Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 03, 2006, 01:46:43 AM
When the Revolution controller was unveiled, one of the genres it seemed best tailored for was First Person Shooters, and there's certainly been no shortage of speculation on what famous franchises might be Revolutionized in the coming years. The latest rumor on the subject comes via Got-Next, who claim that their "spy pirates" have confirmed a new iteration of Activision's Call of Duty series for Nintendo's newest console at launch and that it'll make special use of the innovative controller.
Spy pirates? Who hires pirates when ninjas are so much better for covert operations?
PGC contacted Activision, who had no comment on the matter, but we believe there's a strong possibility that, even if Call of Duty isn't a launch title, it'll show up sooner or later. Activision has already solidified its support for Revolution, and since Finest Hour and Big Red One appeared on the GameCube, there's not much of a reason for this new game to snub Nintendo.
But seriously, pirates? What were they thinking? They’re scurvy dogs!
If Got-Next's report is correct, though, the game will be handled by EXAKT Entertainment, the same developer that ported True Crime: Streets of LA and Finest Hour to the GameCube. Based on the company's history, this sounds reasonable, but we won't know for sure until E3 or whenenever launch titles are revealed.
Stay tuned to PGC as we acquire news from our trustworthy spy ninjas.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 03:25:23 AM
Post by: Caliban on April 03, 2006, 05:07:55 AM
Post by: mantidor on April 03, 2006, 05:52:39 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 03, 2006, 07:17:33 AM
Though seriously that would probably interest me more. I find World War II (or Vietnam or Desert Storm or ANY modern war theme) shooters boring as dirt. They might have decent gameplay but the whole style just bores the crap out of me. When people talk about how gaming is becoming stale this is the sort of stuff I'm tired of. I find realistic themes incredibly dull. A game needs to have some fantasy elements to it for me.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 03, 2006, 07:42:35 AM
Post by: Knoxxville on April 03, 2006, 08:25:29 AM
Post by: Caliban on April 03, 2006, 08:33:25 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 03, 2006, 08:44:07 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on April 03, 2006, 08:47:49 AM
True but I've never played a professional sport either and yet I find those games uninteresting. It's just a personal preference I guess. When I say I want a fantasy usually what I mean is I want something that no one could ever do. Something that just could never be real. Wolfenstein 3D is a WWII FPS but it has this really fantasy scenario of one guy taking out an entire base of Nazis with a gattling gun and fighting zombies and in the end coming face to face with Hitler in a MECH.
Though honestly if there was only one WWII shooter I probably would give it a fair shake because it would be unique for a videogame. It's just been done to death in a very short period of time. Realistic setting + overused concept = DULL.
Post by: Smash_Brother on April 03, 2006, 09:01:05 AM
Playing a FPS cannot even begin to replicate the experience of actual combat. It never has been able to and it never will. The Rev controller might up the immersion factor slightly, but calling a WWII FPS an "homage" is blasphemy against all of the men who actually died fighting for or against Hitler's war machine (news flash: if you think every German to fight in that war wanted the war, you are sorely mistaken).
Games grounded in reality never reach the levels of those which explore fantasy, especially when the reality has indeed been done to death.
Post by: Knoxxville on April 03, 2006, 09:12:46 AM
And to whom it may concern, the GAME is re-living the war, as its main selling point is based in how accurate it portrays said events....whether or not I was in the war is irrelevant (I am a 10 year US Army vet, BTW), and was not to be taken in such a literal sense.
That said, I hate realistic games (or games based in reality with no fantasy and/or far fetched themes whatsoever, to be clear), period.
Post by: SS4Gogita on April 03, 2006, 10:20:54 AM
Post by: TMW on April 03, 2006, 11:42:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SS4Gogita
Pirates > Ninjas
Agreed.
Don't get me wrong....ninja's are cool...but pirates are just MORE cool.
And..well, while the WWII genre of FPS's never had a draw for me, I'd probably get this anyways...FPS with the Rev controller as a launch title? Count me in.
What about Ubisofts FPS? Any word if thats supposed to be a launch title?
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on April 03, 2006, 12:44:29 PM
Post by: Renny on April 03, 2006, 01:44:40 PM
Post by: Spak-Spang on April 03, 2006, 01:56:29 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on April 03, 2006, 03:37:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"But you aren't reliving it, you haven't lived in war (pending on your age), and in so you are escaping your reality and 'experiencing' something that you haven't before."
True but I've never played a professional sport either and yet I find those games uninteresting. It's just a personal preference I guess. When I say I want a fantasy usually what I mean is I want something that no one could ever do. Something that just could never be real. Wolfenstein 3D is a WWII FPS but it has this really fantasy scenario of one guy taking out an entire base of Nazis with a gattling gun and fighting zombies and in the end coming face to face with Hitler in a MECH.
Though honestly if there was only one WWII shooter I probably would give it a fair shake because it would be unique for a videogame. It's just been done to death in a very short period of time. Realistic setting + overused concept = DULL.
Yeah, I'm with Ian on this one. I'm not really interested in reliving someone else's reality, ESPECIALLY if their reality included being shot at and seeing your friends die in the mud. And I do think that these T-rated, under-the-top war games do a great disservice to veterans, who know that real war is much different, and to gamers, who may develop an almost comical idea of war if their primary exposure to the subject is through these games.
Post by: Knoxxville on April 03, 2006, 03:51:28 PM
Gotta love it.....reality SUCKS.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 03, 2006, 04:00:33 PM
If it's turns out to be a TACTICAL SIMULATION a la CLASSIC [that's CLASSIC!] Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon, then I'll keep it in my radar.
Post by: Nephilim on April 03, 2006, 04:01:56 PM
due to every server needing a high training rank, they have done this to stop "noobs" but at the same time the average player
edit:
COD2 is pretty good, Multiplayer was fun at a lan, we practiced in "bomb mode" were you only had 1 life
COD could be a good online fps for the launch of rev and it was the top selling game at launch of 360
so its not a game to roll your eyes at
Post by: KDR_11k on April 04, 2006, 12:24:14 AM
I wonder... Since games are now considered media instead of toys they should be able to depict nazi symbols, right? Problem is of course what role the player has and what his environment is. Depicting Nazi propaganda of any kind in thegame wouldn't just get it banned, it'd make people go nuts if they just hear about it (I hear they need LOTS of police, doctors and psychologists around when they play those Nazi propaganda movies in the Filmmuseum Potsdam because simply seeing them can traumatize people or give them heart attacks). Though you can probably find games made by Neonazi groups that put the player in the role of e.g. a KZ Lagerleiter or a Wehrmacht soldier while glorifying the Reich.
problem with america army is that its advertised as a free fps, yet you have to spend 3hours beating all the training missions to even get to play it online in a server
due to every server needing a high training rank, they have done this to stop "noobs" but at the same time the average player
If you aren't willing to go through training you aren't in their target demographic, anyway. The rank of a private isn't handed to you on a silver platter, it has to be earned like any other rank. America's Army IS made by the army, they wouldn't want you to think you just get your gun and start shooting things, you go through extensive training and brainwashing before you even lay hand on the rifle, even more until they hand you the matching ammunition. Of course AA doesn't depict how the first thing a soldier learns is to clean his room and the entire building. Three times a day. Maybe the US Army doesn't do that as frequently as the Bundeswehr or maybe because "learn how to clean three times a day" doesn't sound nearly as glorious as "fight to defend your country!".
Post by: Ian Sane on April 04, 2006, 07:23:53 AM
That's one problem with games that strive to be realistic. They try so hard at some things and then slack off on another and complete kill the feel. Reality can be restrictive so if you're going to strive for it stick to it. Otherwise there's just a bunch of annoying restrictions. If I'm playing a "realistic" game and I shoot someone in the leg he better go down clutching his leg and be unable to walk. Nothing bothers me more then dying because someone shot me in the head but me shooting them in the chest did nothing but take off health. One thing that would have made my brother's AA experience better would be if you couldn't respawn. Die and you're dead for the rest of the round. Then people would actually value their life and not run into enemy fire willy-nilly and would try to work as a team to survive.
Post by: The Omen on April 04, 2006, 07:28:40 AM
Quote
Of course AA doesn't depict how the first thing a soldier learns is to clean his room and the entire building. Three times a day.
Animal Crossing....Basic Training!
By the way, it appears to me after reading this thread that any game announced is trashed if it doesn't include a magical fairy or Bullet Bob. Bodes well for the third party support.
Post by: oohhboy on April 04, 2006, 08:18:58 AM
In some ways it is realsitic. Playing the game full spectrum style with individual members being a fire team works. It really works if your firing a LMG at them. Friendly moves in under covering fire and caps the target. Damage from explosives modeled on kill zone and frag zone works well. It is possible to get hit by a fragment from 20 meters away or not get hit from a genade exploding in front of you assuming your not in the concussion part of the blast zone. Weapon modeling works well. The LMG kicks around alot if you try to fire it standing. Sniper rifles take alot of skill to use effectively. Pistols have horrible ranges. Assult rifles are good single round weapons with decent close fire rate. M4s and AKMs make for an expanded game in terms of options and play styles. People can be pegged by RPGs and Launched genades without the round exploding. RPGs can go wild or dud. Weapon Jams are a part of life. You can bleed out if not attended to by a medic. the points system does encouage a form team play.
Although the games still "Breaks". People use the M203 (genade Launcher) like a mortar and firing them in different arcs to get time on target attacks where both shots land at the same time. it really hurts when you play SF maps where everybody can load up on M203 Mods. Also close combat doesn't work all that well considering how the game handles lag. If your ping is lower than 100 than you can shoot on target, otherwise you have to lead the target regardless of distance. It is not uncommon to see two guys unload 2 clips from their M16s at each other with no result. Also the game for some reason needs pretty good specs to run aceptably given the age of the game.
Mind you though, some liberities must be taken or otherwise a game would be rendered unplayable. If they were to model damage so realisticly as to have you hit the ground screaming after taking a hit, nobody would play as it would encouge way too much camping.
If anything else the game has taught me to never enlist ever. No matter how good you are, it only takes one lucky shot to take you down.
Oh one more thing if it does hit the fan atleast I would know better than to run around like those stupid civs in those light gun games.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 04, 2006, 08:48:27 AM
I don't know. This was like years ago. I might even be wrong about the respawning.
Post by: Jensen on April 04, 2006, 02:48:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Which version did he play? I have never played a version where you respwaned in the same round."
I don't know. This was like years ago. I might even be wrong about the respawning.
Yeah, your account of the game seems to be the opposite of what I've seen. Since the rounds can last several minutes, and there are no respawns, the game can be quite tense. Team kills/damage is very discouraged... I think two TKs will get you knocked off the server. It will also hurt your Honor. (players with higher Honor points can pick positions/weapons first) Teamwork and coordination is needed to prevent TKs and to beat the other team.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 04, 2006, 03:08:10 PM
It ticks me off that "military" is simply a costume/flavor for games w/ guns these days. Shields, life meters, health packs, ridiculously steady aim while running, etc... it's no wonder people have no problem running/strafing around like idiots (aka "advanced techniques"). It totally breaks the illusion I was hoping to get out of these games and their modern hi-rez GAFFIX and technology.
Therefore I continue to roll my eyes whenver I hear about military shooters by EA, Activision, Ubi, etc, cuz they never fail to disappoint me. Nuances in the gameplay (and the proper implementation of squad tactics), not # of enemies or voice acting or large maps or vehicles or textures, ultimately determine the experience and presentation. Is it a military sim, or just another casual blast-fest with authetic costuming?
Post by: Caliban on April 04, 2006, 05:27:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Omen
By the way, it appears to me after reading this thread that any game announced is trashed if it doesn't include a magical fairy or Bullet Bob. Bodes well for the third party support.
Spot on.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 05, 2006, 01:33:44 AM
Most games consider you dead when you suffer an incapaciating injury because to the game it really doesn't matter if your character could be treated in a hospital, if he can't fight he's out. OTOH, 5.56mm rounds aren't fatal and they aren't designed to be, if you've got a good threshold for pain you could take a few of those and keep fighting. 5.56mm are supposed to injure the target enough to incapacitate him but not so much he can't scream for his life and demoralize his allies.
Mind you though, some liberities must be taken or otherwise a game would be rendered unplayable. If they were to model damage so realisticly as to have you hit the ground screaming after taking a hit, nobody would play as it would encouge way too much camping.
What's bad about camping? If you don't want players to camp don't give them a mission goal that can be archieved through camping. Camping happens in real combat.
Respawning would maybe help with that a bit as seen in BF2 since troop sizes are usually larger than the players participating in a game (sniping is effective against few enemies but not against many of them or if they start bringing in the armor). BF2's objectives also discourage camping to a degree, staying in one place all the time means you can cover at best one control point. There's not enough players to camp each control point at once, especially not enough to repell a mixed force (with armor and/or air support).
By the way, it appears to me after reading this thread that any game announced is trashed if it doesn't include a magical fairy or Bullet Bob. Bodes well for the third party support.
It's another sequel in a series that is getting stale already, if that's the best third parties have to offer they really don't matter. Fortunately there are better titles than this.
Post by: oohhboy on April 05, 2006, 04:19:40 AM
PSX MOH was a fun novelty to play when it first came out. Then Omaha beach was a stroll on a beach and about as exciting. It has being going down hill for quite a while. Brothers in Arms worked out to be fairly refreshng, but the second half ends up the same. I played the lastest COD on PC. I laughed at how silly it was. The Russians were repeling an "overwhelming" German attack on hard having seen my mate play it on normal. The germans came across the field faster than normal. Then they all tried to come through the one hole I was guarding. Swaped over to that Russian SMG and held down the fire button while the Germans clipped into each other climbing into my window. They all died a useless and silly death.
Even if this was real news, I wouldn't give a rats arse.
Post by: KDR_11k on April 05, 2006, 04:44:57 AM
That means they lose, doesn't it? Maybe that could be sped up if staying in the spawn area for too long triggers an artillery strike (if you're attacking), or at least gets your characer executed for desertion.
Post by: oohhboy on April 05, 2006, 05:10:16 AM
Post by: vudu on April 05, 2006, 09:06:12 AM
QuoteThis is probably why the most fun I've ever had with FPS multiplayer is back in the day when we used to play one-hit kills in GoldenEye.
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
If I'm playing a "realistic" game and I shoot someone in the leg he better go down clutching his leg and be unable to walk. Nothing bothers me more then dying because someone shot me in the head but me shooting them in the chest did nothing but take off health.
Post by: OverHeat on April 05, 2006, 01:37:16 PM
Please keep in mind before blasting me for rumors, that these are ALL rumors, after all, right guys?
So, given that, entertain the idea. Who would give a crap about CoD with Metroid out? Would Nintendo hold off on Metroid Prime 3 as a favor to the company and tweak MP3 out to make it a better game?
I mean, Nintendo has gone on and on about the FPS capabilities of the controller, right? The system is going to need at /least/ one "killer app" game when it comes out, right? One of the demos Nintendo showed off at last year's TGS was a version on MP2 with the Rev controller, right? One of the only games to be shown for the Rev (although we all know that was crap) was a quick reel of MP3, right?
Sorry, just thinking out loud again...
Post by: Ian Sane on April 05, 2006, 02:10:35 PM
Well most of us are hoping that Metroid Prime 3 won't play that much like CoD. Even if you consider the first two Metroid Primes to be FPS games they certainly have a unique formula that's different from a traditional FPS. I imagine even if Metroid Prime 3 doesn't have lock-on aiming it will be much more exploration and adventure oriented then something like CoD. Thus both games should be able to coexist because they're different enough from each other.
Plus it's a launch game. Launch games always sell pretty good just because there's only like 20 games on the whole system.
Post by: OverHeat on April 05, 2006, 02:35:36 PM
Still, even with "only" 20 games at launch, to buy most/all those games is something that again, only the rich, involved with the industry or hardcore hobbiests will do. I mean, I love my Nintendo games and all, but I already know that when we find out what games are coming out at launch, I will only be getting 1 of those realistically, 2 hopefully, and if I can somehow sucker one over on my wife (NOT likely. sometimes marrying a smart girl comes back to bite me in the @$$
) I will get more. Not helping my cause is the fact that, as of right now, it looks like Zelda will be coming out entirely too close to the system's launch, further jeapordizing my ability to buy multiple games. Then add in all the Virtual Console games I'll more than likely want to get... *sigh* Does anyone know if the Devil pays cash on hand for souls? 
Another thing to consider is the release of MP2. Remember, it came out at nearly the same time as Halo 2.
Two totally different games on two totally different systems. But MP2 was absolutely lost in Halo's hype machine that holiday, snuffing its sales badly. Yes we can all debate the differences in the two titles till the cows come home, and I can gaurantee that I will agree with everything you say. But that didnt stop the general game buying public from saying; "Well, this FPS is online! I want this FPS!" You cant really blame it on some other high quality title coming out for the 'cube, as MP2 was pretty much Nintendo's big gun that X-mas.
So, even though we, as educated gamers know that CoD and MP3 will be different, alot/most will not. They will see the games running on demo kiosks and say "Oh! Two FPS's using that cool little controller. Ah, thats one of the WWII ones. Hey! Wow! That one looks like some kinda freaky Stargate s**t! Sweet! Get me that one!"
Post by: Ian Sane on April 05, 2006, 02:51:07 PM
Two totally different games on two totally different systems. But MP2 was absolutely lost in Halo's hype machine that holiday, snuffing its sales badly."
I think that was more due to the weak popularity of the Cube at the time. You're right in that the mainstream probably won't tell the difference. I'm still not too worried about it though.
Post by: IceCold on April 05, 2006, 03:29:26 PM
QuoteAdding to what Ian said, the majority of us here would prefer MP3 rather than CoD. However, there is a fanbase for Call of Duty; most of them own a PS2 or an Xbox, though. So, if the game utilised the Revolution controller properly and was polished, then it might be able to attract some of these people who own other consoles for shooters. It's always good to have variety at launch, and I don't think that a Call of Duty would suffer too much if released with Metroid.
another rumor running around currently (correct me if I'm wrong on this) that the third in the Metroid Prime series is coming out at launch for the Revolution. Would it really be wise for CoD to come out against that kind of competition? I mean, you all are pretty much voicing what the majority of Nintendo fans feel; "I like fantasy more than reality in my game", myself included. So, if they are both essentially FPS's, who in their right minds would pick CoD over Metroid Prime 3?
Post by: OverHeat on April 05, 2006, 03:32:17 PM
I'm not worried either. I can't wait for this thing. I think those who are assuming a 'cube repeat with the Revolution are in for a serious wake up call when this thing comes out.
By the way, this CoD everyone is rumoring will come to the Rev, its....not gonna be a port of the one already out, is it? Just with Rev controls, but still, it WILL be an all new game won't it? Or do we not know enough about it at this point to know?
But seriously, if they are thinking about doing an "upgraded" port, as Nintendo, I would be tempted to tell them "New game or no game." Think about the field day Micro$oft and Sony fanboys/publicity reps would have with that. "Rev is nothing like cube huh? So is one of the first games on the system a port of a year old game?"
*shudders* I am NOT looking forward to that. Its gonna sound fairly weak saying, oh, well, it plays totally different! And there is a bonus level in there, too! So that said, even if I have no intention of buying it, I really, REALLY hope its an all-new entry in the CoD series.
If they DID release a port, I can see it now.
Activision; "Yeah, I guess Rev is nothing special. Sales of CoD were 30% what they were for the Xbox360."
Me; "But...you released the SAME GAME a year later! What did you expect?"
Activision; "....NUMBERS DONT LIE!!!!"
Post by: vudu on April 06, 2006, 09:08:28 AM
Post by: OverHeat on April 06, 2006, 07:34:55 PM
