[QUOTE="marklar123"]

I've been playing the beta for a while now and really can't figure out what all the hype for this game is all about.

The controls are just bad. They are sluggish and wonky. Switching from a normal gun to sniper doesn't drop the sensitivity enough so you have to adjust it on your mouse. Anyone who doesn't have a gaming mouse is at a disadvantage. In other games, aiming feels like an extension of your hand. In this game, it just feels weird and unresponsive. Add in that you can't strafe while running (which is akin to not being able to turn your neck while running in real life), you can't go prone, knifing is horrible, and vehicles handle poorly. The controls alone are preventing me from getting this game.

Next you have gameplay. I understand there will be other gametypes and perhaps I'd like those better, but the one in the beta I'm just not big on. It basically comes down to vehicle camping, sniper camping, lone wolves, people using C4 to take out the objectives in an instant, and stupid squad spawning in the back with a bunch of medics. Some may argue that the squad spawning in the back is a strategy, and i agree that it is, but if a game requires its players to resort to cheap tactics in order to win, it's pretty lame. Also, in all the time I've played it, I've never felt part of a "team". I've always felt alone and doing stuff on my own. There is zero sense of cooperation in this game. Even if I join a squad, no one talks or tries to do anything together. The only way you can feel like you're cooperating is if you resort to the lame squad spawning behind the enemy.

There are other minor quibbles I could mention but at this point, who cares? I feel like this game could have been an absolutely amazing game if just a few things were balanced, changed, or added. Some things I understand to a point such as the no prone, but there are ways around that to prevent abuse. The fact that they don't implement them tells me they don't care or it's just a console port.

So I ask, why do you like this game? I honestly can't understand its popularity. I feel like FPS's are just getting worse and worse every year and I personally feel like consoles are to blame. That's a whole other discussion though. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how so many people can overlook so many fundamental flaws. I want to like this game.

Ondoval

Joke post?

-Gaming mouses doesn't make a clear cut over standard mouses, specially in shooters NOT heavily skill-based as BC 2.

-No prone; the game lacks this feature, but I think is not critical and makes the game more agressive.

-Knives are insta-kill, so the rate of attacks is slow, but still very efficient. Vehicle handling is as in most of BF: the best in the genre.

-You're either playing with the worst bunch of n00bs since the full metal jacket movie or just trolling. Is one of the FINEST teamwork oriented shooters in the market, due it has a improved squad respawn system, that not lonly gives your teammates the chance to reborn up to in 3 different points, but also to look what is happening in any of the available locations.

-Some of the exploits -as the C4+ quads rushes- will be fixed in the final game -increasing the amount of charges needed to destroy M-COM Stations up to 15-.

I'm not trolling. I tried to explain that I really wanted this game to be good and think it's really close to being good but there are so many things that all add up to me and many of my friends to just not even bother. My friends have played coop games before and we don't think this is anywhere near "one of the FINEST". If you call spawning on your squadmates while hiding behind the enemy with a bunch of medics fun, then by all means, it's all yours. I don't get it. To me, it's almost an exploit. I know it's not but it gets pretty stupid to kill someone only to have them revived magically as if defibs have become the greatest medical advancement since penicillin.

The mouse thing I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. You may not realize it but mouse sensativity does change automatically when you zoom in with your sniper versus a different gun. In COD for example, it drops a certain amount to make your aiming more precise. In this game, it doesn't go down enough when you use your scope. I have to use my sensativity setting on my mouse to take it down even further otherwise the crosshair jumps too much.

The prone I can live with but it is stupid. I think it's most important for when you're trying to avoid being spotted by a tank. It's pretty hard to sneak up on a tank when you can't even hide behind anything! They could have made it so snipers can't go prone with their rifles if you're worried about snipers being too hidden. There are many options here but they didn't even try.

The knife's animation is delayed and wonky. I can't tell you how many knife fights I've seen or been in where no one could stab eachother because it's too inaccurate. Again, it's minor and I could live with it but it adds up.

As far as vehicles are concerned, the land based vehicles are fine. I was mainly getting at the UAV and chopper. Yes you can get used to it with practice but it is no where near being intuitive or user friendly. It's been done better in other games.

Maybe my definition of coop is a little more elaborate than yours is? Just because you can spawn on your teammate doesn't mean there's a lot of cooperation going on. There's zero cooperation going on between squads. One squad has no idea what another is trying to do. Neither me nor my friends have ever felt like we were part of something bigger that we were all working towards. We always feel like we're doing our own thing. This game is supposed to be based on coop. I feel like it's failed miserably. Maybe they need to bring back the commander from BF2 or have VOIP between squad leaders? Something needs to change though to help unify the team because I rarely play in games that are close or where people are working towards a common objective.

"Add in that you can't strafe while running (which is akin to not being able to turn your neck while running in real life)" No, lol, not really. Renevent42

Umm...yes, really. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough for you but when you run, can you turn your head and look to see what's around you? Yes, you can. Try to see what's around you while running in BC2. You can't. You have to stop and turn your mouse to see what's to the side.

I love the rank progression and the point system towards A LOT of unlocks, I love the realism of the gaming (as far as war time shooter goes) and I love the experience I've experienced when working together with my friends. The fact that they supported the PC community with the introduction of dedicated servers/more player capacity provides the icing on the cake. Did I also mention that I bought this game out of spite for infinityward.

P.S. I think you've been unlucky in finding servers where everybody are noobs who camps on the sniper hill. I myself have been lucky in finding servers where people actually work together in squads and see some intense close combat urban fighting between the assulters and defenders.

AzNs3nSaT1On

I've been playing the beta for a while now and really can't figure out what all the hype for this game is all about.

The controls are just bad. They are sluggish and wonky. Switching from a normal gun to sniper doesn't drop the sensitivity enough so you have to adjust it on your mouse. Anyone who doesn't have a gaming mouse is at a disadvantage. In other games, aiming feels like an extension of your hand. In this game, it just feels weird and unresponsive. Add in that you can't strafe while running (which is akin to not being able to turn your neck while running in real life), you can't go prone, knifing is horrible, and vehicles handle poorly. The controls alone are preventing me from getting this game.

Next you have gameplay. I understand there will be other gametypes and perhaps I'd like those better, but the one in the beta I'm just not big on. It basically comes down to vehicle camping, sniper camping, lone wolves, people using C4 to take out the objectives in an instant, and stupid squad spawning in the back with a bunch of medics. Some may argue that the squad spawning in the back is a strategy, and i agree that it is, but if a game requires its players to resort to cheap tactics in order to win, it's pretty lame. Also, in all the time I've played it, I've never felt part of a "team". I've always felt alone and doing stuff on my own. There is zero sense of cooperation in this game. Even if I join a squad, no one talks or tries to do anything together. The only way you can feel like you're cooperating is if you resort to the lame squad spawning behind the enemy.

There are other minor quibbles I could mention but at this point, who cares? I feel like this game could have been an absolutely amazing game if just a few things were balanced, changed, or added. Some things I understand to a point such as the no prone, but there are ways around that to prevent abuse. The fact that they don't implement them tells me they don't care or it's just a console port.

So I ask, why do you like this game? I honestly can't understand its popularity. I feel like FPS's are just getting worse and worse every year and I personally feel like consoles are to blame. That's a whole other discussion though. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how so many people can overlook so many fundamental flaws. I want to like this game.

thanks. a trainer sounds like a good idea. i don't mind traveling through uncharted areas, but i've had to travel back to that guy in the bunker serveral times now and it's driving me nuts. it's the same crap i've seen already so i don't think i'm missing anything.

thanks for the responses.

ok, there's been a ton of people singing the praises of STALKER on this forum so i thought i'd give it a try. i've played maybe an hour and can't get into it mainly for the reason of all the time it wastes. it makes me walk everywhere- which takes forever. this game has been compared to an FPS mixed with Oblivion. well, in Oblivion you could click on the map and it would take you there (kinda like a warp) as long as you has already explored that area.

my question is, is there anything like that in STALKER? i just can't play a game that requires me to go back and forth between points that take about 20 minutes just to walk there. i have better things to waste my life on.

[QUOTE="marklar123"]

let the gamers pay what they feel the game is worth. it will be a lot less than the $50 they take now, but they would have less pirating and by not using a publisher i bet they would make more than they are now. there have been so many games that i've played that just aren't worth $50 so i won't buy them. if i could pay about $25-$30 i would do it. someone should try it once... it worked for Radiohead.

rudyroundhead

I agree with this in a way. I purchase games but if a game looks mediocre I either wont' buy it or wait until I see itin a bargain bin 3 or 4 years later fi I can find it at all. With yrou method I woudl be willing to pay $15 to $20 for a mediocre game when it comes out. The only problem I see is don't most of these games cost millions of dollars to develop so I can't see a company betting there return on investment on the generosity fo the gamign community.

i see what you're saying. i never really thought about how much more it costs to make a video game vs. a music album. be that as it may, i still think there's got to be a way around this. it might just be a matter of someone willing to take the risk. IMO it's gonna have to be an established IP so people will already want to play it. i think this could be perfect for Counter Strike 3 (when they release it) everyone knows it so there really wouldn't have to be any advertising. and besides, they'll get enough press for "giving away the game" just like Radiohead got a ton of press for what they did.

with a game like CS3, it wouldn't really be considered a full game so they wouldn't have to charge as much either- limiting the total potential loss in the event of failure. also, Valve already owns it's own distributing platform- another reason i think it would work. they're already gonna have their own game engine so they wouldn't have to pay to license it. i really feel it could work. on top of that, i think Valve is well off enough to be able to "float" if it backfires. i just don't see this happening though. i really feel this could work.

one of the big time game makers needs to take a cue from Radiohead. for those of you not familiar, Radiohead released their latest album on their own website for "whatever you want to pay us". by selling it on their own, they didn't need a publisher so they didn't have to pay the publisher's crazy fees. i'll have to go find the figures but it turns out that with an average take of around 4 pounds (i think that's what it was) per CD, they are making more money than if they had been with a lable. the publishers take that much money.

let the gamers pay what they feel the game is worth. it will be a lot less than the $50 they take now, but they would have less pirating and by not using a publisher i bet they would make more than they are now. there have been so many games that i've played that just aren't worth $50 so i won't buy them. if i could pay about $25-$30 i would do it. someone should try it once... it worked for Radiohead.

Internet connection for online registration.

No internet? Then telephone registration using an automated or person at the other end of line system where you give a unique 10 digit number, they then give you a 5-10 digit/letter code back in return which you place in the game. This then registers your copy of the game. Each installation of the game requires you to call or use this number every-time it's installed.

This will then monitor how many copies are being installed, if more than 2 then the developer knows that there may be piracy going on and a 3rd code is not given out over the telephone.

Just an idea we've had.

S2PGaming

i'm pretty sure that's what they did with Bioshock. you had to register online or over the phone and you only got so many registration codes. this failed miserably. pirates found ways around it and the legit players had to deal with all the BS with stolen registration codes and the limited registration codes.

there will always be piracy but i think alot of piracy is due to the fact that there is no way for PC gamers to know if they will really like the game. and don't give that line that demo's are for that purpose....cause demos never convey an accurate picture of what the game actually is. gamers need more than an hour of gameplay to know if they game sucks or not. they also need to know if the game will run on their computer.

i personally think most games are way overpriced, and it's not due to piracy...just look at console games where piracy is a fraction of what it is on the PC, yet they charge more for the games. people are sick of being ripped off. people are left with a bad taste in their mouths when they pay $50+ for a game they can't return that is absolute crap. reviews are too subjective. and then there the whole technical aspect of wondering if the game will run on your system.

there is no good answer to this problem. if you make it harder for pirates, it just makes it harder for the legit buyers...and the pirates will ALWAYS find a way around obstacles. the only thing i can think of would be to require demos that are at least 3-5 hours long.