FA+
Shop
7271
Views
Views
123
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Human
Size 827 x 1280
File Size 127 kB
Report this content
More from livinlovindude
Well, been playing Half-Life two for some time, and I saw an old comment in one of my pics
Category All / All
Species Human
Size 827 x 1280px
File Size 127 kB
Ever play SWAT on Halo Reach? No motion campers and a single headshot is death, and yet camping is still a liable excuse. In fact from my experience 3 out of every 5 games at least half of both teams will sit in two or three spots while the other half "flushes them out", and end up rotating camping spots every minute or two because once they know you're sitting there it's no longer safe.
Aaaaannnd in Team Snipers motion trackers don't mean squat because most of the shots come from the other side of the map XD
Aaaaannnd in Team Snipers motion trackers don't mean squat because most of the shots come from the other side of the map XD
in real combat, you have to sit for hours, or days in the mud just so you could let the enemy come close to you, trench warfare is the ultimate camping example. I played airsoft, which has a lot more semblance to actual combat than FPS, and that's what we use. So I think camping is a legitimate strategy
True, but it's never fun to be on the receiving end of that XD
Besides, online it's typically someone with a Shotgun sitting around the corner where most people walk through. Add that with them grabbing a Sniper Rifle as well (And thus having little way to counter them save for waiting for them to run out of ammo) and it's realy cruel. 'Course, not every one can pull such camping off. I've seen folks grab the power weapons, rush to a camping spot, then get nailed by someone with a simple "weak" weapon.
I don't see anything wrong with camping -usually- but in Objective games when they completely ignore the actual game...? That's when I start to get annoyed XD
Besides, online it's typically someone with a Shotgun sitting around the corner where most people walk through. Add that with them grabbing a Sniper Rifle as well (And thus having little way to counter them save for waiting for them to run out of ammo) and it's realy cruel. 'Course, not every one can pull such camping off. I've seen folks grab the power weapons, rush to a camping spot, then get nailed by someone with a simple "weak" weapon.
I don't see anything wrong with camping -usually- but in Objective games when they completely ignore the actual game...? That's when I start to get annoyed XD
I've watched the History channel. >.> I know that real snipers lie in wait for days, and that ambush is certainly preferable to attacking an enemy head-on. I never said camping isn't a legitimate strategy. But when I'm playing a game for fun, and you sit in one place just waiting, well that's annoying and boring to me. =/
Nah. I've played a BIT of the online for Halo, Call of Duty, and Counterstrike, as well as the offline for whichever game it is that you try to survive a zombie attack from the White House. XD Only played enough to know I don't like 'em much.
The difference is, motion trackers punish you for not camping. If the map only shows sound reports then at least campers have to move after every kill. If you have to re establish a camp site after every kill, then it becomes an interesting mind game again.
But yeah, people playing the way you described is why I never got into shooters. I enjoy 'play to win' tactics in fighters, but not shooters.
The difference is, motion trackers punish you for not camping. If the map only shows sound reports then at least campers have to move after every kill. If you have to re establish a camp site after every kill, then it becomes an interesting mind game again.
But yeah, people playing the way you described is why I never got into shooters. I enjoy 'play to win' tactics in fighters, but not shooters.
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4780596/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7642536/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3515409/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6489590/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5316465/
care to tell me what these are then?
Watch you language, not everyone in here thinks like you or have the resources you have so that means BF3 might not be a possible option of play
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7642536/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3515409/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6489590/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5316465/
care to tell me what these are then?
Watch you language, not everyone in here thinks like you or have the resources you have so that means BF3 might not be a possible option of play
Ah halflife. Also, gotta say it, Halo ruined FPS by having that regenerating health thing. Yeah I know it's technically regenerating shield armor, but it set a precedent *COD anyone? Xp* I hate to break it to ya gamers, but hiding behind a chest high wall /does not/ magically heal bullet wounds. Health packs and first aid kits don't either, but it's more believable than simply willing them away.
Oh and before anyone gripes about it, no I don't hate Halo. I will however hold it responsible. X3
Oh and before anyone gripes about it, no I don't hate Halo. I will however hold it responsible. X3
perhaps you don't understand that CoD makes this a mistake as it doesn't not offer an explanation how the bear, unprotected human body can sustain, survive and repair itself after receiving multiple gunshot wounds.
Halo on the other hand legitimizes the rebounding health by explaining that it does have recharging shields and biofoam dispensers built in the armor. In comparison to story writing, its the suspension of disbelief, Halo gives a plausible explanation, as to CoD simply just leaves it to the player's imagination. You're thesis being that Halo is responsible in the fault of rebounding health is baseless because Halo provided an tool, which can be believably used in other games such as Gears of War, or Crysis. But all tools have different uses and purposes, CoD, not halo, is at fault because CoD used the rebounding health feature without giving a viable explanation as to how it is achieved and there for breaking the feel of the modern/historical shooter.
Halo on the other hand legitimizes the rebounding health by explaining that it does have recharging shields and biofoam dispensers built in the armor. In comparison to story writing, its the suspension of disbelief, Halo gives a plausible explanation, as to CoD simply just leaves it to the player's imagination. You're thesis being that Halo is responsible in the fault of rebounding health is baseless because Halo provided an tool, which can be believably used in other games such as Gears of War, or Crysis. But all tools have different uses and purposes, CoD, not halo, is at fault because CoD used the rebounding health feature without giving a viable explanation as to how it is achieved and there for breaking the feel of the modern/historical shooter.
Actually I do understand, but I think I failed to explain my reasoning properly. Yes, I know the behind Halo, John 117 "Master Chief", the spartan program, the mjolnir, I understand that. I also mentioned that I do not hate Halo for this, I love the story, the lore, in my opinion it's very good. My point was that the mechanic of replenishing health/shields/armor automatically has been copied over into other games, other shooters, that copy /only/ the mechanic and fail to explain the logic behind it. In Halo it works, it fits both the lore and the difficulty of gameplay. The example I used with COD is that they have no lore behind it. There is no explanation, it's just there for the sake of being there. So while I don't "blame" Halo for directly inspiring the games, I do say that developers looked at it and said "Hey, Halo multi-player is popular, let's copy that game-play and put it in everything else."
Also, sorry if I upset ya with that but I did mean that "holding it responsible" line jokingly.
Also, sorry if I upset ya with that but I did mean that "holding it responsible" line jokingly.
Comments