Yea, but Cpl. Bannon annoyed the shit out of me.GreyKnight3445 said:Actually its very unoriginal. World in Conflict had a much better setting for it and it was done much much better because there was an actual reason to invade (the USSR said help us to Western Europe, they said no, so they invaded in order to avoid a collapse, and they invaded the U.S. to stop the flow of troops and armor to Europe)
That and there`s no patriotism to see for miles
Homefront: Not so original?
- Thread starter Nocola
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Right, because you've played the game.GreyKnight3445 said:
But even if you haven't, if a game isn't original it automatically sucks, right? Like Uncharted, that was a terrible game because it didn't try anything incredibly risky or unique! It doesn't matter how good the gameplay is, or how great the story is, or how good the characters are, it sucks because IT'S NOT ORIGINAL.
It reminds me of Turning Point Fall of Liberty
BUT
As with all games it is wrong to poo poo one until you try it. I will see how it fares when it is released
BUT
As with all games it is wrong to poo poo one until you try it. I will see how it fares when it is released
Honestly, we can theory-craft all we want, but we can't determine anything until we see how the game is executed (i.e. in a demo).Nocola said:
What the game will come down to is the impact of the voice actors, animation, and visual story-telling.
Currently, I'm ambivalent about whether or not (and in what aspects, i.e. single or multiplayer) this game will be good.
Now the game "World in Conflict" however... that was a good story of an invasion of America. It's also responsible for my favorite video game cinematic:
Embed Doesn't want to work with me [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOK7r1pa74M]
Between that scene and the battle at Cascade Falls, and stunning voice actors it was brilliantly executed.
In the end, whether-or-not its a grayscale FPS doesn't matter: it all comes down to the execution
A non-spec-ops civilian guy who will still absorb more ammo than the broad side of most barns.Ironman126 said:
I wish someone would make a game that actually made you feel like you were fighting against overwhelming odds, forcing you to use guerrilla tactics and scrounge for ammo. Also, I'd like it to feature anyone but an American in the leading role, preferably I'd like it to feature no Americans at all.
Homefront just sounds boring to me.
Two question:Dethpixie said:
One: Do you know for a fact that he will "absorb more ammo than the broad side of most barns?" And two: Do you game on a console or a PC?
Cuz if you're a PC gamer, then you NEED to check out the STALKER games. They feature Ukrainian player characters who die after 3 or 4 bullets, assuming they have decent armor. They also tend to bleed out and die of radiation poisoning if not properly treated and ammo is never around when you need it. In other words, STALKER meets your requirements.
America. Remember how big of a spazz Fox had when the word Taliban was to be used in MoH? Remember how they got 6 Days In Fallujah banned because it had American soldiers in it that got killed?cjbos81 said:
A USA = bad guys game will NEVER make it to shelves in the current status quo.
QFT. World in Conflict is how you do a "America invaded!" game. I wish there was a sequel or something to that in order to continue the story though... :/GreyKnight3445 said:Actually its very unoriginal. World in Conflict had a much better setting for it and it was done much much better because there was an actual reason to invade (the USSR said help us to Western Europe, they said no, so they invaded in order to avoid a collapse, and they invaded the U.S. to stop the flow of troops and armor to Europe)
That and there`s no patriotism to see for miles
OT: I think we need a game where you play as a resistance fighter who is in a country invaded by the US. THAT would be an interesting story if done right.
As for this game, I don't really care. It doesn't look interesting, and so I'll be content to ignore it unless everyone and their mother's dog tells me that its a good game.
They weren't talking about that scene necessarily. The orignality is the ability to call in anything you want based off of your score, the plot is pretty original in context. Overall, I'd say that pretty nice.
(NOTE: Minor grammar edits were made in the above, just because they're pet peeves of mine.)Vykrel said:
I'd posit that I simply have a different taste for games than you. Among the things which killed the HL2 experience for me were:
No Iron Sights/Precision Aim system, short of a few specialized weapons
Labyrinthine maps
Uninteresting, faceless antagonists
Uninteresting protagonists
Uninteresting PC
Ill-handled tropes in feeble attempts to push the plot forward.
(Author's note: Again, Minor grammar-fixes)Vykrel said:Then maybe you shouldn't accuse a game of being over-hyped next time.Thanatos5150 said:
That implies that I believe there's a "Right" and a "wrong" way to enjoy games. Which is simply untrue. As a member of the "Games are art" camp, I believe that anyone can enjoy any game they damn' well please for any reason, even if it's only "It goes with my couch, man"-itis.
Hell, I liked Alpha Protocol and honestly cannot understand why Starcraft II is a thing when there's Dawn of War and Dawn of War II on the market. I'm the last person to run around and calling other people "wrong" for their taste in games.
Kind of odd, because that was one of the games that made their reputation. Only their second single player release. And they took a pretty decent chance with it. Unlike Doom 2, Call Of Duty 2 or Halo 2, it was a pretty big departure from the original, something which is really odd for a sequel to the best selling PC FPS of all time.Thanatos5150 said:
HL2 is a very large part of the reason why Valve fanboys exist today. It's the game that proved they were more than a one-trick pony.