Well crap, I totally forgot about the radar...

#61Sudsy86_Posted 6/22/2010 11:36:53 AM

CHAINMAILLEKID posted...
-And then you know where they are and kill them with a grenade.

They tend to move to another location, and those who don't usually have a trick up their sleeve.

I'm starting to become aware of how unintuitive, concrete, and oversimplified Dark thinks about this. He must have never heard of "game theory".

First of all, Dark's quoted statement is just plain stupid. If a camper isn't necessarily at a high altitude(can see more field), he's most certainly outside the hotspots, the places where non-campers always look first. Secondly, grenades can only travel so far. Guns aren't really working with those limitations. Thus, if a far-away camper can still see you, you will HAVE to a) run away because he has a smarter plan, or b) shoot back at him after he found and is shooting you first.

CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

-If you're moving, you're not camping.


Well nobody camps DURING combat... You're saying that people who camp are just asking to be shot since they aren't moving. I'm saying if you shoot them, they're gunna move, so weather they are initially camping or moving makes little difference.


Dark likes thnking all truths exist as extremes. Dark's quoted statement here is stupid and would be considered false by most gamers. His statement fits more as a definition of strictly bein "stationary"--which only the worst of the worst do. Camping is largely staying in one general area, a small portion of the map.


CHAINMAILLEKID posted...

-What encourages people to move around is finding people to shoot.


Only if the game is designed in a way that makes searching more stimulating than waiting for somebody to shoot. That is to say, if the game rewards it.


Both quoted statements are true. However, Dark doesn't consider any other factors and doesn't apply the statement to any particular game. It's meaningless. Chain's statement is dead-on all the way through....

Like many, Dark is more ego than contemplative....

#62DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/22/2010 12:14:27 PM
The weapons(and, in particular, their quirkiness), how they were layed out, the look of the game, mainly. Not much, but, again, I think tcon's set is a fresh one (which you still don't seem to understand.). I've played Red Faction1 and Guerilla. The first one felt kind of similar in its arcade-****gameplay. But Guerilla seemed to gloss the entire game with that.

Guerilla is weird. I never liked it. Destructable environments? Cool. Making an awesome though stale FPS series third person at random? Not cool. It's totally different from anything before it.
Red Faction II is also quite different from the first, but in more of a generic sci-fi fps way. It's a really good FPS, though.
That said, have you played Unreal?

I meant this from the campers' perspective. You seem to be completely unaware of how much of a tactical advantage you need to kill people without constant information. Again, you seem to skip over the actual information processing and are placing yourself in a position which really only exists after your particular decision.

You haven't been playing FPS long, have you?
Seeing someone first is a tactical advantage, and enough to kill someone.

And the theme affects gameplay...It wasn't the core basis for their gameplay, but it affected it enough to be the deciding factor in relevant things. The things employable by killstreaks are things available in real life. Of course, there, you don't get five kills in order to do it--but you're totally missing the point. You can't just give everyone or only a specific army type these for use whenever they want. But because it's a game, it could work as a reward. I don't think you ever consider game parameters when qualifying "realism".

Theme only affects gameplay to the point of theme. It does not make any warthemed game realistic. There are some fancy features used in real-life, but they work nothing like they would on a real battlefield.
The game is not, in any way, beyond theme, realistic. The core gameplay mechanics and all competitive mechanics are completely nonrealistic.

I think you're the one who ultimately doesn't get it.

I think you're either butthurt or trolling at this point.
---
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.
#63CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 6/22/2010 12:22:50 PM
Dark doesn't consider any other factors and doesn't apply the statement to any particular game. It's meaningless.

Precisely.
And here is where he goes horribly wrong "In any game, finding a target is more stimulating"
This is true only if isolated. Moving is more fun than not moving.

BUT he is trying to apply it to ALL games. Moving, and getting killed is NOT going to be more stimulating than not moving, and getting kills.

In reality, The fact that people ARE camping is a testament to how stimulating it is.
#64DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/22/2010 12:31:02 PM
If you can't move around and get kills, then either you suck, or the game does.
---
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.
#65CHAINMAILLEKIDPosted 6/22/2010 12:35:13 PM
I'm sorry, but you can't back your argument with subjective statements.
#66Redbird520Posted 6/22/2010 1:25:19 PM

Most of the time i'm trying to hard to kill people that i dont even notice the radar.

And Dark......if realistic is what your looking for then get off your *** and go play airsoft or join the army and stop *****ing

#67DarkZV2BetaPosted 6/22/2010 1:44:41 PM
I never said I was pro realism. It has a time and a place. All I said was Call of Duty has nothing to do with realism. Learn2Read.
---
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.