I just watched Hard Boiled again...

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Shooters still have a long, long way to go. Environments are still so static, it's pathetic. Little to no interaction. Extremely linear levels. Over-reliance on iron sights and removal of running and gunning in third person games. Mediocre gore (Usually no gore at all). No awesome body blowback even in games where it would be fitting. Few physical abilities, usually just a sprint and a crouch, sometimes a roll. FUUUCKK!! The shooter has to be the most stale genre. There is so little innovation. If they stopped whoring graphics so much, they could at least make the environments more dynamic, destructible/explosive and interesting.

Not enough shooters have doves flying about for no reason

Actually shooters have been much better with regards to most of the complaints this generation, last-gen was a complete devolution for the genre (outside of a few exceptions). Movement is back to being "in" with the likes of Titanfall, Overwatch, Battleborn, Lawbreakers. COD had movement stuff at some point I remember seeing in a trailer or something (I've only played COD4 in the entire series). Vanquish is still the king in movement, but you didn't like it for "reasons". Environments definitely need more dynamics to them, shooters don't even have doors (especially online shooters). There is Rainbow Six Siege for destructible environments at least.

Just about all genres are stale as fuck now or have been blended together to make Open World: The Game. The best RPGs now are ones that have gone back to the good old days like Divinity. AAA gaming is basically a barren wasteland and the only good games from AAA are usually the ones that pay homage to older classics like Arkane Studios that are allowed to basically make 0451 games in the AAA landscape.

Hazy992:
Not enough shooters have doves flying about for no reason

Hard Boiled doesn't have doves...

Phoenixmgs:
Vanquish is still the king in movement, but you didn't like it for "reasons".

Because it's a mediocre game. You know my stance, so don't act like I didn't explain myself.

Ezekiel:
Shooters still have a long, long way to go. Environments are still so static, it's pathetic. Little to no interaction. Extremely linear levels. Over-reliance on iron sights and removal of running and gunning in third person games. Mediocre gore (Usually no gore at all). No awesome body blowback even in games where it would be fitting. Few physical abilities, usually just a sprint and a crouch, sometimes a roll. FUUUCKK!! The shooter has to be the most stale genre. There is so little innovation. If they stopped whoring graphics so much, they could at least make the environments more dynamic, destructible/explosive and interesting.

If you haven't already, you should try Stranglehold, the canon videogame sequel to Hardboiled. You can slow-mo boogieboard down a corridor on conveniently placed shopping trollies, shooting armies of dudes. Also there's a "make doves appear super attack" button.

maninahat:

Ezekiel:
Shooters still have a long, long way to go. Environments are still so static, it's pathetic. Little to no interaction. Extremely linear levels. Over-reliance on iron sights and removal of running and gunning in third person games. Mediocre gore (Usually no gore at all). No awesome body blowback even in games where it would be fitting. Few physical abilities, usually just a sprint and a crouch, sometimes a roll. FUUUCKK!! The shooter has to be the most stale genre. There is so little innovation. If they stopped whoring graphics so much, they could at least make the environments more dynamic, destructible/explosive and interesting.

If you haven't already, you should try Stranglehold, the canon videogame sequel to Hardboiled. You can slow-mo boogieboard down a corridor on conveniently placed shopping trollies, shooting armies of dudes. Also there's a "make doves appear super attack" button.

Strangehold was okay. The problems with that were weightless movement, laughable stunts and bullet time, ridiculously spongey bosses, tedious tasks (like blowing up a number of drug cashes before progressing), excessively fragile environments (with hard surfaces that instantly fall apart, like they're made of hardened sand) and a bad story badly presented. I did enjoy its open gameplay. I mean, the freedom you had. But I don't think it's worthy of John Woo's name.

I want to see more realism as well, even (or perhaps especially) if it's somewhat stylized. An all-out simulator would probably feel odd, and I want to still feel like I'm playing a game.

Things like what size hole a respectively calibered bullet makes in whatever material it makes contact with, whether flesh, wood, tin, etc. I also want to see through the holes vs just a decal. I want more dynamic destruction ie materials-based as well, including NPCs and how they react or are damaged depending on where they're shot and with what. We already have materials-based lighting and sound, so physics is the next step and it will open up a world of new gameplay possibilities vs being merely window dressing.

hanselthecaretaker:
I want to see more realism as well, even (or perhaps especially) if it?s somewhat stylized. An all-out simulator would probably feel odd, and I want to still feel like I?m playing a game.

Things like what size hole a respectively calibered bullet makes in whatever material it makes contact with, whether flesh, wood, tin, etc. I also want to see through the holes vs just a decal. I want more dynamic destruction ie materials-based as well, including NPCs and how they react or are damaged depending on where they?re shot and with what. We already have materials-based lighting and sound, so physics is the next step and it will open up a world of new gameplay possibilities vs being merely window dressing.

Yeah, developers barely give a shit about physics. Characters are still glued to the ground and there is very little impact from explosions and large calibers. Rockstar did some impressive work with their Rage engine, but they can still go a lot farther with it.

Yuck, Hard Boiled is my least favorite out of Wu's joints. That goddamn hospital sequence went on entirely too LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG. The Killer on the other hand is probably one of my favorite action movies of all time (dat harmonica playing killer, son).

I agree with you though 'Zeke. It seems Max Payne is about as good as it gets when it comes to action games and that's by virtue of the nuance all of the weight and physics add to the game (as well as the bullet time of course).

I'd also love more stylized action games along the lines of Super Hot. That joint did a great job of eschewing the shallow focus on visual fidelity for the focus on a more unique gameplay experience. There is so much that can be done with a little imagination motivating things.

Also speaking of Wu, did you see this junk right here 'Zeke? Shit's got me all hot n a biscuit yo

ZombieProof:
That goddamn hospital sequence went on entirely too LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG.

It had so many great moments. The whole movie does. It has an engaging story with themes of morality and honor that aren't done with as much melodrama as in some of Woo's earlier films. The soundtrack is pretty good, not a bunch of noise like most movie soundtracks of today. The Killer ranks second for me.

Also speaking of Wu, did you see this junk right here 'Zeke? Shit's got me all hot n a biscuit yo

Yeah, I wrote about it in the Sony Paris thread. I want to play it.

But Hard Boiled is a gratuitous ridiculous action flick, more in line with Rambo or Demolition Man. It doesn't actually have realistic physics or anything.

Silentpony:
But Hard Boiled is a gratuitous ridiculous action flick, more in line with Rambo or Demolition Man. It doesn't actually have realistic physics or anything.

I know. Which is why I said, "even in games where it would be fitting." Still, John Woo's scenes are far, far more visually interesting than any shooter. Like I said, these games are so static.

Ezekiel:

Silentpony:
But Hard Boiled is a gratuitous ridiculous action flick, more in line with Rambo or Demolition Man. It doesn't actually have realistic physics or anything.

I know. Which is why I said, "even in games where it would be fitting." Still, John Woo's scenes are far, far more visually interesting than any shooter. Like I said, these games are so static.

But how would you do that level of physics? And how would it not be insanely goofy? Like guy shoots an UZI, and the air pressure burst alone knocks every paper in 30ft into the air. Every shot would shake the entire room. Shotguns sound like bombs going off, and literally throw people across the rooms instead of just turning them to red mulch.
I feel like any game that has so much moving, so many physics engines artifacts being effected by every other artifact would have a frame rate of 1 even on a PC powered by the Golden Throne.

Every gun would be the Fus Rho Dah from Skyrim. And that'd just get old after 2 shots.

Silentpony:

Ezekiel:

Silentpony:
But Hard Boiled is a gratuitous ridiculous action flick, more in line with Rambo or Demolition Man. It doesn't actually have realistic physics or anything.

I know. Which is why I said, "even in games where it would be fitting." Still, John Woo's scenes are far, far more visually interesting than any shooter. Like I said, these games are so static.

But how would you do that level of physics? And how would it not be insanely goofy? Like guy shoots an UZI, and the air pressure burst alone knocks every paper in 30ft into the air. Every shot would shake the entire room. Shotguns sound like bombs going off, and literally throw people across the rooms instead of just turning them to red mulch.
I feel like any game that has so much moving, so many physics engines artifacts being effected by every other artifact would have a frame rate of 1 even on a PC powered by the Golden Throne.

Every gun would be the Fus Rho Dah from Skyrim. And that'd just get old after 2 shots.

Max Payne 2 already did it. A shotgun blast sent people flying. People didn't find it goofy, they liked it. The series is self-aware, with lines like, "gonna make like Chow Yun Fat." Max Payne 3 has MUCH less blowback, sadly. Obviously, it can be done a lot more realistically and with more weight than in MP2, and you also need to be careful not to go too far with it. The Hong Kong Massacre has a lot of sparks and stuff flying and doesn't look distracting. Hardware has progressed far enough that this can be done without turning it into a slide show. I seriously doubt gamers care as much about graphics as the AAA pubs believe. Nier Automata didn't look amazing, but it sold 1.5 million copies by the end of May.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Vanquish is still the king in movement, but you didn't like it for "reasons".

Because it's a mediocre game. You know my stance, so don't act like I didn't explain myself.

Because you played it like a 3rd-person cover shooter instead of an action game. Even when you started playing more like it's supposed to be played, your loadout was the most boringly standard loadout you could possibly pick. That's why I put 'reasons' in quotes.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Vanquish is still the king in movement, but you didn't like it for "reasons".

Because it's a mediocre game. You know my stance, so don't act like I didn't explain myself.

Because you played it like a 3rd-person cover shooter instead of an action game. Even when you started playing more like it's supposed to be played, your loadout was the most boringly standard loadout you could possibly pick. That's why I put 'reasons' in quotes.

I'm getting sick of this. My issues with the game go beyond fucking loadouts. It's not about playing it the right way. It's just not a good game. Are you gonna tell everyone in that thread who didn't like it that their opinions are wrong and they just didn't play it right?

Ezekiel:
I'm getting sick of this. My issues with the game go beyond fucking loadouts. It's not about playing it the right way. It's just not a good game. Are you gonna tell everyone in that thread who didn't like it that their opinions are wrong and they just didn't play it right?

Proof that you didn't understand the game mechanics from your very own thread:

Ezekiel:
[exert from Jim Sterling's review]
"So what does this mean for the overall game? It means that, when you get down to it, Vanquish is just another cover shooter with shallow gimmicks that have no applicable use. Sam's glide ability is only useful for escaping (or trying to), since there's no point getting up close and killed because you have no power left. Any thoughts you had of sliding toward an enemy, murdering him in a flurry of punches, and deftly sliding away like an awesome space ninja better be abolished from your head -- everything you do in this game makes you vulnerable, weak, and ultimately dead."

He's right. I hadn't read his review until you mentioned it.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
I'm getting sick of this. My issues with the game go beyond fucking loadouts. It's not about playing it the right way. It's just not a good game. Are you gonna tell everyone in that thread who didn't like it that their opinions are wrong and they just didn't play it right?

Proof that you didn't understand the game mechanics from your very own thread:

Ezekiel:
[exert from Jim Sterling's review]
"So what does this mean for the overall game? It means that, when you get down to it, Vanquish is just another cover shooter with shallow gimmicks that have no applicable use. Sam's glide ability is only useful for escaping (or trying to), since there's no point getting up close and killed because you have no power left. Any thoughts you had of sliding toward an enemy, murdering him in a flurry of punches, and deftly sliding away like an awesome space ninja better be abolished from your head -- everything you do in this game makes you vulnerable, weak, and ultimately dead."

He's right. I hadn't read his review until you mentioned it.

Okay...? I understand the game mechanics. I still don't like it. I was talking about it with someone just the other day.

"I found Vanquish annoying. They apparently don't want you to use cover, but they put chest high walls everywhere, along with a stamina system and health regen? You have so little stamina. You can punch one time and then you're forced to slowly run. You're so powerless. I wasn't too excited about the rocket slide and didn't like being pushed to constantly use it. The animations are so weightless and the levels are all so samey. It had a few fun moments, but I don't think I'd play it again. The story and characters didn't grab me at all."

And again today.

"Punishes you for using cover in what way? The score? Most people don't care about that. Vanquish is safer when you use a lot of cover and wait for your health and stamina to recharge. I was pretty unhappy with the game overall."

Your stubborn bullshit and "proof" isn't gonna make my opinion wrong. I think Vanquish is the only game that displeased me so much that I skipped the last few cutscenes and ending.

Ezekiel:
Okay...? I understand the game mechanics. I still don't like it. I was talking about it with someone just the other day.

"I found Vanquish annoying. They apparently don't want you to use cover, but they put chest high walls everywhere, along with a stamina system and health regen? You have so little stamina. You can punch one time and then you're forced to slowly run. You're so powerless. I wasn't too excited about the rocket slide and didn't like being pushed to constantly use it. The animations are so weightless and the levels are all so samey. It had a few fun moments, but I don't think I'd play it again. The story and characters didn't grab me at all."

And again today.

"Punishes you for using cover in what way? The score? Most people don't care about that. Vanquish is safer when you use a lot of cover and wait for your health and stamina to recharge. I was pretty unhappy with the game overall."

Your stubborn bullshit and "proof" isn't gonna make my opinion wrong. I think Vanquish is the only game that displeased me so much that I skipped the last few cutscenes and ending.

Jim's analysis of the game mechanics, which you agreed with, are easily proven wrong with video evidence. If you play any game in the "safest" way possible, it will be a very boring and repetitive experience. It's akin to saying Dark Souls sucks because it's safer to cheese just about every enemy (including some bosses) with arrows from afar as the AI just sits there and does nothing. You can exploit the AI in any shooter for a lame experience like running into a room and killing them as they come through the door one-by-one. Someone can play Max Payne 3 in a very boring whack-a-mole manner and have the opinion that the game sucked, which I'm pretty sure you're going to try to prove their opinion as wrong. I played the demo of Vanquish right away in the "fun" way because why am I going to play a shooter where I have a power suit just like any other shooter? It doesn't make any sense to do that.

You don't understand game mechanics of Vanquish well enough, which is just a fact. Do you not understand how fucking joke easy Vanquish would be if melee didn't use up all your energy? The game would be nothing but melee, roll a couple times, melee, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Jim Sterling nor you were able to get that. Also, there is a less powerful melee you can use without any cost of energy via the Disc Launcher gun. But, of course, you stuck to standard shooter guns the majority of the time. You have unlimited energy/stamina if you know how to properly utilize it unlike say a Souls game where you dodge/block, then attack until your stamina runs out because stamina is the only thing that stops you from stun-locking every enemy to death in one go. Vanquish gives the player far more control in that sense.

I'm not trying to prove you can't dislike Vanquish or any other game. But I can disprove specific reasons behind your dislike, which I have along with many others.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Okay...? I understand the game mechanics. I still don't like it. I was talking about it with someone just the other day.

"I found Vanquish annoying. They apparently don't want you to use cover, but they put chest high walls everywhere, along with a stamina system and health regen? You have so little stamina. You can punch one time and then you're forced to slowly run. You're so powerless. I wasn't too excited about the rocket slide and didn't like being pushed to constantly use it. The animations are so weightless and the levels are all so samey. It had a few fun moments, but I don't think I'd play it again. The story and characters didn't grab me at all."

And again today.

"Punishes you for using cover in what way? The score? Most people don't care about that. Vanquish is safer when you use a lot of cover and wait for your health and stamina to recharge. I was pretty unhappy with the game overall."

Your stubborn bullshit and "proof" isn't gonna make my opinion wrong. I think Vanquish is the only game that displeased me so much that I skipped the last few cutscenes and ending.

Jim's analysis of the game mechanics, which you agreed with, are easily proven wrong with video evidence. If you play any game in the "safest" way possible, it will be a very boring and repetitive experience. It's akin to saying Dark Souls sucks because it's safer to cheese just about every enemy (including some bosses) with arrows from afar as the AI just sits there and does nothing. You can exploit the AI in any shooter for a lame experience like running into a room and killing them as they come through the door one-by-one. Someone can play Max Payne 3 in a very boring whack-a-mole manner and have the opinion that the game sucked, which I'm pretty sure you're going to try to prove their opinion as wrong. I played the demo of Vanquish right away in the "fun" way because why am I going to play a shooter where I have a power suit just like any other shooter? It doesn't make any sense to do that.

Max Payne 3 is easier if you don't use a lot of cover. Vanquish is easier if you do use a lot of cover, since the team was stupid enough to put timed regeneration in.

You don't understand game mechanics of Vanquish well enough, which is just a fact. Do you not understand how fucking joke easy Vanquish would be if melee didn't use up all your energy? The game would be nothing but melee, roll a couple times, melee, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Jim Sterling nor you were able to get that.

Redesign the entire combat system. Health regen and stamina don't belong in a fast-paced shooter. The beeping every time you depleted your power was annoying too.

Also, there is a less powerful melee you can use without any cost of energy via the Disc Launcher gun. But, of course, you stuck to standard shooter guns the majority of the time.

I did use the disc launcher, smartass. I used every weapon, some more than others, but I used them all.

You have unlimited energy/stamina if you know how to properly utilize it unlike say a Souls game where you dodge/block, then attack until your stamina runs out because stamina is the only thing that stops you from stun-locking every enemy to death in one go. Vanquish gives the player far more control in that sense.

I'm not trying to prove you can't dislike Vanquish or any other game. But I can disprove specific reasons behind your dislike, which I have along with many others.

No, you can't and you haven't.

Ezekiel:
Max Payne 3 is easier if you don't use a lot of cover. Vanquish is easier if you do use a lot of cover, since the team was stupid enough to put timed regeneration in.

Redesign the entire combat system. Health regen and stamina don't belong in a fast-paced shooter. The beeping every time you depleted your power was annoying too.

I did use the disc launcher, smartass. I used every weapon, some more than others, but I used them all.

But I can disprove specific reasons behind your dislike, which I have along with many others.

No, you can't and you haven't.

MP3 is easier playing safer and playing whack-a-mole, that's just simply a fact.

Health regen literally allows for a faster pace of play vs standard health / health pickups. Plus, Vanquish is old-school in the fact that you can dodge every attack because enemies don't have hitscan guns and you are given massive amounts of i-frames.

Just like you used the LFE gun that you said was garbage after just trying it once? The fact that you were that late into the game and your loadout was a sniper, HMG, and AR says it all. You should like never have both a HMG and AR, they both serve the same purpose. Plus, the sniper in Vanquish is very situational unless you're going to quick-scope with it, which you weren't doing either.

There's video footage of people playing Vanquish in an "impossible" manner according to what Jim and you both claim. So, definitely proven wrong. It's like saying you can't play Dark Souls without using a shield when there's playthroughs of the game where people don't use shields. Plus, you were playing with a KB/M, you should be that much better than someone with a controller.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Max Payne 3 is easier if you don't use a lot of cover. Vanquish is easier if you do use a lot of cover, since the team was stupid enough to put timed regeneration in.

Redesign the entire combat system. Health regen and stamina don't belong in a fast-paced shooter. The beeping every time you depleted your power was annoying too.

I did use the disc launcher, smartass. I used every weapon, some more than others, but I used them all.

But I can disprove specific reasons behind your dislike, which I have along with many others.

No, you can't and you haven't.

MP3 is easier playing safer and playing whack-a-mole, that's just simply a fact.

It's not. Using that much cover is just a quicker way to get a hole through your head. ZombieProof said that the better he gets at Max Payne 3, the more he plays it like me. You saw people complain in my MP3 thread about getting instantly killed. It wouldn't have happened so often if they had kept moving.

Health regen literally allows for a faster pace of play vs standard health / health pickups.

Completely wrong. Doom, FEAR and Max Payne are fast-paced because the health items get dropped in battle or can be carried and used on the fly. Health regen is about waiting. How the hell does waiting make combat faster paced?

Plus, Vanquish is old-school in the fact that you can dodge every attack because enemies don't have hitscan guns and you are given massive amounts of i-frames.

I don't like i-frames.

Just like you used the LFE gun that you said was garbage after just trying it once?

I don't remember saying that. Find the quote. I think that was the gun of which I said I didn't get the point of it.

The fact that you were that late into the game and your loadout was a sniper, HMG, and AR says it all.

I managed.

You should like never have both a HMG and AR, they both serve the same purpose. Plus, the sniper in Vanquish is very situational unless you're going to quick-scope with it, which you weren't doing either.

I used the machine gun against almost everything. Big deal. I don't get why you keep harping on about it, especially since my repeated complaints don't focus on that.

There's video footage of people playing Vanquish in an "impossible" manner according to what Jim and you both claim. So, definitely proven wrong. It's like saying you can't play Dark Souls without using a shield when there's playthroughs of the game where people don't use shields. Plus, you were playing with a KB/M, you should be that much better than someone with a controller.

Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all.

By the way, where is B-Cell? Did he get banned? This seems like the kind of thread he would reply to. I rather miss him.

I agree OP, I was thinking this recently - Its just not something that's tapped into much for some reason.
Max Payne 1 and 2 was a good example but I feel as though FEAR 1 did this best (in fact it was directly influenced by hard boiled), unfortunately 2 and 3 toned it down for some reason.

The whole over the top particles, dust and debris flying as you fire the gun with the visceral hard hitting gun-play is really something you dont see much. Maybe its something thats too hard to do?

image

image

Ezekiel:
It's not. Using that much cover is just a quicker way to get a hole through your head. ZombieProof said that the better he gets at Max Payne 3, the more he plays it like me. You saw people complain in my MP3 thread about getting instantly killed. It wouldn't have happened so often if they had kept moving.

You can say that about like any shooter. The better you get at any shooter, the more aggressive you play it. The point is if we are just merely talking success rates in finishing areas/levels, playing whack-a-mole has a higher success rate especially in many of the mid-to-long range gunfights that the game has. Also, I don't think enemies even throw grenades at you or anything to try to flush you out anyway.

Doom, FEAR and Max Payne are fast-paced because the health items get dropped in battle or can be carried and used on the fly. Health regen is about waiting. How the hell does waiting make combat faster paced?

And how much does the gameplay slow down when you're low on health and don't have any health items left? Regen health literally allows for a faster rate of play [10-second clip]:

I don't like i-frames.

LMAO, every single action game is dependent on i-frames...

Just like you used the LFE gun that you said was garbage after just trying it once?

I don't remember saying that. Find the quote. I think that was the gun of which I said I didn't get the point of it.

The guys at Platinum know what they are doing with regards to designing weapons. There's a specific reason why every gun is in the game, no gun is just "filler" just to have more guns to put on a bullet point on the back of the box.

Ezekiel:
I didn't say the LFE is lame, I said I don't understand the point of it. It did almost nothing when I fired it at the enemy.

I managed.

Poorly...

I used the machine gun against almost everything. Big deal. I don't get why you keep harping on about it, especially since my repeated complaints don't focus on that.

The HMG/AR are there to use when you just need ammo and against the low-end enemies. You should never be using either gun against the bigger enemies unless you're out of ammo with the power weapons. The time it took you to take down a BIA was ridiculous.

Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all.

The game is encouraging to play in the following manner, and melee is EXTREMELY POWERFUL. Can't you see how broken melee would be if it didn't take up all your energy? I wonder why he used the pointless LFE gun so many times?

kazann:
I agree OP, I was thinking this recently - Its just not something that's tapped into much for some reason.
Max Payne 1 and 2 was a good example but I feel as though FEAR 1 did this best (in fact it was directly influenced by hard boiled), unfortunately 2 and 3 toned it down for some reason.

The whole over the top particles, dust and debris flying as you fire the gun with the visceral hard hitting gun-play is really something you dont see much. Maybe its something thats too hard to do?

image

image

Yeah, like I said, this isn't distracting at all. It makes it feel more visceral. I think they don't bother because games have moved more and more towards boring authenticity, and people look at static things in screenshots anyway.

Phoenixmgs:

And how much does the gameplay slow down when you're low on health and don't have any health items left? Regen health literally allows for a faster rate of play [10-second clip]:

The first 3 minutes of that clip were interesting. I never knew about "hitscan" weapons, and not sure why the hell they were ever a thing because they sound ridiculous.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
It's not. Using that much cover is just a quicker way to get a hole through your head. ZombieProof said that the better he gets at Max Payne 3, the more he plays it like me. You saw people complain in my MP3 thread about getting instantly killed. It wouldn't have happened so often if they had kept moving.

You can say that about like any shooter. The better you get at any shooter, the more aggressive you play it. The point is if we are just merely talking success rates in finishing areas/levels, playing whack-a-mole has a higher success rate especially in many of the mid-to-long range gunfights that the game has. Also, I don't think enemies even throw grenades at you or anything to try to flush you out anyway.

They rush towards you. Some do throw molotov cocktails and grenades. On one of my NYMH attempts, at the part right after you ride the cart in the police station, I got blasted by a grenade launcher for playing it too safe. I didn't even know the guys on the other side of the street, in the other building, had grenade launchers, because I never use cover there. If I would have just played it as aggressively as always, I would have survived that part, but I was scared of having to do the entire game over.

https://youtu.be/-flAl2BXV1k?t=8m59s

This says it all. The guy gets showered by bullets five times for remaining in cover.

Doom, FEAR and Max Payne are fast-paced because the health items get dropped in battle or can be carried and used on the fly. Health regen is about waiting. How the hell does waiting make combat faster paced?

And how much does the gameplay slow down when you're low on health and don't have any health items left? Regen health literally allows for a faster rate of play [10-second clip]:

Except when it doesn't. If you're that low on healing items, you don't deserve to rush it. Although, I often run and gun even when I'm low on healing items, because I know sometimes playing it safe is even more dangerous.

I don't like i-frames.

LMAO, every single action game is dependent on i-frames...

I don't like i-frames.

Just like you used the LFE gun that you said was garbage after just trying it once?

I don't remember saying that. Find the quote. I think that was the gun of which I said I didn't get the point of it.

The guys at Platinum know what they are doing with regards to designing weapons. There's a specific reason why every gun is in the game, no gun is just "filler" just to have more guns to put on a bullet point on the back of the box.

Ezekiel:
I didn't say the LFE is lame, I said I don't understand the point of it. It did almost nothing when I fired it at the enemy.

I managed.

Poorly...

I managed. It still has nothing to do with what I REPEATEDLY criticize the game for. Which makes the next quote pointless.

I used the machine gun against almost everything. Big deal. I don't get why you keep harping on about it, especially since my repeated complaints don't focus on that.

The HMG/AR are there to use when you just need ammo and against the low-end enemies. You should never be using either gun against the bigger enemies unless you're out of ammo with the power weapons. The time it took you to take down a BIA was ridiculous.

Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all.

The game is encouraging to play in the following manner, and melee is EXTREMELY POWERFUL. Can't you see how broken melee would be if it didn't take up all your energy? I wonder why he used the pointless LFE gun so many times?

"Redesign the entire combat system.

"Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all."

The design is poorly thought out, the campaign is boring and it doesn't even have multiplayer. What a waste of a game.

hanselthecaretaker:
The first 3 minutes of that clip were interesting. I never knew about "hitscan" weapons, and not sure why the hell they were ever a thing because they sound ridiculous.

Since bullets travel so fast, hitscan makes sense especially back on systems where the hardware specs were so slow that doing physics on every bullet probably wouldn't have been possible anyway. Although, I think hitscan is still prevalent in most shooters because it's easier.

Ezekiel:
They rush towards you. Some do throw molotov cocktails and grenades. On one of my NYMH attempts, at the part right after you ride the cart in the police station, I got blasted by a grenade launcher for playing it too safe. I didn't even know the guys on the other side of the street, in the other building had grenade launchers, because I never use cover there. If I would have just played it as aggressively as always, I would have survived that part, but I was scared of having to do the entire game over.

https://youtu.be/-flAl2BXV1k?t=8m59s

This says it all. The guy gets showered by bullets five times for remaining in cover.

Grenades are much rarer in MP3 than in other games like Uncharted or COD. You can stay in one spot longer in MP3 than most shooters. And, your video pretty much proves that. I only watched the shootout that you time-stamped, but the guy only lost half a body of health in the entire gunfight camping on the pillar, thus higher success rate / safer and of course, the time required was longer too.

I don't like i-frames.

Don't you get a game like Dark Souls would be unplayable without i-frames (at least "pro" playstyle would be)? It's exactly why Witcher 3's combat doesn't "feel" right because the game has no i-frames (unless you take the dodging skill) combined with the fact the hit-boxes are pretty bad.

I managed. It still has nothing to do with what I REPEATEDLY criticize the game for.

You literally agreed with Jim that you can't play the game out in the open and that every usage of Sam's powers makes you less powerful and more vulnerable, which is a flat out lie.

Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all.

Explain to me how the guy played the hardest challenge mode in the game by not playing it like a cover shooter then?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
They rush towards you. Some do throw molotov cocktails and grenades. On one of my NYMH attempts, at the part right after you ride the cart in the police station, I got blasted by a grenade launcher for playing it too safe. I didn't even know the guys on the other side of the street, in the other building had grenade launchers, because I never use cover there. If I would have just played it as aggressively as always, I would have survived that part, but I was scared of having to do the entire game over.

https://youtu.be/-flAl2BXV1k?t=8m59s

This says it all. The guy gets showered by bullets five times for remaining in cover.

Grenades are much rarer in MP3 than in other games like Uncharted or COD. You can stay in one spot longer in MP3 than most shooters. And, your video pretty much proves that. I only watched the shootout that you time-stamped, but the guy only lost half a body of health in the entire gunfight camping on the pillar, thus higher success rate / safer and of course, the time required was longer too.

Any idiot can see he's playing on a low or medium difficulty. The point that you can't refute is that he's getting hit. That's a problem.

I don't like i-frames.

Don't you get a game like Dark Souls would be unplayable without i-frames (at least "pro" playstyle would be)? It's exactly why Witcher 3's combat doesn't "feel" right because the game has no i-frames (unless you take the dodging skill) combined with the fact the hit-boxes are pretty bad.

Yeah, and I don't like i-frames. I'd rather have more efficient animations and reduced health loss for evading and still getting hit. Actually, Dark Souls II did that, but it still had i-frames.

I managed. It still has nothing to do with what I REPEATEDLY criticize the game for.

You literally agreed with Jim that you can't play the game out in the open and that every usage of Sam's powers makes you less powerful and more vulnerable, which is a flat out lie.

Vanquish is a cover shooter that encourages using cover. It uses a combination of health regen and chest high walls like all the other cover shooters. Because you have infinite health, you go in the red in no time at all.

Explain to me how the guy played the hardest challenge mode in the game by not playing it like a cover shooter then?

You're own words: "You can say that about like any shooter. The better you get at any shooter, the more aggressive you play it."

hanselthecaretaker:

Phoenixmgs:

And how much does the gameplay slow down when you're low on health and don't have any health items left? Regen health literally allows for a faster rate of play [10-second clip]:

The first 3 minutes of that clip were interesting. I never knew about "hitscan" weapons, and not sure why the hell they were ever a thing because they sound ridiculous.

What I noticed is that his positives for health items were numerous and his positives for health regen were just balance and "a rip-roaring sense of forward momentum," which is a questionable and almost laughable choice of words. I mean, most of these health regen games take away your health so fast that you're constantly forced to wait in cover, until your screen is no longer black and white or covered in ugly jam. That have to take your health away faster because you have infinite health.

Ezekiel:
Any idiot can see he's playing on a low or medium difficulty. The point that you can't refute is that he's getting hit. That's a problem.

So he could be playing on the game's "normal" difficulty then, the mode the game was designed to be played at. What's your point then? He got hit once in the gunfight, maybe grazed for a sliver before the one main hit that took ~half his health, I don't feel like watching it again. How is that not the safest way to play? Sure you can move around and not get hit if you're really good, but there's the obvious risk of getting hit much more by doing that. Less risk = safer. How don't you get that? If he was just a bit more careful, he wouldn't have gotten hit at all.

Yeah, and I don't like i-frames. I'd rather have more efficient animations and reduced health loss for evading and still getting hit. Actually, Dark Souls II did that, but it still had i-frames.

I don't think you can actually list a melee combat game that doesn't have i-frames that actually has good combat. I-frames are important whether you like them or not.

Explain to me how the guy played the hardest challenge mode in the game by not playing it like a cover shooter then?

You're own words: "You can say that about like any shooter. The better you get at any shooter, the more aggressive you play it."

Yeah, you can play any shooter MORE aggressive the better you get, but there's always a cap on how aggressive you can play. You can't just run up to every enemy in MP3 and shotgun them at point blank for example whereas you literally can do that in Vanquish. Vanquish allows you to stay in the open more than any other shooter due to the slide, roll, AR mode, i-frames on the roll, boost-cancel, etc. And, you agreed with Jim that Vanquish doesn't allow for such a playstyle, which is a flat out lie.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Any idiot can see he's playing on a low or medium difficulty. The point that you can't refute is that he's getting hit. That's a problem.

So he could be playing on the game's "normal" difficulty then, the mode the game was designed to be played at. What's your point then? He got hit once in the gunfight, maybe grazed for a sliver before the one main hit that took ~half his health, I don't feel like watching it again. How is that not the safest way to play? Sure you can move around and not get hit if you're really good, but there's the obvious risk of getting hit much more by doing that. Less risk = safer.

And cover = risk. Like I said, it takes the enemies a moment to lock onto you most of the time, so you can strafe ahead of their aim. With bullet time, shoot dodge and the roll, it becomes only easier. (I've rolled a lot on New York Minute when I wanted to get close and get bonuses for melee kills. I've rolled under bullets.)

Yeah, and I don't like i-frames. I'd rather have more efficient animations and reduced health loss for evading and still getting hit. Actually, Dark Souls II did that, but it still had i-frames.

I don't think you can actually list a melee combat game that doesn't have i-frames that actually has good combat. I-frames are important whether you like them or not.

They're not. Anyone can design a good combat system without them. Just because no one bothers doesn't mean it's not possible. I don't remember if Ocarina of Time had i-frames and I don't care to look it up. I do remember axes hitting my legs when I was already backflipping and sending me flying. A better way to do that would have been to not interrupt the animation but take a little bit of health. Nier: Automata's combat was disappointing almost entirely because of its i-frames.

Explain to me how the guy played the hardest challenge mode in the game by not playing it like a cover shooter then?

You're own words: "You can say that about like any shooter. The better you get at any shooter, the more aggressive you play it."

Yeah, you can play any shooter MORE aggressive the better you get, but there's always a cap on how aggressive you can play. You can't just run up to every enemy in MP3 and shotgun them at point blank for example whereas you literally can do that in Vanquish. Vanquish allows you to stay in the open more than any other shooter due to the slide, roll, AR mode, i-frames on the roll, boost-cancel, etc.

You're a hypocrite.

Speaking of you being a hypocrite, I find it funny how in one thread you state that mechanics are always more important in multiplayer but in another thread tell me that my Max Payne 3 multiplayer examples don't mean much because they're just from multiplayer.

And, you agreed with Jim that Vanquish doesn't allow for such a playstyle, which is a flat out lie.

I agreed with Jim that the game makes you weak. A player with enough skill will get past that. But it's still a cover shooter with health regen and chest high walls like all the others. It's such a paradox of a game.

Ezekiel:
And cover = risk. Like I said, it takes the enemies a moment to lock onto you most of the time, so you can strafe ahead of their aim. With bullet time, shoot dodge and the roll, it becomes only easier. (I've rolled a lot on New York Minute when I wanted to get close and get bonuses for melee kills. I've rolled under bullets.)

Using cover is less riskier. Your execution has to be far more on point playing the way you described vs just camping a piece of cover. I can say all those same things about Vanquish. But at the end of the day, if my actual life depended on not dying in Vanquish, I would be all about playing back and extremely cautious.

Nier: Automata's combat was disappointing almost entirely because of its i-frames.

Its simplicity was why its combat was disappointing.

Yeah, you can play any shooter MORE aggressive the better you get, but there's always a cap on how aggressive you can play. You can't just run up to every enemy in MP3 and shotgun them at point blank for example whereas you literally can do that in Vanquish. Vanquish allows you to stay in the open more than any other shooter due to the slide, roll, AR mode, i-frames on the roll, boost-cancel, etc.

You're a hypocrite.

Speaking of you being a hypocrite, I find it funny how in one thread you state that mechanics are always more important in multiplayer but in another thread tell me that my Max Payne 3 multiplayer examples don't mean much because they're just from multiplayer.

How is that hypocritical with regards to the actual debate at hand? The aggressive "cap" is much higher in Vanquish due to being able to avoid pretty much every attack in the game.

Certain things don't matter much vs AI but can be game changers against humans. A crouch can be vital to winning a gunfight online but against AI enemies and how their aim works, it doesn't matter much. Same thing with the standard FPS slide, it mostly functions as looking cool against AI enemies while being a huge difference maker against human opponents. Whereas cover (actual sticking to) is vastly more effective vs AI. How is that hypocritical? AI and humans are vastly different to play against, meaning certain things have greater importance depending on who you're playing against. What I believe I said was that any control issues a game has will be greatly amplified when playing against humans. MP3 definitely has control issues especially with the controller scheme with regards to shoulder swapping and the whole crouch/prone has a odd lag/delay to them as well (plus a few other things I don't like). Whereas in say Uncharted's single player I really couldn't care less about its shitty shoulder swapping because it will probably never get me killed but online against humans is a different story.

I agreed with Jim that the game makes you weak. A player with enough skill will get past that. But it's still a cover shooter with health regen and chest high walls like all the others. It's such a paradox of a game.

It's not a cover shooter. It's akin to calling BulletStorm a MMS because you can play it boringly like COD. How many videos do I have to link to prove the point? There's so many videos and articles on how Vanquish plays completely different than other shooters. Even the Previously Recorded video you linked to awhile back, the guy says literally the same thing as I've been saying. You're only ever weak when you run out of energy, which you can avoid doing. You can even purposefully exhaust your energy on a melee and end up in a more powerful position. In that Challenge 6 video I embedded, the guy melees the boss on the first wave and just stands in one spot unloading the shotgun because the melee enabled him to do so.

Phoenixmgs:
Using cover is less riskier.

You haven't played Max Payne 3 in years. So much of what you've said over the last several months is inaccurate.

It's not a cover shooter.

Yes, it is.

I skimmed and skipped reading a lot of what you said because I can't be bothered right now. Maybe later.

Anyway, I found the YouTuber's claim that health regen has "a rip-roaring sense of forward momentum" so ridiculous that I decided to ask the Codexers if he was full of shit saying that.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/is-this-youtuber-full-of-shit-health-regen.119012/

I like replies 12, 13 and 8.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here