Fallout Studios Forums

Stalker, on 3 Sep 2010, 20:05, said:

The guy says a whole bunch of stuff that's obviously moronic but the vid is interesting nonetheless. For my emblem, I'm definitely going for a dragon again .

that emblem customization look genuinely interesting some really cool stuff could be done with it methinks.

Someone recorded a full Gun Game match:



If you ever want to hear the word "like" ten thousand times in seven minutes, this vid is also worth the while, btw. It, like, gets, like especially bad like from, like, 3:14 on . Like.

Wow, it looks like MW2 with different weapons. Oh wait, it is.

I still love the fact that it takes several bullets to kill a man, yet one poke in the arm with a knife will kill them instantly. And now you can shoot said knives. The only thing that I thought was actually cool was the remote-controlled car with a bomb strapped to it, the rest seemed all too familiar and repetitive. But at least they nailed the weapons right, especially with the M1 Garand and the Quad-Chambered Bazooka. Still, I probably won't get this game, never was much of a CoD fan.

It doesn't seem bad , if this is what people want there getting it.

Sobek, on 9 Sep 2010, 23:15, said:

It's not an M1 Garand, it's an M14. I rest my case .

Really, the weapons aren't nailed right at all IMO.

Chyros, on 10 Sep 2010, 8:19, said:

Then again, it's a video game.

deltaepsilon, on 10 Sep 2010, 8:26, said:

...and how is that a reason for the weapons to be wrong?

Chyros, on 10 Sep 2010, 16:35, said:

Because fun is more important than realism. (I wonder who said that originally )

Then why not use made up guns instead of getting licences to use the real guns? If you work that much to get them into game why not make them right?

Wanderer, on 10 Sep 2010, 19:07, said:

Because I'm not really too fussed about perfection, at least in most cases. Total authenticity and perfection would be nice, but close enough is good enough generally

I'm not saying everything has to be 100% accurate to real life but at least get the feel of the gun right.

deltaepsilon, on 10 Sep 2010, 8:55, said:

i'm really surprised this needs to be repeated so many times.

Camille, on 10 Sep 2010, 16:16, said:

Wanderer, on 10 Sep 2010, 10:07, said:

If you're not going to do something right, why bother?
Edited by Wizard, 10 September 2010 - 15:29.

One of the few things that bothers me about the weapons in Black Ops is the FAMAS sight on the Aug, G11 and M60. I hope this is an attachment and not laziness on the developer's part.
Edited by Stinger, 10 September 2010 - 18:30.

Wizard, on 10 Sep 2010, 17:29, said:

I can't stress this enough. Things don't have to be exactly as they are in real life. But they shouldn't look or sound like shit either. As long as it's not a proton photoquantum megacannon in the 40 megawatt range, if it looks good, I'll embrace it. BO is visually and auditively sub par IMO, not because it is too realistic or not realistic enough, but simply because it's not qualitatively sufficient in several areas. "Because fun is more important than realism" is an argument for balance, not quality. The two are completely different. You sacrifice realism for gameplay, because realism gets in the way of gameplay sometimes. Never has quality gotten in the way of fun OR realism.

ok, tell me a recent game that has more fun and polished gameplay AND higher quality visuals than black ops

amazin, on 11 Sep 2010, 0:02, said:

I haven't played BO so I can't tell, but Mw2 looks and sounds a billion times better so far. I'd go so far as to say CoD 4 had better visuals, actually. Even CoD 2 was superior in one or two ways.
Edited by Chyros, 10 September 2010 - 22:56.

and modern warfare 2 is also extremely unbalanced

balance and gameplay > realism and graphics

amazin, on 11 Sep 2010, 23:05, said:

I agree completely on both counts. I just don't see a reason why developers would want to make their game ugly and badly animated if it can look good and animate as smooth as silk instead. What's the added advantage of an ugly game?

I've noticed it before, especially in the game discussions here, that people somehow do not see a disadvantage as a disadvantage but as something that comes as a logical follow-up from something that is good. Good gameplay being the reason for or somehow causing an appalling MP5K firing sound, for example. As if everything good also causes something bad in a game. Why is it so wrong to criticise things that are bad about something? I mean, stuff like bad reloads can be acceptable losses, but that doesn't mean they aren't losses. If something isn't perfect, there is always room for improvement, I say, and frankly I can't see how anyone would be able to contradict that.
Edited by Chyros, 11 September 2010 - 22:56.

hmm, i really didnt even notice the guns or sound effects. but i dont think they are that bad. that mp5 sounds a whole lot better than the ump or pp2000 from MW2

amazin, on 12 Sep 2010, 1:23, said:

What do you think you're using to shoot people? Harsh language?

no, im saying i didnt notice them as something bad

Take bunch of games that have the MP5 and compare the sound. It is horrible. It sounds like a toy

I don't think we're saying that BO is going to be a "bad" game, per se. What some of us are suggesting is, that it isn't going to be better than MW2 (which in itself is fundamentally flawed), but that it simply isn't, on the face of what has been shown, that much better than what is already available, that it is worth buying.

I've always said, I like to see an engine update between game franchise releases. Sadly MW2 didn't have said update, and I don't see how BO will have that improvement either. They can't even get the sounds and weapons right, so why should I buy it? But the much more important question, in the wider scope of gaming terms these days is, why should anyone?