Do you like objects/walls that bullets can go through?

#31N64FTWxDPosted 6/8/2010 1:56:52 PM
Well if we're talking about wooden tables and stuff being knocked over for cover. Tony and others already said there will be destroyable environments. Most likely will and hopefully appear in multiplayer.
#32MC_Brian1Posted 6/8/2010 5:34:49 PM
Again, only bullets could pass through, not lasers, or else it would make no sense and just be a wtf thing to see lasers blast through the table you're hiding behind. It'd also take a billion shots to kill because you have high health in TehC. It doesn't add anything but realism to games, and also adds a lot of cheap deaths. Why add cover for a near death situation if you can be shot through it? I also think that since every FPS ever these days has bullet penetration, it'd stand out for the game not to have it.
---
no wonder fox's father died... dumbass was wearing shades in space - gameheadache
#33Sudsy86_Posted 6/8/2010 5:44:12 PM

ddd87 posted...
It was much more than just the graphics, it was about of many things gameplay wise (features, variety, AI, simplicity, shortness, glitches, hackers, etc).
The Conduit would still have the same public image even the scenarios were better looking.
Again, this feature alone will not make the game better, it needs MANY improvements on almost every aspect.
Obviously HVS will do whatever they think its the best to improve the game with their resources, I will get the game with or without this particular feature anyway, but it has to be much better than the first one, not only the multiplayer.


I don't think lacking an "it" quality has much to do with glitches or hackers. Generally, when people say that, they're referring to a quality found with a lot of consideration. I don't think map/ weapon variety matters(assuming that's what you mean) when there is quite a bit to be explored with what you do have. Most people's view of the entire game is dictated by the online play, no matter how strong theirs is of the offline. I didn't play offline; so, I don't know what the deal is. But, improving offline play while online doesn't progress is really a loss. Offline doesn't matter much. It's largely not the replayable quality people want in spending 50 bucks for a game.

In terms of features/ simplicity, I often find those things to be superfluous "stuff". adding noise that doesn't bring anything out of a song is superfluous. Adding "stuff" which doesn't bring much out of gameplay is the same. Also, in general, simplicity is what produces gameplay exploration.

Back to the "something"--I'm pretty sure it was just the animation.

#34ddd87Posted 6/8/2010 6:13:43 PM
If you only touched the multiplayer, then you cant confirm what is what most people complained about the game.
#35SupahShnipaPosted 6/8/2010 7:09:39 PM
I gotta get this out of my system.

First of all, there are tons of better things that resources could be better spent on. Movable enviroments (Grenades knocks over enviroment pieces etc.) for example. Second, If you reduce the bullet-damage by half (Realistically, you would lower it to about 1/4) it would take 4 SCAR Headshot bursts to kill someone. Waste of bullets and time. Plus, the SCAR has one of the fastest kill times in this game not counting OHKO weapons. Third, only projectile weapons would pass through objects. Plasma beams, for example, burn. Not pierce. Fourth, without the infamous "Lock-On" you won't kill anyone moving anyways (The off chance a projectile connects will do like no damage anyways), unless you want to be able to lock-on through walls! That sounds fun!

This is a run-and-gun shooter. If you want a tactical shooter, wait for Ghost Recon. This type of game is more skill based than tactic based. You can out think someone completely and lose a firefight because they have more skill than you.
---
MWR Screen Name - Pur1fy | The Conduit Screen Name - Pure | MOH:H2 - Pur1fy
http://www.youtube.com/user/SupahShnipa - COMMENTARIES
#36Vermineater(Topic Creator)Posted 6/8/2010 8:17:24 PM
How can you separate tactics from skill? Being tactical just means making the best use of what you have. Which requires knowledge and skill.

Also, I'm not sure how much more useful movable objects in the teraing would be. If grenades fling them all around, it sounds like more of an annoyance, and wouldn't help much. I'm not saying it wouldn't have its purpose, but being a better use of resources? Not really.

I think if they can stop glitching/hacking and provide a fun and deep online, I'll be ecstatic.

Also, it's not certain that the health of TCon will stay the same in C2. Though people keep stating it as if it's confirmed.
---
VE - http://www.formspring.me/Vermineater
Now Playing: Pokemon: HeartGold, UT2K4, stuff
#37DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/8/2010 10:29:31 PM
Simple explanation: in some games, using the best tactic unskillfully will yield better results than using the worst one skillfully. In others, this is the opposite.
In Call of Duty 4, a great tactic is to use Overkill and two Grenadier rifles. 4 explosives per spawn, easy to aim, easy kills. Doesn't take much skill to use, and gives a great gain in a general 2-1 to 4-1 KDR in an average game, if not better.
Tactic without skill yields great result.
In Quake 3, a great tactic is to grab the railgun and start looking for people who don't know where you are. However, getting to the railgun often requires fighting off someone WITH a railgun, and even if you do get to it, it's way too hard to be an easy kill. You'd be better off with a rocket launcher if you're new to the game, or not very good. Even so, the rocket launcher won't do you any good unless you can aim ahead of your mark, and plant it accurately at their feet, which the Tube in CoD does for you.
Tactic without skill yields poor result.
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.
#38Vermineater(Topic Creator)Posted 6/9/2010 5:30:20 AM
I can see where you're coming from, but the best tactics come from experienced players. So obviously skill had to play a part in how they came in.

Also, I just went online a few days ago and got a 8-0 kill streak in one on one. I doubt the other player had the game for less time than I. I've played several FPSes, so I believe the tactics I learned from other FPSes may have assisted.

From: MC_Brian1 | #032
I also think that since every FPS ever these days has bullet penetration, it'd stand out for the game not to have it.


Usually, people tend to complain if a feature in every other game is missing. That would be standing out in a bad way.

However, it seems most of you are pretty against it, so if the fanbase doesn't like it, I guess it shouldn't be included.

Oh, and TCon online is actually quite fun. o_o I'm glad I decided to finally buy it.
---
VE - http://www.formspring.me/Vermineater
Now Playing: Pokemon: HeartGold, UT2K4, stuff
#39DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/10/2010 3:28:37 AM
It's fun when it works. Not so much when it doesn't, which is too often for me. Also hard to get into a game.

And yeah, but the thing about Call of Duty is, you can actually learn a lot of the game from watching youtube, or just by asking what the best class/perk set is for your playstyle or level of experience. It's not like quake where, if you ask how to do better online, the best answer you'll get is "get better". In CoD, you can just fall back on tubes, or find a good camping spot and snipe. Much less skill needed to do good, and also, a lot of the harder things to do(noscoping, hitting targets while jumping/running fast, using cover to get close to people) take a huge backseat to easier things(tubing, spraying, sniping)
---
2% of GameFAQs users have this in their signature. If you're one of the 98% that doesn't, copy and paste this into your signature.