WHY.

Resistance 3 - September 6 - ? servers ?
Battlefield 3 - October 25 - likely dedicated regional servers (PC confirmed, PS3 = ?)
Uncharted 3 - November 1 - peer to peer servers (similar to UC2)
Modern Warfare 3 - November 8 - peer to peer servers (similar to all modern COD titles)


 
KuzuDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 3:13:31 AM | Message # 2
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
my thoughts so far:

I am quite split between these games. I can easily see strong pros and cons for each game. I think all will have sufficient graphics, so that is a non-factor for me. All of the controls will be decent, so I don't consider that either. What does matter to me the most are connection type, player organization (total players, party size), game aesthetic, and fun/kill factor.

R3: graphics look amazing. guns look fun. perks/streaks dont seem too overpowered. was initially put off by the lower player size (16) but now i dont care. what does get to me is that im just not "wowed". i dont know how to describe it. im very happy with the sci-fi sexy graphics. the maps are not boring grey buildings like MW2 so thats cool too. guns look fresh. but i dont get that excited watching vids of it. i dont go "dude i GOT to play that now" or that tingle in my spine. even though i played R1 for quite a long time, and enjoyed it, looking back i was not that thrilled with TDM. and i feel thats all there is *even though i know there are other modes. i know all games share this, but it just looks/feels like you run around in a very small, concentrated central area where all the action is. this just seems to be going too far into the "arcade" aspect. there is no interaction other than run and gun. i dont mean that in an insulting way. im sure its great for ppl who like pure 1v1 fights, but that is not my style i guess. its just running on flat ground to that one place everyone gravitates to. im assuming the game uses dedicated servers (though im not even sure of that.. confirm anyone?) so that is a plus. its weird but im happy with the physical aspects of the game including weapons, perks/streaks, graphics, theme. but there is just something i cant put my hand on about Resistance games, that doesnt make my pee-pee tingle like military shooters.

edit: ok i really cant describe what it is. for whatever reason i like run n gun in COD games, but i just dont seem to enjoy it as much in Resi games. why?


 
KuzuDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 3:25:44 AM | Message # 3
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
BF3: on paper, this is the game i *should* get. on paper, it has everything that i want. perfect sounds. destructible environments. sandbox maps. teamplay. more strategy. good assortment of weapons. less cheapness from streaks/perks/bonuses. more authenticity. feels like a real war. but when it comes to gametime, i realize that base camping still happens, and it sucks worse than any other game. i realize that playing solo can suck balls, when you have retarded teammates who dont know how to stay safe for you to spawn on or give support. if i knew some of you would play it as your main game, that would be strong motivation for me. but im also not sure about the connections; been facing constant lag (though cant prove it with connection "bars") and its rage inducing too. not cool at all. should be ok once the game comes out, as we should be connecting to JPN servers. if you are trying to win without competent squadmates, the game has every bit as much "rage" factor as COD, perhaps more (in a different way). at least in COD i can check my connection. at least in COD i can hold my own and flank by myself. in BC2 i can barely last more than one kill. it tears me apart that i have never been so in love with the overall atmosphere of a game, especially the sound, the feeling you get when rolling with teammates to the objective, the way buildings crumble, the way it feels to get the W, the way grenades really shake you up when they explode near you, etc. but then wind up getting disappointed by the game execution. i guess i should just stop beating around the bush; i dont like that i am so damn mediocre, skill-wise, in BC2. that really bothers me. KD is not everything, but it surely means *something* to me. its exactly how i feel when playing sports; i dont take losing or playing poorly lightly. it burns me inside.

 
KuzuDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 3:32:17 AM | Message # 4
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
UC3: before i prob wouldnt even consider this game, but after giving the beta a shot i can see its potential. its different, and i get that. what made the beta so special for me was not really anything about the game, but rather that every night i played, i was either with red or dux or a full party of GGs (aka "gaijin gamers" group). that alone made me enjoy the act of gaming, plain and simple. im not exceptionally impressed by the player models or graphics in general. but i know thats not all that counts. while i had fun, i dont think it would hold my interest for months and months though. the weapons dont feel as sexy as the military shooters, nor do they have any sort of pizazz. and seriously, breaking a controller every few weeks from mashing the left stick doesnt exactly make me happy either, lol. if i knew that 4 other ppl were committed to getting this and nothing else, that would be about the only force that would sway me to consider this game. as i said, i truly value the pleasure in partying up with friends, more so than ive ever felt before.

 
KuzuDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 3:41:34 AM | Message # 5
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
MW3: by my past principles, this should be the last game i would ever get. ive had my share of rage from COD... but hey, who hasnt! i know there will be shitty connections, but i also know i can check it pretty accurately at any second during the game. i know i can quit out and find a new game in just a few seconds, faster than any other game out there. i know there will be constant competition, trash talk, and non-stop action. i know there will be cheap perk combinations, weapon abuse, and kill-streak raping. yet i know that CAN be fun when im the one doing it! i love the vast assortment of weapons, no doubt there. i like that i dont have to wait 2 min, going from one end of the map to other just to find someone like in BF games. i know i can spawn and be in the action very soon. i love that my personal skills are the most important factor, unlike in BF where i must rely on teammates, positioning, or strategy to succeed. and yes, douchebag or not, i love that im pretty good at COD games. so do i go with my gut feeling, telling me i belong in this cheap world of COD? or do i go with my moral ideals, telling me that games should be more than just "the thrill of the kill", yet possible be less fun in the longrun.

 
GuzmanDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 10:10:01 PM | Message # 6
Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 668
Reputation: 2
Status: Offline
R3: From what I've seen, I'm still on the fence. I need to play the game firsthand. You can only get so much from vids. There are certain changes I'm welcoming (one being the lower player count, TBH) & of course the suspect ones. Overall the game looks to be a hybrid of R1 & R2. As cool as it'd be, I know that this game, nor subsequent sequels will be able to recapture the magic of the original Resi for me... But that's OK. I know they've got to follow the trends & add more stuff that's just become an expected part of the package. From what I know of the weapon upgrades & Perks/Abilities/KS, they all appear completely reasonable. Some borderline useless, actually. There's usually 'that' class, in every title, that is abused. From what I'd imagine that being in R3, I'm totally OK w/ that. Everything considered, I will most likely get it. Even it it's just cause it's a Resi installment.

BF3: Moreso than any other game here, is the one I need to play to give a fair assessment. I know you requested some reasoning in why the BF series doesn't do it for us, so I'll try. Dunno how well I can do it, but I'll try.

-First, the vehicle deal. I wouldn't even go so far as saying I'll instantly condemn any game that has them. The thing with BF is they are far too prevalent. In my little experience in the BF2 Beta it felt as if there was always 2 tanks bearing down on us. Regardless of what it was I was attempting to do at the time, I'd have to stop & deal w/ them. As soon as you do another is showing up. I just prefer equal footing confrontations. This could be remedied by having a team, sure, but I feel like someone would always would have to be dedicated to eradicating vehicles. It's supposed to be part of its charm, I'm sure, but I honestly don't like not being able to take care of everything. I suppose the best way to put it would be that the game dictates what it is I do, rather than the other way around. It pulls focus from what I like to do most.

-Gunplay: Really hard to comment on, as I have difficulty remembering how it was. It wasn't all that satisfying though. It's just cut from a different cloth. Little info on where you're being shot from, less time to respond... Its more about the positioning aspect than the actual encounter. Another reason I'm not crazy about CoD.

-Big maps, lots of players. Again, there are two sides to this coin. Some will view it as being a realistic representation of a conflict. I personally think it lacks intimacy, for lack of a better word. I just sniped that dot. Despite all my efforts, or how integral (or lack of) I was to the victory, I'll never feel like I personally can make an impact on the game or its outcome. It's like that logging map on R2, you know where Team A would be in the logging area, & Team B would be on the hill, & everyone would snipe each other. I didn't pay attention to anyone's name, how they did or who killed me. They were just targets, if that makes sense?
 
GuzmanDate: Saturday, 23/July/2011, 10:10:12 PM | Message # 7
Lieutenant general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 668
Reputation: 2
Status: Offline
UC3: Not much to comment on here. I was somewhat putoff by some of the changes in the Beta, but I quickly got a hold on it & I feel the game is definitely on the right track. It needs some changes, sure, but simply the fact that the health is back to pre-patch UC2 would make me forgive its faults, & again I don't really feel it has any glaring problems. The ones it does I'm confident will be addressed, & for others there are workarounds. The gunplay, traversal, & mechanics are so damn fun. I'm still surprised how well it all meshes together. Absolute buy.

MW3: Virtually no chance. I barely played CoD4, had an instant dislike for it. I gave it another shot later on, gave it a real chance. I found it could be fun at times; I just had to come to understand the game, its mechanics & how it all played out. Truthfully, I may have been turned away by the game initially simply because I didn't do well at it on day 1. So BO came out, I decided that I'd get in on the newest installment so I could experience the game from the get-go, & to play w/ all of you. Well, I got it, & it was one of the most disappointing games I've played. The only thing that barely saved BO is the fact that I got to play w/ you guys. Even then: Go solo w/ ~ok connection, or play w/ buddies & have a shitty one. There are far too many frustrations associated w/ the game, & few redeeming qualities.

As goofy as this may sound, I think a good rule of thumb to go by is to simply think back on your gaming experience w/ that particular title. Resi, for me, even w/ 40ies & tags, is remembered fondly. The time spent was not wasted & I recall how much fun it was, faults n all. It brings a smile to my face. UC2, same thing, perhaps even more so, at least till its degradation. BO I hardly remember, actually, which is quite possibly worse than being in a bad light.. I can't remember any match in particular where "Man, that was cool." Regardless of if I did poorly, or 'beasted' I can't say I care. It left no impact on me. Which I interpret as- CoD ain't my thing, regardless of how future titles look. I doubt even dedicated servers could save it for me at this point. I pass.

Some responses/questions for you:

Quote (Kuzu)
i guess i should just stop beating around the bush; i dont like that i am so damn mediocre, skill-wise, in BC2. that really bothers me.

Is it really that though? The mechanics of the game & TMs determine that more than anything else IMO. It's not your fault.

Quote (Kuzu)
and seriously, breaking a controller every few weeks from mashing the left stick doesnt exactly make me happy either, lol.

What do you mean here? you don't click the stick any more than any other game.

Also: How big is "fuck-off huge, Mr. Kuz?" happy


Message edited by Guzman - Saturday, 23/July/2011, 10:12:57 PM
 
redhamuSLADate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 9:09:34 AM | Message # 8
Our Sexy Leader
Group: Administrators
Messages: 931
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline
UC3 for sure.

R3/MW3, not sure. On the fence.

BF3, going to try the beta.


 
nivasan6Date: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 11:17:18 AM | Message # 9
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
I don't mean to be a jerk or nothing, but Uncharted 3 is not an FPS. Sorry, but it was kind of bugging me, lol.

Back to the topic, I will be getting all of those minus MW3.

Uncharted 3: I will be getting it primarily for the single player campaign, I could care less about the multiplayer. I have another game in mind for when it comes to my multiplayer experience (Twisted Metal).

Battlefield 3: I'm a bit undecided on this one mainly because the PS3 version is going to be let down because of the 360. But, I'll probably have a better time playing it online on PS3 because I can pilot the helicopters and jets without any hassle. I just hope they have server lists for consoles. If not than I always have another game that will be coming out a few months after Battlefield 3 (Starhawk, which has both matchmaking and server lists).

Resistance 3: I will be getting this mainly for the single player campaign, but I will be playing this online until Twisted Metal.

I will be getting two games on the Resistance 3 release date: Resistance 3 and the Team ICO collection.
 
duxy87Date: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 12:02:17 PM | Message # 10
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Reputation: 2
Status: Offline
Where is the 'still don't f'n know' option?? lol

YEAR OF THE THREES


 
KuzuDate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 9:46:35 PM | Message # 11
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
guz: im at work (not working!) and i love to talk about games. so...
i understand your comments. let me address them and hopefully alieve some of your fears. really i think the first thing you have to do when considering playing BF games is to just forget comparing it to other FPS games and realize that it is just a "modern war" game. when i say that, i dont mean to expect that the whole game is focused on vehicles, because it certainly isnt. ill say this again; vehicles actually make much less of an impact than you think.

as i said before, in squad-TDM, there is only ONE vehicle available for all 16 players (4-squads of 4). very often it is the case that someone will put several sticks of c4 on it, or better yet some mines right in front...and just wait for someone to get in. once they do, its an instant death and no more vehicle. even if someone uses it, they very rarely get more than a few kills, and obviously this is not the way to go undetected, flank, get steady kills and keep on trucking. you are literally a sitting duck and attracting the attention of everyone else. in BF games many ppl enjoy taking out vehicles, so trust me when i say this, it wont last very long.

vehicles surely play an important role in objective games. in several maps, you start out literally miles apart from your opponents, so using something to get from point A to B is a necessity. many ppl use quad-bikes, jet-skis, jeeps, etc instead of the heavy hitters. tanks are strong, but they are also slow and quite easy to take out with 2 rockets, c4, or a mine. trust me again when i say this; ppl love blowing shit up, and that goes for defensive kills as well as offensive. so yes, a good tank driver may cause alot of damage. if ppl arent paying attention they can get funked up, and they will keep on their merry way. but a few decent players can take it out without much thought. tanks are basically used for protecting your capped point, for charging an attack on an enemy controlled point, or quite often just for the fun factor in blowing out the walls of buildings and watching that sniper go flying. in the end, you only use a tank on certain points, and you cant stay in it all day long because you will be the target of many players who take pure joy in blowing up vehicles.

now, one thing that does get to me occassionally is getting raped by an attack chopper. a very good chopper pilot can be a royal pain in the ass. though quite alot of ppl will crash instantly when they get in; these suckers are not easy to fly. the vast majority of players are average; they can fly around, without crashing into buildings, but they dont have pinpoint control. its more of a quick way to enjoy the thrill of flying a million-dollar war machine and getting more out of the game than constant running, jumping, and shooting in the same boring map. then there are a very select few who have great piloting skills and truly rule the sky. when u face those ppl, the game gets aggravating, i totally agree. but i could probably count with two-hands the amount of ppl ive faced who fit in this category. in the end, its very little. also, when you compare how often players get a Huey, Pavelow, attack chopper, or AC130 its really easy to see which is more cheap. at least in BF, the player must control it themselves. even then, average players will be very hard pressed to get more than a few kills in any vehicle (unlike the almost guaranteed 5-10+ you will get with top COD streaks).


 
KuzuDate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 9:46:44 PM | Message # 12
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
in the end, i wouldnt even say that you have to "deal" with them as in changing kits just to get the correct equipment to destroy them. in BF, more than any other game, players really embrace all the classes equally and there are a great many ppl who enjoy taking the defensive roles and blowing enemy vehicles up. in fact, i can basically guarantee that a great many ppl with less than average skills (normal FPS skills or controlling vehicles) are the very ones who take pride in destroying vehicles. it just feels good, and its something everyone can do.

so yes, you will need to use a little more ingenuity and smarts to avoid getting splattered by a tank/chopper at certain points, but that just adds to the suspense and realism. if you play tactically, you can very well keep your preferred kit and go on FPS-style battles without fear of vehicles. why? precisely BECAUSE the maps are so fuck-off big. there is no set camping spot. there is not just one or two routes, but a dozen instead. the game starts out at one part of the map (usually the largest section of the map, which caters to vehicles), but then it moves to the next portion of map, which may very well include NO vehicles and is just a bottleneck, where only FPS gunfights will ensue. then there is a third or fourth section of the map. so lets say each map has 3-4 sections each played an equal amout of time. i can basically bank on the fact that at most, 1-2 will be vehicle-heavy, and i know at least 1-2 will be almost entirely based on normal FPS-style gunfights.

i completely understand your desire to want to take care of everything yourself. but as i said, someone else (if not several others) will likely be doing that job for you. even if they dont, i cant tell you how much satisfaction i get taking out an enemy tank with 2 other players inside! i not only get 3 kills, i put a huge damper on their attack/defense and sent a message that they better think twice about pulling that shit again. you can easily choose an engineer with a (unviersal) semi-auto AR, with mines or rocket launcher and very much play your normal FPS battles, and use the 2ndary weapon for defensive purposes. or pick the sniper kit with an AR or shorter range sniper rifle and c4, and do the same thing. there are alot of choices.

basically, if you are facing 2 tanks and getting pummeled, it just means your team is full of noobs. in any normal situation, someone will take them out, use your own tanks and contest them, or go out of their way to destroy enemy vehicles. so i can only assume it was just bad luck that you are on a shitty team. but again, if all you are expecting is a pure FPS game, then you will never truly enjoy BF games. i like it because its a pure war experience and really feels like im part of a big battle (like out of the movies). for me, it doesnt compare to constant running rambo style around the map, relying purely on my spin/aim speed.


 
KuzuDate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 10:21:01 PM | Message # 13
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
guz: i think i can completely relate to you on the gunplay issue. it doesnt feel the same, i agree. im not sure if this is due to the fact i joined the game a year+ after its release, consequently connecting to Euro servers instead of japanese. i think that lag is the issue for me, but ive been told this wasnt the case for the game for a good year. once Jpn guys stopped playing, it means we cant connect to Jpn servers. but i do feel your point. its harder to gauge gun battles. there is so much going on (explosions, walls breaking, etc.) that its hard to know where the enemy is coming from. this also greatly has to do with the map design; since they are big maps it throws you off. i think a big reason im pretty good at COD is that i memorize the maps, know where the hotspots are, know how to counter some action, know how to flank this way or that to get the advantage. you hardly ever have this in BF, simply because there are so many routes, so many ways to get there (by air (parachute), by sea, by land) and so many options. you cant predict gunfights because you dont know where the enemy spawned; possibly on otheir squad-mate, staying safe in that building you havent checked. the map size and squad-spawning give it a different dynamic, and it is very different from other run & gun small-mapped FPS games.

but about the maps, i love them... i cant stress how much more fun they are. said this before too, but even one section (there are usually 3-4 sections per map) is easily anywhere between 2-5x bigger than a typical COD map. R1&2 maps come the closest to size and scope and considering they dont use vehicles may be comparable. i agree R2 had alot of random battles; you could just see hordes of enemies bunched up at certain points. you were almost forced into that area and in fact the maps were quite small considering how many players there were! in BF, this does not happen. the maps are far too open and large for ppl to be grouping up on opposite sides, all sitting in the same spot just shooting "dots". many times i see myself battling with another squad, because if they have some smart players they will know how to spawn more tactically, thus always getting up in your shit and vice versa. in this way, its actually much more personal (due to squad-spawning), since you may be in direct competition with the same 4 guys over and over. i dont feel like its just random killing; you may be forgetting that its not the goal of the game to kill, and certainly not to go 1v1 constantly. instead the purpose is to win the objective, so every kill that gets you closer to that point is a victory. i dont want to sound brash but your comments make me believe that killing 1v1 to determine the more "skilled player" is the only thing that really excites you about gaming (and i can understand this cuz i enjoyed it too!). however i think there is much more to gaming than that...playing the game as a team instead of solo "all-star" players playing for themselves.

i will say there were too many snipers, who often didnt contribute (see my only BF video for reference) to the team. in OBJ games they can be a pain if you are going for the win, and a handful just sit on various points of a mountain range and get limited kills without using the spot feature as is their job. but if that is the case, again, you were unlucky to get on a noob team.. and maybe just best to find a different game with players ready to fight for the team.

its not so much that big maps are more realistic (which they are...). but rather, more diverse, more unpredictable. im sorry, but i dont find it incredibly fun to go around the exact same small map, memorizing every vantage point, knowing the exact point of entries, utilzing map-knowledge to get the upper hand. you wait at that central opening, tunnel, ladder because you know 100% sure that someone will be coming, on foot, from that exact place. this is exactly why COD and dare i say resistance are arcade shooters. the winner is the one who knows the map and handles their weapon with the most accuracy. this seems like an obvious statement, but try to think about it. you run around a map, full speed, full well knowing just where and when the enemy will pop up. there is no randomness, no spontaneity. its all based on who gets there first, who has their weapon pointed at your head first, who has the best reactions for turning and aiming. its fun, dont get me wrong. i love it too, cuz you get in the action at lightning speeds. but its also boring, since you just do the same running and searching over the exact same points over and over. "this is the heavy traffic building, so ill watch out for dudes coming in this entrace" is pretty much the extent of it. it really seems like just an arcade shooter.


 
KuzuDate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 10:52:21 PM | Message # 14
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
finally, i want to address this comment: "Despite all my efforts, or how integral (or lack of) I was to the victory, I'll never feel like I personally can make an impact on the game or its outcome."

i cant think of anything more backwards to the concept of BF. if all you are thinking about is personal kills versus random strangers, then sure the kill has no meaning for you. but if you are truly putting your all into winning the game, every effort counts. getting kills is not integral to the game, but playing together certainly is. a solo gamer will not fare well in BF without the coordination of teammates. but when u have the drive to cooperate, every thing you do to battle for the win makes the outcome that much more rewarding. sitting on a hill sniping all game is obviously not rewarding (except for skill assessment). but spotting ppl, using strategic air-strikes (very weak btw), using the mic to communicate locations, and playing for the objective is very much rewarding, even if you only score a few kills after a 20-minute game. going in the front lines, spawning on your squadmates, taking heavy fire but pushing through to own that point is very rewarding, as long as you know your teammates will do the same for you.

i want to challenge you Guz, Red, (anyone who finds more joy in solo-gaming) to actually play as a team. when i say that, i mean get out your gosh-darn mic. use it. relay commands to your teammates, whether they are strangers or on your buddy list. spawn on them, give them advice. work together. roll in pairs and give them backup. even if you know you could take out 2 guys going the right side flanking, try going left and watching your teammate's back instead. play objective games and actually GO for the objective, dont just get kills and worry only about yourself. this may not be easy to do in COD games, because being selfish (myself prime candidate) is not only accepted, but basically expected of players. i know flanking is effective, especially when you are skilled enough to do it well and survive. you dont even need to change your style as long as you have a purpose to your game other than "ME". play your own style, great, but communicate and work for the TEAM instead of ME.

in BF there is nothing more important than the squad and team. one of the biggest problems i have with the game was getting in too many squads with clueless squadmates. if i had you guys, i would pee my pants with excitement. i wouldnt mind being the fall guy, the one who rushed out first as distraction. i so much yearn to play as a team and go the same direction... instead of everyone going opposite places, each flanking whomever, with the "me" mentality. playing as a squad, we can push for the point. call out strategy (Mr.A and B go left. C and D go flank). every point that you cap/defend in BF really feels like a hard-fought victory. i had very little joy in winning games in COD; the only thing that mattered was personal performance. BF outcomes mean much more to me than any other game. knowing that i helped give cover fire in whatever capacity, so that noobies could take the point is still something to feel satisfaction in. knowing that i was the nooby who sacrificed himself to take the point, while more skilled teammates stayed safe and spawned us gave me joy. knowing that we have to work as a team to get the job done is what BF is all about. so i know that my actions had an impact on the game's result.


 
KuzuDate: Sunday, 24/July/2011, 11:33:39 PM | Message # 15
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Reputation: 4
Status: Offline
thx everyone for your votes and responses.

(not an attack on guz, sry!) just trying to clarify certain points of the game that you may not have thought about. despite all that ive said, when i actually play it (especially solo) i just end up disappointed after a short time. probably due to lag no doubt, which should be gone at the start of BF3 (connecting to JP server instead). i dunno dude. i have hope, but also trepidation for BF3.


 
Forum » Games We Play (MP & Others) » Others » Shooting Game for Q4 2011
Page 1 of 41234»
Search:

Copyright DoOrDie86 © 2017