Jump to content

X05:Ghost Recon 3 Close Look


WhiteKnight77
 Share

Recommended Posts

I could never get used to that OTS view.... It's terrible and seems awkward... Although I can't say I've tried playing using it... yet.

I Don't have any problem with the technology used in the game, many people around here seem to think that equipment isnt advancing... well it is and its becoming more futuristic, ghost recon is and was originally about using advanced weapons and equipment to achieve objectives.

Edited by whoa182
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's indeed a fact that alot of rooms on XBL don't restrict the settings to FPV only. However I think the reason behind that is that next to the fact it indeed offers you peripheral vision, people just wan't to see something of there selfs instead of being some floating camera as pro 3rd person players have mentioned in the past. And may that be a weapon or a character.

My issue with 3rd person view is that in MP people behind cover have an advantage over people that are trying to make a move. I've noticed that 3rd person view has changed player's behaviour in MP battles. Instead of searching for enemies or finding a nice concealed spot to snipe from, people (and I admit doing it as well) tend to walk to a corner or object, wait behind it and suddenly pop out when they see someone coming. In GR1 you took a risk when you stick your head out, now you don't really have that anymore which makes the game much less exciting than it used to be.

@Serellan I agree that the current FPV isn't ideal but isn't it posible to have peripheral vision in FPV? Can't it be fixed with wide screen? Or just by tweaking it?

And now where talking about it, will you be able to search servers based on there type of view settings in GRAW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the best examples of multiple views has to be Operation Flashpoint, you've got 1st person, 3rd person and if you're in charge you have the commander view.

If I'm in a vehicle I use 3rd person or if we're travelling on foot I'll use 3rd person but I always change to 1st person when contact is made, I just cant get used to going from 3rd person to scoped view in that game. But having the ability to use all the different views adds to the game, it takes nothing away and the views can be regulated by server settings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My issue with 3rd person view is that in MP people behind cover have an advantage over people that are trying to make a move. I've noticed that 3rd person view has changed player's behaviour in MP battles. Instead of searching for enemies or finding a nice concealed spot to snipe from, people (and I admit doing it as well) tend to walk to a corner or object, wait behind it and suddenly pop out when they see someone coming. In GR1 you took a risk when you stick your head out, now you don't really have that anymore which makes the game much less exciting than it used to be.

^^^^^^exactly I agree 100%. Peripheral vision is nice, but OTS does way more than that. It gives an unfair, and unrealistic view of the battlefield allowing you to take advantage of vision that would otherwise be completely obstructed. FP point of view made the game way more tactical, because in order to see you had to expose yourself to the target.

But im not trying to start a war here. To each his own. Obviously everyone on here has good intentions and those are to try and offer opinions/suggestions to support and help the series evolve but at the same time retain the original addictive feel that hooked us all. It is funny and ironic that it seems so many PC guys in here defending OTS and the PC version gets a more tactical version. I will be happy with the new game as long as 2 things are there. 1. The option of 1st person and 2. getting rid of the bullet lag that wasn't there in [GR] and GRIT and plagued the GR2 and SS games. Don't believe me or haven't noticed? Shoot at the ground and watch the delay from fire to contact. Then go back and play [GR] and feel how the ballistics seemed so much better. (Im speaking all multiplayer here). At any rate, I really hope I enjoy the new game, and I appreciate the efforts of the Devs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to respawns, yes they're entirely unrealistic. However, the reason I like to play with respawns is that when I pay US $50 for a video game and pop it into the console, I want to spend my time actually playing the game. I don't want to start a game, shoot a couple people, then get shot, then wait in a lobby for 4 full minutes. Continuous gameplay is what is attractive about respawns. The dynamics of the game is different, as the entire objective then becomes to take over the enemy spawn points. It is A LOT of fun if you have the right people playing (i.e. no kiddies that complain about spawn camping, because that actually IS the objective)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to respawns, yes they're entirely unrealistic.  However, the reason I like to play with respawns is that when I pay US $50 for a video game and pop it into the console, I want to spend my time actually playing the game.  I don't want to start a game, shoot a couple people, then get shot, then wait in a lobby for 4 full minutes.  Continuous gameplay is what is attractive about respawns. 

I agree. Siege and LMS are a blast, but a good SS match is great too! I wasn't trying to talk down on respawns, I was just making a point about options for players. :thumbsup:

I had lots of arguments with people on forums, because I felt respawns were totally unrealistic and would ruin gameplay. I think time has proven me wrong. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didnt mind the transition from FPS to 3rd person. I loved it and because of it i was waiting impatiently for GR2. BUT, it wasnt the same feeling I got when i played GR1 and GR:IT. It became a " I gotta find a corner or rock quick!" I would run to a rock or corner the instance we picked our weapons. I felt like a robot on every board that i played. Doing the same ole tactics. I dont even walk anymore in GR. I used to walk alot,use my head, plan a path of attack or look for a nice cover spot to buy me some time, and gather my thoughts on my current situation, whether i was attacking, defending or covering. I couldnt even play [GR] drunk! I cannot play [GR] drunk. I couldnt think well and my reaction time suffered badly. Now thats what i call realism. But in GR2 since, IMO got socomed/halofied. I can play drunk with the best of them...crazy. I just sit behind a rock all game, or just run and gun it. Spraying like some fool yelling " ###### YA'LL!!!"

Anyways i think RSE can fix the OTS issue. Here is a suggestion..Mind you im not a game developer, im just a security guard. But look: Why dont RSE make it so if youre in OTS, and a person happens to approach a obstacle (Wall,rock,etc...) the camera pans in and down where the player cannot see over the obstacle. All the player can see is his/her head and shoulders. I think i seen it in done in a pick i recently seen. Ill find it then try to explain better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger point is not whether inadequacies exist in OTS. They do. And they will in everything until they invent a MATRIX jack in or until you get off your ass and do it for real. The fact is that, from the perspective of real operators, OTS has it's issues, but it's realism far outweighs simple FPS view. After my earlier post I called 5 fellow operators and we discussed this at some length. The verdict wasn't even close.

There are other issues to be fixed. If you like FPS views more, then I am all for having a choice. If you simply like the gameplay of an FPS view then that is all well and good also. But it is a waste of time to suggest that even with it's issues, OTS is less realistic than normal FPS views.

Regarding respawns I like having the choice. There are occasions I run Respawns. Not often, but I still like the choice. If I have 30 minutes to jump online then Respawns are a good choice. If I have a few hours then running a game without Respawns and paying dearly for mistakes is more of an option. The fact is that running a respawn on occasion will make you a better gamer in non-Respawn rooms as you are able to attempt a greater number of techniques and without penalty in a short amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger point is not whether inadequacies exist in OTS. They do. And they will in everything until they invent a MATRIX jack in or until you get off your ass and do it for real. The fact is that, from the perspective of real operators, OTS has it's issues, but it's realism far outweighs simple FPS view. After my earlier post I called 5 fellow operators and we discussed this at some length. The verdict wasn't even close.

There are other issues to be fixed. If you like FPS views more, then I am all for having a choice. If you simply like the gameplay of an FPS view then that is all well and good also. But it is a waste of time to suggest that even with it's issues, OTS is less realistic than normal FPS views.

Regarding respawns I like having the choice. There are occasions I run Respawns. Not often, but I still like the choice. If I have 30 minutes to jump online then Respawns are a good choice. If I have a few hours then running a game without Respawns and paying dearly for mistakes is more of an option. The fact is that running a respawn on occasion will make you a better gamer in non-Respawn rooms as you are able to attempt a greater number of techniques and without penalty in a short amount of time.

I understand completly what you are saying. I also like the choice. But prefer one if it was up to me. I still think that the devs can touch on this a little more and try to accomodate for everyone.

Anyways this is what i was trying to explain earlier about OTS aproaching a obstacle: http://www.1up.com/media?id=2295164

KInda small tho.

Edited by nastyOWL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasty Owl,

I understand exactly what you are saying. This happens sometimes in Splinter Cell 1,2, and 3 and it prevents the cheat view. Not always but it does happen. I am unsure if this is accidental as the camera work is always pretty good in the SC series. But you could be onto something as it is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nasty Owl,

   I understand exactly what you are saying. This happens sometimes in Splinter Cell 1,2, and 3 and it prevents the cheat view. Not always but it does happen. I am unsure if this is accidental as the camera work is always pretty good in the SC series. But you could be onto something as it is a good idea.

Thanks,

I remember seeing this view also in a GRIT trailer,I think( im problaly wrong) it was a special features option in Splinter Cell one.

Edited by nastyOWL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatchetforce,

I don't think that anyone here has a problem with the Direct Acttion aspects of GR, or that consoles are the future of gaming. The problem has always been the lack of depth for console games, and the way that direct action is applied.

The PC version of Rainbow Six 3 was Ravenshield. Ravenshield had the whole Rainbow team, more weapon choices, more gear choices, weapon add ons and other things that R63 did not have. I liked the gamplay of R63, but I wondered why PC gamers always got more. The answer was always that PC hardware was better, and that the console games were stretched to capacity. OK fine. Then along comes the 360 announcement. Everyone is psyched. Personally, I'm psyched because I'm thinking that we will get huge maps, awesome graphics, and all of the extra gameplay things that have been missing from console games. Ubi makes a special announcement that a seperate studio is building GRAW for the PC, and that it will be a more tactical game than the console versions. There are going to be enhancements in the PC version thatt won't be in the 360 and X-box versions. The 360 version is revealed, and it looks nothing like any version of GR that I have seen. It is arcadey and run and gunnish.

My belief is that many of us on this board have embraced the whole console thing, but until games with PC standards are made for consoles, they won't be taken seriously. I'm all for sending my team on a direct action op. I'm not all for having a four person squad engage in a running gun battle with over a hundred enemy in broad daylight. I'm not in the military, but everything that I have read, and some of my friends who were in the Navy tell me that the element of surprise was always a tactic that was used. Quick raids, and then breaking contact. Nighttime missions, suppressed weapons. Stealth. This is what I want out of a SF game. Not four clowns walking down the street shooting it out with half of Mexico City in broad daylight.

This series does need to evolve, but at what cost? Games should be fun, but the GR series has always had an element of realism mixed in. GRAW doesn't look at all realistic. And why the lack of features? Why isn't Ubi giving us all of the PC features on console? This is what we are here fighting for. Better games for the console gamer, not just better graphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun is a relative term. I have said it before but the fun factor can be measured by sales and especially by the Xbox LIVE figures.

Other than aspects about which Redstorm cannot be privy, the part of an Op rarely portrayed would never fly in the gaming world if it were unclassified. People would rather watch paint dry. There isn't a lot to it once you decide to hit a place. And if you don't think you can wind up in a gun battle with a hundred people I beg to differ from personal experience. Also there is a lovely resort town called Fallujah of which you may have heard.

Recon in GR2 and GR2 SS is entirely possible. It isn't as easy as GR1, but it can be done. And the enemies don't let you get away with wholesale killing the way you could in GR1. Remember? Kill a bunch of guys, make all kinds of racket, and if they weren't on top of you they were ignorant of the event. Or else they would come marching at you in that diamond shape formation waiting to catch one in the teeth. Quite honestly if you cannot use stealth and surprise in GR2, it is because you suck at tactics.

The element of surprise is always used in real combat. Speed and surprise, superior firepower, and violence of action. And you can utilize those factors again and again in GR2 and SS. If you can't then refer to the suck comment.

Almost no one on this board has demonstrated the ability to step back and look at the overall gamer spectrum. Instead they have approached this subject with blinders on. Here is a deal. If everyone here will buy all of the GR copies that are normally bought by the non-hardcore players, then I am sure the devs can cater exactly to your whims. But everyone here continues to approach the subject as if the Gr.net gamers are the sole gamers of these particular titles. Although they are great gamers here :thumbsup: we are far in the minority of the buying public. You can't live on dreams and at the end of the day. The titles must sell.

And they have to sell well. Calling on past figures becomes a bit inexact in light of the continually expanding gaming base world wide. A game is not judged on whether it sold well, but rather on how well it could sell if it were made to attract more of the spectrum. It is called business and yes it exists in the gaming world. The average dev makes games because he or she loves the process, but the powers that be are business people and the bottom line must be attended. Too many studios go under these days. If your average studio were a horse you would not bet on it.

Frankly comments about 4 clowns walking down the street shooting it out make you look ignorant. Sound harsh? It should. Think about it. How much of it have you gamed? Other than a CG movie designed not to inform but to excite and a few gameplay clips what do you know? Zip. Have you seen the depth of the levels? Have you experienced what kind of tactical control is needed to manage a squad? Of course not. But you are an expert on the game already. Hell, let's get Rocky to give you webspace and you go ahead and write a review about the full game of which you know so much.

You say GRAW doesn't look all that realistic. Compared to what? To give any weight to your statements you would have to honestly be able to speak about how it games, rather than appears. Appearances lead to assumptions, assumptions lead to errors, errors lead to....enough Yoda. By your own admission you are not in the military and obviously not privy to the tech coming down the pipe in the next 10 years. What will war look like?

While I am on the subject have you actually gamed Summit Strike? Like a great many SF missions these days it comes fast. But there is a full intel dump at the beginning and you can approach the missions in a wide variety of ways. I have made it all the way through several levels using nothing but a pistol against foot soldiers. How? Tactics. The same tactics those that decry GR2 claim are impossible in the game.

And LIVE? Well on LIVE you understand how the SP game is dwarfed by the LIVE experience. I feel sorry for those that love games and have never experienced Xbox LIVE. You may think that you do not care for the MP portion, but that is a statement made out of ignorance of the experience. Once you run a mission with friends on LIVE, whether against the machine or with real opponents, you will never go back. And trust me, no PC experience compares.

Yes I still like a good SP experience, but the fact is the most brilliant AI in any game you have ever played do not compare to a single game on LIVE. It is the reason the world internet tanked last year on November 9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note I had almost this exact same discussion years ago about respawns in GR1 PC, before I worked at RSE.  I was a hardcore RS fan, and was staunchly opposed to respawns in the "new" PC game. 

Hey Serellan, this thread is like a repeat of history ... I clearly remember the same arguments in the old Red Storm forums (anyone here remember that?) about 1st person view vs. 3rd person view in Rogue Spear/Urban Ops PC. It was eventually made an option in MP which made most people happy.

I personally always played R6/RS/UO single player in 3rd person view, and MP in 1st person. I would have played GR1 PC single player in 3rd person view if it was available :rambo:

And for the record, I've played GR2/SS Xbox in both 1st person and OTS view, and prefer the OTS view. But that's just me ... :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With GRAW we have the PC forum talk of the "diamonds" and HUD compass size and other such things.

I think in the end reading this its realy just a case of having enough options in the settings section of the game to tailor it.

IE: a "scale HUD" option or "scale Tac Map" option (PC im refering to).

Also the sit-rep side of things, it would be nice if thats broken down and can be toggled blatantly on MP server options but also PC SP - this refers to the "Diamonds", at the PC section of the forum its assumed that team mates make an I.D of enemy thus you get the "Diamonds" on your HUD. Although it still would be good to have this switchable and deffinately the "outline of eney behind walls" - that one is a real "funny one" in PC thread .. as in - "take it off completetly" for PC or at least switchable in options.

I know this is console thread but my main point is either way ... plenty of switchable options.

Edited by calius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatchetforce,

Look, I respect your experience in the military, and I respect that you have consulted on this game, but I don't agree with much of what you want for this franchise.

I did play Summit Strike and have gone on record saying that I liked it. SS would be a better game with more choices. Weapons mods, more choices in gear and equipment, the full ghost team. The ability to pick your team and their gear, The ability for the team to be killed, and not magically appear in the next mission. Why isn't Ubi putting these things into the game? We have been asking for these thing forever, and yet nothing. Why did Ubi ever take these things out?

You make assumptions that I don't like the live experience, and that I am mainly interested in SP missions. I don't recall mentioning any of this. I am an X-box gamer who plays mainly on live, so I understand how good these games can be on live.

The gamers I play with all want more. Period. I host public rooms quite frequently, and even the kids want weapons mods, more customization, and a better sp/coop experience, as well as better adversarial play. You say that we are a very small group here, but I disagree. I think that the game that we are looking for would be Ubi's best seller. They don't want to listen because they would rather listen to consultants' views on what the public wants rather than listening to what the general public has to say. I know that you are SF, but guess what? My opinion should carry just as much weight as yours. You're basically saying otherwise, and I just plain disagree. Summit Strike was made the way it was because guys like myself complained about GR2. SS was a much better game, and yeah, it sold pretty well too. This is proof that we GR gamers have some pretty good ideas about how to make a FUN game, so I guess we don't need to buy all the GR copies. The game we want will sell itself if Ubi will start listening to us. When they start listening to gaming fans about what they want, they will sell tons of games. If not GRAW will become another Lockdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have gotten the time mixed up, but I heard the part you are talking about, but I swear I heard only 3rd person elsewhere, but I may be wrong.

Still, why has RSE and Ubi replaced the 3rd person views when so many people keep saying they do not want it and after RSE game fans petitioned RSE to exclude them from future games? That is a huge step backwards with their games. Maybe Serellan can shed some light on this ashe is the lead designer. Why put a mode back in a game that allows for unrealistic views and the ability to see around objects such as that rock that you were hiding behind in the MP demo? I keep hearing devs say that the game is aimed at a mature crowd, yet kiddie views are still around.

Lots of people HERE say they don't like it. I talk to and play with gamers on a weekly basis on Xbox Live that love it. They love seeing their character, and knowing for sure when they have good cover (unlike in FP). Yes, there are debates back and forth, but that is another sign that people like it. You cannot make the case that the vast majority of Xbox players do not want OTS in the game.

It is planned that it will remain as a server option on 360, just like in GR2. That way gamers have a choice in the way they want to play the game, and I firmly believe that we should provide gamers choice. I don't believe in pulling a feature from a platform because gamers from another platform don't like it. On PC, the game is FP, in response to fan feedback from PC gamers, like you.

Personally, when I first saw OTS a few years ago, I hated it. But playing with it, I came to like it. It gives a spacial awareness that is not present in FP, and helps to make up for the lack of precise control that you do no have when using a controller vs mouse and keyboard. Is it unrealistic? Yes. But so is FP. Neither is an accurate representation of your field of view and senses in the field. I know lots of people that like OTS that are not "kiddies." Some of them are SF operators. ;)

BTW: http://serellan.3dretreat.com/christian/history.htm

Actually, I think you should keep the reticule that big because of the lack of control that the analog sticks have compared to the k/m. However, the view (ots) should be pulled in ALOT closer to the character (like right over his shoulder), to prevent the camera manipulation around objects.

This game BARELY resumbles the video we have seen since E3. AND if you haven't noticed, more and more kiddies are starting to play this game BECAUSE you guys put in the OTS view. In the days of GR1, I could play for 3 hours and run across 10 kids. Now, I play for that same 3 hours and come across 50. This is like Halo2 (just not as good), which will kill you guys.

This is not considered a serious series anymore (I'm not trying to be mean, it's just a fact). Get back your user base and stop trying to sell to the 10 yr old down the block. You guys really aren't listening.

After all the complaining about looking over/around objects, and you guys show up in Germany with a demo that looks just like GR2/SS? You guys knew it enough not to make it for the PC. You guys knew it enough not to make GR3 like that for the PC.

Edited by Pave Low
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note I had almost this exact same discussion years ago about respawns in GR1 PC, before I worked at RSE.  I was a hardcore RS fan, and was staunchly opposed to respawns in the "new" PC game.  I had lots of arguments with people on forums, because I felt respawns were totally unrealistic and would ruin gameplay.  I think time has proven me wrong. ;)

I still prefer non-respawn games, because it is more intense for me, but I don't think people would argue for taking respawns out of GR (well, I'm sure some would).  You can't really say that respawns are realistic, so should they be removed from GR?  Or should players have a choice?

i think we should have a choice, by giving us a number for the respawns. So people play sharpshooter and go crazy because they have 10 min. of guaranteed action. If the server had the option of making a 10 min match with 5 respawns, i think that would cut down on some of the running and gunning.

I don't get it because you guys had it right the first time (GR1). Why would you not give us an option for the second time (GR2/SS). Like you said, people don't want to sit and watch, so after the first 3 times they die, they will be forced to play slower. Clan matches were born on GR1, with 10 respawns for a 10 min game.

PLEASE LISTEN TO US!!! or you may find yourself, by yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note I had almost this exact same discussion years ago about respawns in GR1 PC, before I worked at RSE.  I was a hardcore RS fan, and was staunchly opposed to respawns in the "new" PC game.  I had lots of arguments with people on forums, because I felt respawns were totally unrealistic and would ruin gameplay.  I think time has proven me wrong. ;)

I still prefer non-respawn games, because it is more intense for me, but I don't think people would argue for taking respawns out of GR (well, I'm sure some would).  You can't really say that respawns are realistic, so should they be removed from GR?  Or should players have a choice?

i think we should have a choice, by giving us a number for the respawns. So people play sharpshooter and go crazy because they have 10 min. of guaranteed action. If the server had the option of making a 10 min match with 5 respawns, i think that would cut down on some of the running and gunning.

I don't get it because you guys had it right the first time (GR1). Why would you not give us an option for the second time (GR2/SS). Like you said, people don't want to sit and watch, so after the first 3 times they die, they will be forced to play slower. Clan matches were born on GR1, with 10 respawns for a 10 min game.

PLEASE LISTEN TO US!!! or you may find yourself, by yourself.

The gameplay we showed at X05 had 5 Team Respawns. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 sounds like a good number. 3 was too easy for good teams to take over. 5 spawns with 8 man teams leaves 3 free to clean up the junk. It'll be a lot harder to lock down the spawns, but should still be possible for a really good team playing a really bad team.

Edited by CanOfCorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got done watching the 20 min. video. My hopes for this game are back on the rise. There are only a few things that must be made optional or eliminated for the game to be awesome.

-OTS view / ability to peek corners (already confirmed a server option)

-neon triangles / diamonds / enemy outlining (has this been confirmed a server option? I sincerely hope it is optional.)

-Kill camera (eliminate)

-Gigantic muzzle flash when weapon is fired (eliminate)

-Smoke trails on projectiles (eliminate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note I had almost this exact same discussion years ago about respawns in GR1 PC, before I worked at RSE.  I was a hardcore RS fan, and was staunchly opposed to respawns in the "new" PC game.  I had lots of arguments with people on forums, because I felt respawns were totally unrealistic and would ruin gameplay.  I think time has proven me wrong. ;)

I still prefer non-respawn games, because it is more intense for me, but I don't think people would argue for taking respawns out of GR (well, I'm sure some would).  You can't really say that respawns are realistic, so should they be removed from GR?  Or should players have a choice?

i think we should have a choice, by giving us a number for the respawns. So people play sharpshooter and go crazy because they have 10 min. of guaranteed action. If the server had the option of making a 10 min match with 5 respawns, i think that would cut down on some of the running and gunning.

I don't get it because you guys had it right the first time (GR1). Why would you not give us an option for the second time (GR2/SS). Like you said, people don't want to sit and watch, so after the first 3 times they die, they will be forced to play slower. Clan matches were born on GR1, with 10 respawns for a 10 min game.

PLEASE LISTEN TO US!!! or you may find yourself, by yourself.

The gameplay we showed at X05 had 5 Team Respawns. :thumbsup:

Do you happen to have a comment for my first post (right before)? I appreciate you responding. I would just like to know some of the thought process at RSE. Some people say you guys only respond to the "easy" questions or complaints, but what about the serious, or in depth complaints?

Also, would it be possible to tell us what you guys are looking at (the reason for the delay) for the extended three months? Are you guys trying to fix the OTS, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got done watching the 20 min. video.  My hopes for this game are back on the rise.  There are only a few things that must be made optional or eliminated for the game to be awesome.

-OTS view / ability to peek corners (already confirmed a server option)

-neon triangles / diamonds / enemy outlining (has this been confirmed a server option? I sincerely hope it is optional.)

-Kill camera (eliminate)

-Gigantic muzzle flash when weapon is fired (eliminate)

-Smoke trails on projectiles (eliminate)

I'll add to this....

one button, rate of fire switch (Think black button from GR1/Island Thunder)

movement right/left/backward is not as fast as forward movement (think GR1/Island thunder movement).

The reticule is good (for the lack of aiming in controllers). Anything but the half circle that's in GR2/SS (again, we are playing with controllers).

Maybe give us a choice on aiming sensitivity (ala Battlefield: Moder Combat, or Halo2).

AGAIN... OTS view needs to be tweaked to ELIMINATE the ablility to see around/above obstacles (pull the camera ALOT closer to the character. Maybe only see the characters head and neck - like the E3 demo).

Make the lean function more responsive (when I push left to lean, make the character lean right away, instead of a 1/2 second delay).

White button should be used to talk in the lobby (with the server having the ability to cut people off, and free talk to be used in game). The server having the ability to chim in will let him calm the room down (bring order), give direction (as in map changes, respwan changes, etc. that's needed for the game).

Realize that NO ONE uses the hand signals in multiplayer!! Use these buttons for talking, switch single shot/rapid fire (most important), etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...