"fyi, I am basing this off of gameplay footage, not that single screenshot.
When I say firefall is "watered down" I mean 2 specific things. First, the graphics (more specifically the textures, level design, and grit). Secondly, the physics. Overall, this game doesn't look quite as well-rounded as borderlands. And this isn't me trying to put consoles on a pedestal. You can get borderlands on the PC and its a great version. I would recommend it before this game.
Just to solidify the point I made about this being a borderlands wannabe, I think we should go over all the factors that these games have in common.
- they both take place largely in a mountainous desert
The world in Firefall is reported to be diverse, the desert isn't the only locale
- they are both FPS RPGs,
Judging by gameplay videos they play absolutely nothing alike. Plenty of shooters have ranking systems these days
- they both contain MMO characteristics (such as taking quests that involve collecting items or killing enemies)
We don't know how quests are going to work in Firefall, if there are quests at all. You're jumping to conclusions.
- they both have a similar cartooney $tyle
Alert the presses. That artstle allows games to look good while being easy to run on weak machines.
- they both offer character/weapon customization
Plenty of shooters do.
- they both largely capitalize on multiplayer.
Firefall is only multiplayer, there is no singleplayer component like Borderlands
Now…… are you really going to sit there and tell me that you see no similarities between this game and borderlands besides the visuals?"
I'll sit here and tell you it has more in common with Tribes than Borderlands.
I compare it to "world at war," simply because they both take place in a similar period and they are in the same genre. I could compare it to many various FPS games, and get the same point across, but I thought this would be more fair considering the limitations of the time period and historical context.
The point is that "red Orchestra 2"s campaign looks very underwhelming. "World at war" at least attempted to demonstrate large-scale battles, cinematic intensity, and a general sense of energy. "Red Orchestra 2" looks pretty dull in comparison. No amount of its supposed "realism" will disguise this.
But lets talk about the amazing factors you listed
Realistic arms gameplay? What do you mean by that? The most I have heard about the guns in this game is that they have more recoil. First of all, most FPS games have plenty of recoil. Exactly how inaccurate and awkward do your weapons have to be? Secondly, I really don't care how much my guns bounce around when I shoot them. Its not an important factor at all. A game could have virtually no recoil and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I fail to see how it is some objective, universal positive to have more recoil in FPS games. It puzzles me when I hear it from so many people, especially the PC crowd.
"Realistic tank gameplay?" once again you use innocuous and especially odd terms. First of all, I think its prudent to point out that the vehicle sections (no matter how well made) are almost always everybody's least favorite part of any FPS game. So, this already doesn't seem like a very useful innovation. Secondly, I would like you to point out exactly what is so stupendous about these tanks, because the gameplay tank footage doesn't look like anything exceptional.
Cover system? Yeah, this game is a little late to the party. Cover systems are becoming more and more common and will soon be the norm.
Bullet physics?............. all I hear is the sound of crickets at this point.
64 player battles? There are plenty of games that can run this many players at once. Hell, resistance 2 can run 60 and that game is 3 years old.
One thing I like about red orchestra 2 is that it largely reveals PC gamers for being totally pretentious and detached from reality.
arbitor365
Again you demonstrate to me you know very little about Red Orchestra. You complain about the campaign. Did you complain about the campign in Battlefield 2? How about Unreal Tournament 2004? Red Orchestra is a multiplayer series, the campaign mode will most likely be hunt the bot, but that's not why people will buy. The game takes into account where the player has been hit, has a physics engine for the bullets, the player will bleed out when shot and the environments will be degradable, amongst other things. Recoil is hardly a 'realistic' feature to gloat about, I agree with your paragraph though it could be summed up with nothing more than a sentence. Luckily recoil isn't a part of RO2 that is being marketed.
In RO:OOST the tank battles were considered to be the best part of the game by many people, not only that but it enhanced the infantry gameplay. If you expect tanks to be rolling fortresses that the player will use to destroy a few buildings before ejecting, you've been misinformed. In RO2 you control each individual occupant of the tank, it's unlike anything else done in a multplayer shooter, at least one with this budget. The damage model Tripwire is going after is rivalled only by WWIIOnline. If you're thinking "so what?", then that proves these types of games don't appeal to you, not that they aren't exceptional. These facts interest me very much.
I'm not going to respond to your last four sentences, they're just a demonstration of your ridiculous bias against this game and lack of interest due to the game simply not appealing to you. Do you consider all the games you don't like to be pretentious? And their fans detatched from reality? Isn't that taking it a bit too far, a bit too general?
Ok I'll bite: I never said having a cover system was original, but RO2's system seems refined and is completely integrated into the multiplayer component. Nor did I say having 64 players was unique, but it's definitely a point of interest for any game, especially when the game is combined arms and the maps scale according to the amount of players on the server, no meat grinding.
I call the RTS feature a gimmick, but don't take it as purely derogatory. I don't consider what the first game started as real innovation because this idea was never strong enough to permeate the FPS genre. It hasn't really gone anywhere. Mainly because this idea wouldn't really work in most FPS games. Also, the general concept of switching in and out of action and strategy didn't start with natural selection 1. has been around since "battle chess" on the NES, and probably even before that.
I criticize the FPS gameplay because the gunplay, physics, battle intensity, graphics, diversity, level design, and cinematic quality seem to be rather weak. If it weren't for the RTS feature, this game would just be another mediocre FPS game with not much going for it.
arbitor365
You're comparing Natural Selection to Battlechess? Do you even research these games? I mean, really? "Switching in and out of action and strategy"? Now you have to be pulling my leg, you're arguing about a game you don't know anything about. At least compare NS to Gloom or Tremulous.You say that without playing the damn game, then you call it mediocre. You call the level design mediocre when only two maps have been released for the beta, one being a test map. You bring up terms like battle intensity and cinematic quality that are so broad what they could mean anything and probably only relate to your opinion. Sorry, I can't read your thoughts. You say it lacks diversity when it's one of the few FPS where both teams play completely differently.
This is turning into a joke.
Well I gave my reasons against the games you listed I can equally defend the games I listed
Resistance 3 – first of all, Resistance 2 was incredible. It made massive improvements over the previous game and the controls were pretty much perfect. The campaign was one of the most impressive that I have seen in this gen. It brought you to many interesting locations, it was challenging, it had impressive boss battles, and the scale was enormous. The multiplayer, especially the co-op, was very fun as well.
Judging by what I have seen about resistance 3, it looks even better than the last game. Improvements have been made to the enemy AI and apparently to the controls (which I find hard to imagine considering how good they were before). The sty|e/visuals, the story, the setting, and many of the themes seem to bear a resemblance to Cormac McCarthy's "The Road."
This really interests me. Of course, even if I knew nothing about the game, I would still buy it simply because it is made by insomniac. This company has never made a single bad game after 15+ titles. They have always had a tendency to improve their franchises with every entry (eg. Spyro, ratchet and clank, and the previous resistance games).
Duke Nukem – I have heard from the beta testers that this game is going to be incredible and they have said, and I quote, "the king is back." Apparently this is going to be a throwback to duke nukem 3d and I have heard that it will include the best of this gen with the best of the originals. It's a very hushed project but all the testers say that it is amazing.
Killzone 3 – the last game pushed the envelope in visuals and scale and it had the first really effective cover system that the FPS genre has seen. I played KZ3 at E3 last year and it was incredible. This game is everything that was good about killzone 2 and then some. This is the best FPS game I have seen this gen.
arbitor365
I'm not denying the quality of those games, I'm probably going to purchase all of them and Duke Nukem is in my top 3 most anticipated titles of 2011, but seriously you praise them for features which you criticize for those PC shooters I've mentioned while dismissing others. Your arguments are completely rooted in predisposed opinion.
Oh look, you praise Killzone for it's cover system, Resistance for its scale, Duke Nukem for its beta feedback. Red Orchestra 2? "unintrestin!". Natural Selection 2? level design? Firefall? "Ripoff!" It's just double standards and bias. I've been elaborately trolled.
Log in to comment