First person shooters...

[Redblueflare]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


And you need to be a real genius to figure that out. Oh, i better not shoot at my teammates, sheesh. And if you are having troubles deciding if you would use the bigger gun or the smaller on with the scope then don't play rpg's because in those not all enemies can be hit by the weapons you are carrying some need other stuff to be eliminated. And if that is the only choiches you have to make....
And it says a lot if you find puzzles annoying in an fps game.

Sorry for the sarcasm again.

[ 02-15-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]

---

Ouch! Was that last comment really necessary? Why don't you try sneaking past 150 marines Mr. and see if you don't get caught a few times! Anyhow, like I said before, I don't know if I can use MGS2 as an example. That game really wasn't a first person shooter. You relied on stealth, and the entire game wasn't first person. (You could only switch to that mode to look around and fire.)

Hold it! I play RPG's all the time and don't try to tell me anyone with an ounce of common sense has trouble. Oh look at that fire golem, I wonder what happens when I cast a fire spell on it? Oh it get healed, who would've guessed? Perhaps I should use the direct opposite water? (It's not guaranteed to do double damage in every game, but it does in quite a few.) Oh my +2 weapon doesn't seem to work, should I go th +3? You always switch to the weapon or spell that's the most efficient for the job, somewhat like a fps. Should I throw a grenade into the crowd, or shoot each one individually? Wonder which one i'd pick...

Oh and common sense doesn't mean you won't try anything stupid. Ever been a theif in BG2? If you have you've probably tried stealing something with low pickpocket skill. Now common sense would've told you that most likely you were going to be caught, but you did it anyway.

[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Redblueflare ]

[JR Jansen]

Ugh, here we go again, This thread is giving me a migraine. Anyway

To Thoran

Did you actually read the post ? I mean, you guys still start a new match every 30 minutes. I know that you think this is inconcicential but real warfare doesn't stop with one battle. The battle takes place, parties rethink strategies and the next battle commences. This is somewhat simplified but it's the general idea. They do not start a new war, they are still trying to win the current one. You guys basically start a new war every 30 minutes.

Uhuh and next you are going to say voleyball hasn't got time out periods. In tennis, they play a few games and then have a rest period. In this period the players can comunicate with their coaches, not verbally but watch a tennis game and you'll see that the players sometimes look to the crowd because their coach is there to give them advice and communication doesn't have to be verbally. Baseball uses hand gestures too. But keep trying, you might find one that actully is just like how you guys play. But remember, exeptions always exist. And it's not a detail. We're talking about strategies to win a battle you're in and the ability to rethink (either by yourself or by your coach) with an amount of time that is long enough to actully come up with a good strategy and not having to make a decision in the blink of an eye.

Yes, but again, a real war doesn't finish with one battle. You guys start one, play it out or stop after 30 minutes and start a new one. A new war so to speak. You aren't trying to win the one you have been playing, you start a new one.

I do see your point when you say that the whole point is that you tally these seperate games and go for an end score, like in volleyball, but the point is that you can't stop during a played battle if it turns ugly.


To Kharn

I do agree that killing is a part of an rpg, but again, just a part. Fps games are made for killing, that's the difference.

You talk about storylines. Fps games might have storylines but how do they change because your character is different. Rpg's ussually change because you character is different. Dialogue changes because of the race/class/gender, etc. Quest might be open only if you have a good or bad allignement. How many of these changes are there in an fps game. Probably not that much.

Again exeptions always exists and to alot of hardcore rpg players, Diablo isn't considered as one.

To Scholarcs

I suppose it depends on what you see as an fps game. This sounds more like a strategical combat game. You can shout commands, etc. Even if it is first person and 3D it isn't always an fps you know.

And money ? What is that used for ? Buying better equipment i guess. If you can buy stuff and have team mates then it sounds to me more like a strategical combat game then an fps.

To Redblueflare

Then don't use it as an example.

Indeed, you always switch to the weapon that is most effective. Let's take the BG sereis for instance. Golems for example. Some needed magical weapons, some needed magical blunt weapons wich wouldn't be so obvious when looking at their names. The various types of oozes and slimes are another categorie in wich it wasn't that abvious what could kill them.

Maybe you did.

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]

[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: JR Jansen ]

[Thoran]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:
Ugh, here we go again, This thread is giving me a migraine. Anyway

To Thoran

Did you actually read the post ? I mean, you guys still start a new match every 30 minutes. I know that you think this is inconcicential but real warfare doesn't stop with one battle. The battle takes place, parties rethink strategies and the next battle commences. This is somewhat simplified but it's the general idea. They do not start a new war, they are still trying to win the current one. You guys basically start a new war every 30 minutes.

Uhuh and next you are going to say voleyball hasn't got time out periods. In tennis, they play a few games and then have a rest period. In this period the players can comunicate with their coaches, not verbally but watch a tennis game and you'll see that the players sometimes look to the crowd because their coach is there to give them advice and communication doesn't have to be verbally. Baseball uses hand gestures too. But keep trying, you might find one that actully is just like how you guys play. But remember, exeptions always exist. And it's not a detail. We're talking about strategies to win a battle you're in and the ability to rethink (either by yourself or by your coach) with an amount of time that is long enough to actully come up with a good strategy and not having to make a decision in the blink of an eye.

Yes, but again, a real war doesn't finish with one battle. You guys start one, play it out or stop after 30 minutes and start a new one. A new war so to speak. You aren't trying to win the one you have been playing, you start a new one.

I do see your point when you say that the whole point is that you tally these seperate games and go for an end score, like in volleyball, but the point is that you can't stop during a played battle if it turns ugly.

---

I did read your post... I just think don't think you're getting it. I was trying to point out that the rules are different for every game out there - but they're meant in the end to keep track of who's ahead... nothing more (you seem to be ascribing more to it that's just not there).

The ability to stop play or not is irrelevant to the validity of the game, yet you keep draggin it up. It just doesn't matter... it's dependant on the rules of the particular game. Does a football match cease to be a game once a team has used all it's time-outs? It's an entirely irrelevant point. Not just that but in a battle you can't just call time out if your side is getting smeared. I would suggest that since these games are really a combat simulation at heart... a "time-out" would be an artificial device that would DETRACT from the overall experience. In point of fact we do have the equivelant of a "time-out"... but only for extreme emergencies... like when someone's wife calls wondering why he's not back from the grocery store yet.

In a War you're not thinking about winning the whole WAR everytime you engage the enemy. You just want to get through it alive and hopefully win the goal of that engagement. So a CTF engagement might be won after one team caps the flag 3 times. Then that battle is complete. Everyone puts down their M16's and catches their breath. Then the next game ensues... if the same team wins that battle then they're up 2-0... they're kicking the butt's of the other guys. In war the victors gain ground... in games typically the victors gain a score... what's the difference (other than there's a bit less blood in one)? All games keep score... the scoring methodology is irrelevant to the validity of the game... just the fact that they keep it is what counts. At the end of a day of playing one team will have won the majority of the matches... they're the victors.

[Link]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:
Ugh, here we go again, This thread is giving me a migraine. Anyway

---

I'm sorry to hear that JR. It wasn't my intention when starting this thread. [img]tongue.gif[/img] Anyway, this is a very interesting discussion going on here, but I'm afraid I'm not able to post a decent reply, because I've got oral exams English in an hour.. Aargh! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[JR Jansen]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:


I did read your post... I just think don't think you're getting it. I was trying to point out that the rules are different for every game out there - but they're meant in the end to keep track of who's ahead... nothing more (you seem to be ascribing more to it that's just not there).

The ability to stop play or not is irrelevant to the validity of the game, yet you keep draggin it up. It just doesn't matter... it's dependant on the rules of the particular game. Does a football match cease to be a game once a team has used all it's time-outs? It's an entirely irrelevant point. Not just that but in a battle you can't just call time out if your side is getting smeared. I would suggest that since these games are really a combat simulation at heart... a "time-out" would be an artificial device that would DETRACT from the overall experience. In point of fact we do have the equivelant of a "time-out"... but only for extreme emergencies... like when someone's wife calls wondering why he's not back from the grocery store yet.

In a War you're not thinking about winning the whole WAR everytime you engage the enemy. You just want to get through it alive and hopefully win the goal of that engagement. So a CTF engagement might be won after one team caps the flag 3 times. Then that battle is complete. Everyone puts down their M16's and catches their breath. Then the next game ensues... if the same team wins that battle then they're up 2-0... they're kicking the butt's of the other guys. In war the victors gain ground... in games typically the victors gain a score... what's the difference (other than there's a bit less blood in one)? All games keep score... the scoring methodology is irrelevant to the validity of the game... just the fact that they keep it is what counts. At the end of a day of playing one team will have won the majority of the matches... they're the victors.

---

This is getting of topic. The whole discussion, much or less, started with the fact that you can use strategy and be able to rethink that strategy or not. When you do not have time to rethink your strategy DURING a certain battle to turn it into your favor then the strategy you come up with on the fly isn't ussually a good one because you need to have an ability to communicate it to your team mates because otherwise they might not get what you are doing and thus you might screw up for them ot they for you. That's how this time out thing comes in play. But even if the coaches have used up their time outs, they still have other options available. They can talk or shout to a player on the field, the can switch two players where the second serves as it's vessel to communicate to the others. In war, isn't their something like a radio that people use to communicate. Not everybody is fighting at the same time. Some are and others are thinking of the strategy.
And a time out period because of an emergency isn't a good example because it's only used as an emergency, you don't get a time out wich you can take to rethink strategy to turn a battle back into your favor.

To Link

Hope all goes well with your exam.

[Link]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JR Jansen:


To Link

Hope all goes well with your exam.

---

Yeah mate, everything went pretty good. We've got this really cocky English teacher, but she kinda 'likes' (but her mood can swift very quickly!) me, so I guess I'll be alright. Thanks! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[K T Ong]

Just have to post a reply after going through this thread.

On my part, I like FPS games, though for a different reason. I just love to explore new virtual 3D worlds, to wind my way through exotic environments and ogle the scenery. That's actually what I go after when I play a FPS game. The shooting part is actually largely of secondary concern to me (though some weapons do produce real nice visual effects [img]smile.gif[/img] ). That's why I still haven't played a multiplayer game yet, BTW. And that's why my all-time favorite is Unreal (though not Unreal Tournament).

Unusual that no one so far in this thread has mentioned Heretic, Hexen and Hexen II, BTW -- all FPS games with a medieval fantasy setting.

[Spelca]

Just wanted to say that i just can't play those games because I get dizzy. All that spinning around... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Madman-Rogovich]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scholarcs:
Counterstrike is the best FPS game ever! Nothing even comes close.

But dont play it! Its addictive!

---

i used to be an addict but thats over now. now i realy despisethe game LOVE TFC tho it still rules and yeah im kinda a big FPS fan

[Scholarcs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Madman-Rogovich:


i used to be an addict but thats over now. now i realy despisethe game LOVE TFC tho it still rules and yeah im kinda a big FPS fan

---

lol Good on you for beating the drug of CS.