The Gaming Lounge: Beyond - Part 3

[Havok83]

I'd take another WWII game over more Modern ******** any day.

Not me. WW2 is the worst

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The modern shooters are worse. There's no challenge with aiming with a red dot sight.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

I prefer WW2 asthetic, but they really did run that genre into the ground. I haven't really kept up with all the modern military stuff though outside of the Battlefield games.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

The only new WWII game i need is a proper sequel to Brothers in Arms: Hells Highway. They ended that game talking about going to Bastogne, id like to see them close that series off.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

The modern shooters are worse. There's no challenge with aiming with a red dot sight.

I agree. Its much better when its just you, your gun and a pineapple grenade. Instead of all these damn heatseekers and under barrel grenade launchers.

 

[Havok83]

The modern shooters are worse. There's no challenge with aiming with a red dot sight.

Oh there's defiently challenge playing modern shooters.

To me, WW2 shooters have always been boring. I hate that setting. It was so overexposed and I didnt find any of them particular interesting. I always thought the aesthetics were so bland. I preferred the Timesplitters, Killzone, Resistance, Modern Warfare over the likes of any WW2 base shooter

 

[Iceman]

Not me. WW2 is the worst

A lot of the WW2 games have no personality to them. At least the limited banter in the modern setting or more recent war based games feels more natural. I guess a lot of writers are more comfortable with that type of dialogue.

 

[SpideyVille]

Personally, I love that time in history and the setting, although I will admit that it is the most used setting in shooters. I've never really been a fan of FPS though, so I don't care too much how much they re-use settings.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Oh there's defiently challenge playing modern shooters.

So were WWII shooters, the only difference is you didn't have cheap stuff to make shooting easier. A gun like the BAR had a big clip, but was incredibly cumbersome to move with and reload. Guns in MW# have just as big rounds but none of those disadvantages. A BAR-equivalent in MW has such a massive round you never had to reload. In fact, your ammo supply is pretty much impossible to exhaust completely.

Every gun in a WWII FPS feels unique. I can rattle off so many guns, the Moisin-Nagant, SVT-40, PPSH, MG44, MG42, Gehwehr, Kar98k, M1 Garand, Lee-Enfield, Springfield, Thompson and recall what each of them looked liked and their strengths and weaknesses. The Moisin-Nagant had the best iron sight for precision, the PPSH had the biggest clip, the Gehwehr had the best fire rate of a rifle, the M1 Garand couldn't be reloaded, the Lee Enfield was the strongest but you had to use at least half a clip to reload.

I can't recall the name of one gun from MW. If it wasn't a handgun, sniper rifle, or rocket launcher, I couldn't tell it apart from the rest. They all were black and had the same type of sight and most had a grenade launcher attachment.

MW for the most part has a brute force play style of just running and gunning. WWII shooters required more strategy in slowly advancing, especially if you didn't have the best gun for that part of the level.

 

[Soapy]

Every positive and negative thing you said about either setting, is true for both of them.

Anyway, speaking of Dubya Dubya II games, I just discovered that not only is there a sequel to the flawed but still awesome Sniper Elite in the works, but there's a demo on Xbox Live and PSN!

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Every positive and negative thing you said about either setting, is true for both of them.

Anyway, speaking of Dubya Dubya II games, I just discovered that not only is there a sequel to the flawed but still awesome Sniper Elite in the works, but there's a demo on Xbox Live and PSN!

Oh wow. yea iv been paying attention to that game, but obviously not enough as i didn't know there was a demo.

 

[Havok83]

So were WWII shooters, the only difference is you didn't have cheap stuff to make shooting easier. A gun like the BAR had a big clip, but was incredibly cumbersome to move with and reload. Guns in MW# have just as big rounds but none of those disadvantages. A BAR-equivalent in MW has such a massive round you never had to reload. In fact, your ammo supply is pretty much impossible to exhaust completely.

Every gun in a WWII FPS feels unique. I can rattle off so many guns, the Moisin-Nagant, SVT-40, PPSH, MG44, MG42, Gehwehr, Kar98k, M1 Garand, Lee-Enfield, Springfield, Thompson and recall what each of them looked liked and their strengths and weaknesses. The Moisin-Nagant had the best iron sight for precision, the PPSH had the biggest clip, the Gehwehr had the best fire rate of a rifle, the M1 Garand couldn't be reloaded, the Lee Enfield was the strongest but you had to use at least half a clip to reload.

I can't recall the name of one gun from MW. If it wasn't a handgun, sniper rifle, or rocket launcher, I couldn't tell it apart from the rest. They all were black and had the same type of sight and most had a grenade launcher attachment.

MW for the most part has a brute force play style of just running and gunning. WWII shooters required more strategy in slowly advancing, especially if you didn't have the best gun for that part of the level.

That doesnt make a game better. Everything you put in here is exactly why I prefer modern shooters and hate WW2 ones.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

A game where each weapon feels unique is better.

 

[Havok83]

Theres alot more that goes into a shooter than the guns. Simply having one that has each one unique doesnt make for a better game. Besides its not like every single gun from modern shooters feel and operate the same way. You are oversimplifying things

 

[jacobed]

World at War is without a doubt my favorite shooter of this generation. Mainly because of the emphasis on single shot rifles and of course the greatest gun of this generation the Kar98k

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Theres alot more that goes into a shooter than the guns. Simply having one that has each one unique doesnt make for a better game. Besides its not like every single gun from modern shooters feel and operate the same way. You are oversimplifying things

Actually, that's exactly how it is. If it isn't a sniper rifle or a handgun, it's all pretty much the exact same thing.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Actually, that's exactly how it is. If it isn't a sniper rifle or a handgun, it's all pretty much the exact same thing.

No its really not. There is a MASSIVE difference between an M249 and an M16, at least there should be, If there isn't, the developer f***ed up.

 

[Havok83]

Actually, that's exactly how it is. If it isn't a sniper rifle or a handgun, it's all pretty much the exact same thing.

Wow, really? You dont see a difference between an SMG, LMG, grenade launcher, P90, rocket launcher, assault rifle etc....

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I preferred the Modern Warfare over the likes of any WW2 base shooter

WWII shooters pretty much came down to destroyed France and destroyed Holland. MW has destroyed Iraq and destroyed Afghanistan. The only difference there is the architecture in France and Holland looks better.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

Wow, really? You dont see a difference between an SMG, LMG, grenade launcher, P90, rocket launcher, assault rifle etc....

A P90 is a form of SMG.

 

[Havok83]

A P90 is a form of SMG.

I know that but it feels different than lets say an Uzi

WWII shooters pretty much came down to destroyed France and destroyed Holland. MW has destroyed Iraq and destroyed Afghanistan. The only difference there is the architecture in France and Holland looks better.

WW2 is too archaic for me. I prefer the guns in modern shooters. I prefer the gadgets, bombs and other technological advances. I prefer the setting, aesthetics, etc... WW2 simply is not appealnig to me in any way shape or form. I will not play them. I find them all boring.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I know that but it feels different than lets say an Uzi


WW2 is too archaic for me. I prefer the guns in modern shooters. I prefer the gadgets, bombs and other technological advances. I prefer the setting, aesthetics, etc... WW2 simply is not appealnig to me in any way shape or form. I will not play them. I find them all boring.

I just dont see the difference there. Weapons yea, but todays modern shooters are nothing but repainted WWII shooters. Especially those titles you mentioned earlier.

 

[Soapy]

I literally just shot a dude's balls off in Sniper Elite. I'm calling it, GOTY 2012.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

I literally just shot a dude's balls off in Sniper Elite. I'm calling it, GOTY 2012.

LOL.

Yea those x ray kills are pretty sick.

I got one on a dude that was running across the street and the slow mo showed the bullet travel through his knee and you could see bits of bone and cartilage. Great stuff. Gonna keep an eye on the reviews when this game drops.

 

[Soapy]

I'll probably get it regardless of reviews, I'm just going to wait for the price to drop a little.