Topic: RUMORS: CoD to REV?

[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.

[Jensen]

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.  

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Bring me back to 1998, with Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six for PC.  (I miss you, Redstorm)

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?

[Caliban]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

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.

[oohhboy]

There nothing wrong with camping or defensive play. But there comes a point where the game should have a "Pitch tent" command. Especially whe opfor doesn't move 30 meters from spawn when they are supose to be assulting.

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.

[KDR_11k]

Especially whe opfor doesn't move 30 meters from spawn when they are supose to be assulting.

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.

[oohhboy]

Yeah they do lose but it becomes a hollow victory. Like you shoot some one up but the guy jumps off some high spot and dies before you land the killing blow.

[vudu]

Quote
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.

This 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.

[OverHeat]

You know, since this is all pretty much rumor right now (albeit strong rumor), there is 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? Only the rich kids, video game reviewers and extreme hobbiests will buy both.

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...

[Ian Sane]

"You know, since this is all pretty much rumor right now (albeit strong rumor), there is 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?"

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.

[OverHeat]

All very true. CoD is very linear and mission based. Metroid is highly explorative.
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!"  

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[IceCold]

Quote
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?

Adding 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.

[OverHeat]

Heh, yeah, the poor ol' 'cubes popularity was certainly not flourishing at that point, thats for sure. But I also feel it was Halo 2 that more or less put the nail in the coffin, so to speak.
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!!!!"

[vudu]

You also have to remember the Xbox 360 launch--both Call of Duty 2 and Perfect Dark Zero were launch titles.  If I'm not mistaken, CoD2 smoked PDZ in sales.  So it's not necessarily the third party that's going to lose.

[OverHeat]

This is true. If Retro Studios manages to make MP3 as every bit as... unremarkable as Rare was able to make PDZ, CoD will top it.