[Game] Call of Duty: Black Ops
- Thread starter DraKon2k
- Start date
I'm not saying freelancer is realistic, I just compare the immersion level of both
Yeah, but how can you be immersed in a space game where space doesn't look anything like space and ships don't behave anything like ships in space?
Kind of like getting immersed in a generic, over-dramatized, pseudo-realistic shooter like, say, MW/MW2, wouldn't you say?
Kind of like getting immersed in a generic, over-dramatized, pseudo-realistic shooter like, say, MW/MW2, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, but how can you be immersed in a space game where space doesn't look anything like space and ships don't behave anything like ships in space?
Kind of like getting immersed in a generic, over-dramatized, pseudo-realistic shooter like, say, MW/MW2, wouldn't you say?
you get a cockpit view in a 3d universe in which you can travel to any place you want, customize your ship, etc... while in space invaders you get an overview of a 9 pixel ship shooting 2 pixel lasers at 9 pixel aliens
I think is quite a step forward
So you think RO is a couple of generations above MW in ways that compare to having a couple of top-down-view pixels vs. a full-fledged 3d world? Don't you think that's distorting the original "slow-paced actual-realism vs. fast-paced dramatized pseudo-realism" point a little?
RO is at least one or two generations in the right direction.
the metaphor is just an exaggeration to make the point more obvious and therefore, easier to understand.
And the "slow paced" vs "fast paced" wasn't contemplated in it. I liked the pace of RO:CA which was the perfect pace, not too slow, not too fast. but this is a different story.
Ok, so let's exaggerate it in the other direction a bit and give the MW counterpart a few generations headstart:
Would you rather play Asteroids, a game with black and white vector graphics but somewhat believable ship-physics or Freelancer, a game with completely unbelievable ship-physics but pretty presentation?
Would you rather play Asteroids, a game with black and white vector graphics but somewhat believable ship-physics or Freelancer, a game with completely unbelievable ship-physics but pretty presentation?
Doesn't really work the other way around, because even if the physics are believable, there is no first person to get one immersed
As I said before the point of realism is immersion.
not counting other tons of features, like RPG, and huge universe.
It is also a bad example in some other ways... because graphics have been looking all the same to me in the last 4 years, I haven't noticed any advancement on this field since the new engines came out.
Also, a game that in theory is graphically superior like Crysis, is still not nearly as popular as CoD. So it really doesn't explain why is more popular.
So realism isn't all important in creating an immersing experience, especially if you're a kid who doesn't know any better anyway.
Furthermore, complexity and a slow pace that is meant to immerse you aren't everyone's cup of tea, for all the good they do for those who like them! Case in point, I couldn't get into X3: Terran Conflict but I wasted hours upon hours in Freelancer.
Not to mention that CoD multiplayer (I'm referring to CoD2 here, because it's the last one I really played) isn't about immersion for me either way. I never felt like a German or Allied soldier when playing it. It was always Quake-in-a-ww2-coat for me and I liked that.
As opposed to RO which was really immersing for me until later on.
So whatever creates immersion for you is not the same that creates immersion for everyone (the few minutes I spent in CoD4 singleplayer were annoying for me because the game was so insultingly stupid, but a friend of mine really lapped it up) AND it's not equally important for everyone.
Regarding Black Ops, I'm surprised they have ingame currency you can't buy for real money (or am I missing something?). Totally seems like something they would do.
He meant quoting a quote within a quote. No quoting a bunch of quotes.
Last edited:
Graphics adds to realism (with its limits).
In a sense, improving graphics, increases realism.
But as I said, in the last 4 years, graphics haven't improved anything at all to justify the same or worse BS gameplay. Pretty much all games right now have good enough graphics to present a believable world.
Slow pace doesn't make a game immersive, quite the opposite. As that time you spend in emptiness doing nothing, you will be thinking about everything but the game.
But as I said the pace has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
RO takes the fun part, and makes it realistic so they can be believable, and thus making a much better experience.
Still you haven't explained why two AAA games like Crysis and CoD, the one with better graphics failed to the other one. (that is off the discussion, cause I really want to know)
(For the record, in case you were wondering, I wasn't the one who downrate your posts, as I see no reason for it as long as the conversation is being civilized and heresy-free)
Last edited:
Seriously, it's thinking like this that is partially responsible for putting the gaming industry into the horrible state it is now.
The reason why Crysis failed in multiplayer is because it was broken to the point of no return and never got improved to make it worth playing in multiplayer.
Last edited:
So... you think a WW1 game in which you spend a week sitting in a trench in front of your computer will get you hooked?
Subject matter ("just like on the news!"), no "will-it-run" scare, huge focus on multiplayer and social aspects, long-standing series with a good name, multiplatform release so more hype, more players and thus more word of mouth.
And it's not like the CoD games look ugly next to Crysis.
I hadn't even noticed until you mentioned it, but yeah, even if I did I wouldn't have assumed it was you.
lol@"heresy-free"
What about playing Basovka as Russians. Good times. :IS2:
I'll tell ya what, I like the sound of the currency or whatever they call it. Letting us decide which weapon we want to unlock, rather than have to grind to get the weapons we like and not be like "Oh look, level 14, I get the most useless sniper rifle in the game...what a waste!" Treyarch is actually bringing some fresh ideas into a game that needs em. IW couldn't manage to do that with MW2 but the 'little brother' developer is. Go figure! I've said it a lot of times, at least IRL, Black Ops will probably be the game that MW2 was supposed to be. But no preorder yet, Civ V is keeping me busy and New Vegas probably will add to that as well, well past BO's release date.
Is there confirmation that player health is higher than in MW2? That was a huge thing for me. In MW getting 10 kills in a row was quite an accomplishment. In MW2, it was easy. I had the impression that it was similar to MW2's style from what I had seen in videos and it bothered me...
Last edited:
That's true tbh., imo Treyarch (and whoever developed CoD:UO) did more to advance than CoD series than IW. Except for CoD4 of course which was huge of course.