I meant quality wise. Sales numbers will be a little trickier but it is possible for them to take that from CoD as well. If the game is THAT good, word will spread and naturally everyone will buy it. The thing is, it will need to be that good in order for the masses which are comfortable with the CoD series to even approach BF3. The true test is going to be the multiplayer. By the time the beta comes out (if they learn from IW, and actually have a beta) we'll know what we're dealing with.
I'm not a huge FPS aficionado, but aren't there already FPS games that surpass CoD in that regard? Including the previous entry in the Battlefield franchise, Bad Company 2? I think games are an industry whose sales are the least tied to quality, and also, where genuine word-of-mouth is the least meaningful. (As opposed to Internet hype, trailer videos, etc.) Anyways, considering Bad Company 2 sold 6 million copies in the year it has been out, and Black Ops sold 7 million in its first 24 hours (and 18 million in the last few months), there is virtually no chance it outsells the CoD franchise.
Are there FPS games better than CoD? Hell yes. Counter-Strike's multiplayer shits all over the entire CoD franchise. Are there recent FPS games better than CoD? Eh... not so much.
If BF3 is half its reported quality, it'll be better than that shit pile called Black Ops. The only reason that game sold was because 90% of those people forgot about World at War due to mental trauma from playing it and though Treyarch learned how to make a fucking game. Incorrect. I played SOCOM and I agree with most of what Mekka said. It seems like they're actually treating this like a Beta, seriously asking for feedback and testing it, as opposed to it being an early demo. So I'm not going to nitpick. The one thing I love though which I think is important to mention, heads are big as fuck in this game. Headshots are so easy and are honestly the only way to dominate. Hopefully the gameplay on the large maps will get more tactical because a good team will need snipers and anti-snipers on some of those maps. A lot of towers on the outsides.
I have minimal experience with the BF series (to wit: a half-dozen hours in Bad Company 2, which I fucking hated), but aren't we comparing apples and oranges here? The pace and feel of the multiplayer between BC2 and MW2 are worlds apart. Bad Company's gameplay is more spread out and less frenzied, puts an emphasis on teamwork, and also utilizes vehicles. COD puts more emphasis on gunfights and lends itself more to "lone wolf" gameplay, which gives it more appeal to the playing community as a whole. Using teamwork can be fun, but the reality is that most people typically don't talk over the mic unless they're in a party. I could just be bitter from my unpleasant BC2 experience. All of the mechanics felt clunky as hell, and I didn't feel like I was getting better. When I get killed in COD, almost every time I can pinpoint the reason and correct my mistake. In Bad Company 2, it was all, "Oh shit, I'm getting shot. Now I'm dead. Huh." Rinse and repeat. Even when I started to do good towards the end, I didn't understand what, if anything, I was doing better. I just attributed my mild improvement to luck instead of skill, and that's not something that bodes well with me in a FPS. Fully-destructible environment aside, I was pretty fucking disappointed with BC2. I'm probably way off base here. I'm speaking only from my limited perspective. Dread or Parker will most likely have better perspectives from which to compare the two series. On a side note, I'd implore anyone here to get their hands on a copy of last month's copy of Game Informer. They had a cover story devoted to BF3, with an extensive account of all the ways they've improved the Frostbite engine since BC2, as well as an insightful interview with DICE executive producer Patrick Bach specifically to discuss the multiplayer aspect of BF3. As for whether BF3 could overtake COD in terms of quality or sales, I won't pass judgement on that notion, since I predicted several months ago that Homefront would do precisely that. Ummm...yeah...
This may actually explain my LMG long shot experience. Who else is playing the beta? I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts on it so far. One other thing too - I didn't take part in any of the betas except for S2...does Zipper have a history of responding favorably to what the gaming community says they'd like to see changed?
Care to explain our reasoning on this? Besides some of the huge franchises that EA and Activision pump out where people buy them year in and year out (Madden, and CoD so far), I don't think you could be more wrong. Even with the the annual best sellers, they still are overall fun products to play, more so than any competitor that might have games that are better in a few smaller areas(ie the sum of the parts of the Battle Field series doesn't outclass CoDs over all product). Im also not seeing the connection your are trying to make with internet hype and trailer videos...? I have been sucked into hype plenty of times and for the most part the big games(GTA, Metal Gear Solid) have all delivered a high quality product. Ive been burned too and will probably be skipping Killzone 3 in favor of better shooter (which will probably be Socom). The killzone games get massive internet hype but havent been anything special at all. Games are 60 bucks a pop and unless the producers have proven themselves before, I always rely on word of mouth and preplaying games(renting, at a buddies house, demos etc) before I buy. Look at the rise of the beta testing as a macro thing. Not only does it let you preview a game you might want it lets companies fucking tweak the games to deliver the best product they can. Im just not getting your position here man.
I was thinking of the "New Super Mario Bros." on the DS and Wii (both sold 15-20+ million copies) and how they're strictly inferior than fan-made Super Mario World hacks made in Lunar Magic and distributed for free over the Internet. What other industry do you see this in? As putrid as many of the Hollywood blockbusters are, fan-made productions are even worse. And don't even get me started on how worthless JRPGs and "games" like Farmville are (gigantic cash cows), even within their own respective genres. I really have zero pretensions when it comes to games; I just want something fun. But I fail to see any correlation between quality and sales. I'll confess that I'm not an expert on FPSs, I never liked MGS, but of course, I enjoy GTA. However, in genres like action, platforming, fighting, and racing games, I haven't seen the connection between any sort of quality and eventual sales, unless "quality" means the advertising budget, brand name, and how welcoming it is to scrubs. Maybe your own experience in the FPS genre has been the polar opposite, and you could be right. To me, this lack of correlation isn't surprising; I think the human brain can be entertained by just about any game, even inferior ones. Yeah, but you can still be fooled, like when Ubisoft Montreal offered advertising dollars and advanced copies of future games to major sites that would give "Assassin's Creed" a positive review. And note the slew of top editors and writers at gaming mags fired over low scores of certain games. I'm not saying it doesn't happen in other industries, only that it's even more egregious within the games industry. (Someone like Nettdata feel free to correct me) Anyways, you make a very good point about pre-playing, but many consumers don't, and even those that do won't bother investigating the genre further, to see if there is something similar, but better out there.
You might be right in some respects about quality vs. sales. I agree our brains can be entertained by just about anything. I do however put more stock in video game quality being more important that that of movie quality in terms of simply having the extra added burden of interactivity. A burden movies don't have. The major thing here is that you are saying word of mouth is the least meaningful? Really? What do you think internet hype is? That's what their advertising budgets are used for (creating hype inducing trailers and add material). You mention paying off of reviewers which is ethically wrong. But what the fuck is a reviewer anyway other than person that is paid (ethically speaking by a non biased source) in essence to spread word of mouth material, either good or bad depending on the game/movie/whatever? Video game hype seems to be much more interrelated to the internet historically than other entertainment avenues.
Very much so, if memory serves they had three patches to the MAG beta before it ever went live and from the Zipper podcasts and polls in the beta forums I'm pretty sure they are listening. The most bitched about things on the forums thus far are pulling the camera back, improved accuracy when hipfiring, removing ADS, and increasing look speed when zoomed in with L1. The current poll up is overwhelmingly in favor (85%) of changing the current mic settings and implemented a push-to-talk system like the previous Socom's.
That's because indie movie directors don't have nearly the resources to create a movie as aspiring developers have for creating games. A game can be created with just a single person and lots of programming knowledge, storytelling abilities optional; movies require cameras, lights, actors, and decent storytelling at minimum. There are far less barriers to entry in the video game industry, especially when there are companies that go as far as releasing free versions of their engines for anyone to work with. Epic Games' Unreal Development Kit (UDK), the free version of their Unreal Engine 3, comes to mind. Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules was #1 at the box office last week, and you really want to have this conversation? With minimal changes to the quote above, the very same thing can be said about the movie and music industries. Let's not pretend for one second that the rules are any different with video games. I don't understand how you can write "I really have zero pretensions when it comes to games; I just want something fun" immediately after condemning the likes of Farmville. I never have, nor will, play Farmville, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing its merit as a game, or knowing that many, many people enjoy playing it. Why? Because they "just want something fun." Some games are mindless fun; others are brilliantly-written interactive stories. It's not at all different from Bay vs. Scorsese.
By the way, has anyone here played Crysis 2 or Homefront? I'm considering renting one of them next week. Not buying, since I don't feel like dropping $60 on a whole game at this time. I've been strongly interested in Homefront since I first saw demos of it in December, and I really enjoyed the Crysis 2 demo last month. I'm just feeling out for any opinions that lean strongly one way or another. I must say, I have high hopes for Crysis 2 after how much fun I had with the demo.
I've played a little bit of Crysis 2 so far (single player only, no online play yet) and I've enjoyed it pretty well so far, and I hear that the game picks up quite a bit just a little bit beyond where I'm at now. Also, and I am playing a pretty beefy PC, it looks better than any other game I've played lately. I've heard Homefront was pretty disappointing, so if I were going to go rent one of the two, I would go with Crysis 2.
I don't consider interactivity a "burden"; in fact, it's the exact opposite. Being interactive allows video games of inferior quality to frequently entertain people more than something passive, like movies. I have never found Internet reviews the least bit helpful in purchasing any game. At least with movies, they're helpful like thirty percent of the time. I noted that yes, all industries suffer from this, but while the correlation in movies might be low, let's say r=0.3, it's still higher than for video games, which might be r=0.1. Of course, that's just my own general thinking and impression, but I feel it's a subtle distinction. You missed my point, dude. I sure as hell don't want "brilliantly-written interactive stories" games myself...in fact, I typically despise them. What I'm saying is that if you like Farmville, an infinite sim game, there are BETTER infinite sim games out there. I'm not comparing Bay vs. Scorsese, but saying that it's Bay vs. Bay+100 (someone like Nolan, perhaps?), and Bay still wins if he has a bigger advertising budget, better brand name, and/or is more scrub friendly.
I saw that Game Informer preview of BF3 due to my returning a bunch of shit at Gamestop and basically they're saying "We have the new Frostbite Engine, we're going to fuck your shit up and rape COD." And if the videos are accurate worth anything, the game is going to be amazing. They tried to push BC2 towards MW2 a little in terms of arcadeyness but all you got was more "WTF, how did I die so quickly and where from" as mentioned a few posts up. Now they're pushing it a little more and making the vehicles less retarded. What didn't you like about Killzone 3? I think the multiplayer is perfect for what they were trying to achieve, not a perfect multiplayer. If coming off MW2, the game is a pain in the ass, but it does a lot of things extremely well, and the tactical gameplay is fun as shit. If you're coming off a Bad Company or Battlefield, the game is going to feel more at home. All the classes are fun as hell to play and if your team or their team doesn't have the right mix its over (which is a double edged sword). I have to hurry up and blow through Black Ops so I can sell that bitch and get Crysis 2. The story looks like shit, but it seems like it'll be fun to play with the whole "kill your enemies in 50 ways" sort of thing.
Crysis 2 is a lot of fun. I've only played a little bit online, but the single player was pretty sweet. I think the story dragged on a bit, as there isn't really any one event or "mission" I can think of that was particularly memorable, but overall it was a nice change from the usual point-and-shoot FPS. The nanosuit really make this game, it takes a while to get the hang of using all the different abilities at the right time but it certainly opens up the game. As far as graphics it is by far the best I've ever seen, and at some points the amount of cool shit to look at is almost overwhelming. Multiplayer is a lot of fun too, but I haven't had a chance to really get in to it yet. From what I've seen so far though it requires a different play style than MW2. The maps are built with a lot more vertical textures to get people to use their suits more frequently. Trying to just run and gun will put you at a pretty big disadvantage to the players using their suits.
Anyone remember Mortal Kombat Trilogy AKA the best fighting game ever known to man? Oh man, I remember playing against my brother and cousins using nothing but Scorpions and there would only be flashes of Scorpion on the TV screen, constant teleportation for the win. So... Yeah, I'm pretty excited: GET OVER HERE!
Im pretty fucking pumped too. I don't know I was never a huge fighter fan. I tried getting into Tekken Tag but never put enough time into learning all of the peoples moves and timings. I also tried out Virtua Fighter but didn't have the patience and discipline to learn a virtual fighting technique for every fighter. Mortal Kombat though was always about brutal button mashing and cool special moves and fatalities. Thank god they don't let kids under 18 get tattoos Id have had that fucking dragon symbol on my arm for sure.
Just picked up The Show. I haven't played a baseball game since like All-Star baseball 2002 so I will probably be awful, but this game looks amazing... Anybody on here have it? Maybe get a game in or just some general tips so I don't lose by 100. I want to get some practice in first, hopefully there is a BP or fielding option. If anyone wants a game I should be set around 930 et.
Pretty sure I played the new Mortal Kombat demo for 5 hours. Not bragging, not ashamed either. Can't wait.