You said that "It's usually a tacked-on mediocre rehash of the same old." - I don't really see how that doesn't apply to Battlefield 3. It has been done, everything has been done. There is nothing new anymore. The aim in developing a good multiplayer game should be sorting out balancing issues and netcode nowadays.

I think that's a bit of a cop-out. There's still plenty of room for innovation. Publishers just don't do it because it's much easier to pump out another generic military shooter.

Given that it's one of the very few big-budget games with PC as the lead SKU, I really would like to care about BF3. The problem is that nothing I've seen of the actual gameplay looks even remotely interesting. Same weapons, same vehicles, same settings, same factions, same premise, same everything as every other military shooter, only with better graphics. Military shooter is quite possibly the most uninspired sub-genre in existence.

Erm. My point was to separate the games that

a) specialize in multiplayer (Quake Wars, BF series, Tribes, UT, Q3, Modern Warfare,TF2)
from games that
b) focus on single-player and waste time on an unbalanced/exploitable/overall gimmicky/crappy multiplayer component that everyone will forsake in 15 minutes and go play a game from a) list

There's nothing new anymore, but implementation is what makes all the difference.

I was neither trashing nor praising BF3 multiplayer, but I understand the reasons why it would be made. Rage multiplayer, on the other hand, strikes me as falling into the b) category.

Why I would compare BF to UT? Because they're both primarily multiplayer games. One of them has a far less "serious/real" approach to its levels, graphics and mechanics than the other. I'm not into the whole "serious/real" bit, as stated earlier.

As for "disturbing", yes it's my personal judgement. I am much more at peace blowing up shit in a made-up setting and watching gibs fly than being in some quasi-realistic village blowing up quasi-realistic soldiers with some rather, let's face it, boring quasi-realistic weapons.

Well let's see...
You said that "It's usually a tacked-on mediocre rehash of the same old." - I don't really see how that doesn't apply to Battlefield 3. It has been done, everything has been done. There is nothing new anymore. The aim in developing a good multiplayer game should be sorting out balancing issues and netcode nowadays.
Then you said "The novelty of "look ma there are multiple people on my screen shooting at me and they're REAL HUMANS" wore off in 1998" - and yes, that also still applies to Battlefield 3 because you still run around with real humans and not much has changed.
Finally you said "disturbingly realistic", that is an objectification. You use the real world as a scale to measure realism (at least that is what I assume because you did not specify; the real world, for example, is disturbingly realistic) but in your second post all of a sudden you're comparing it to other games. Why you would compare the realism of something like Battlefield to Unreal Tournament is beyond me, though.

If developers want to innovate the multiplayer so badly why don't they take Natural Selection, Tremulous, Savage or gloom as an example? Those have real innovation, not that pseudo-innovation seen in RO:HoS2 or BF3.

@yuastnav:

There is no contradiction in the first part of my post, read it more carefully.

My distaste for "crappy forgettable multiplayer that's put in just about everything for no reason" has nothing to do with my aim. It has to do with crappy quality multiplayer they put into everything for no reason.

Finally, to me, games like BF and MW are far more realistic than UT, Q3, Tribes and even Quake Wars. It's about the sum of all parts, including the audiovisual presentation. If you focus on just the damage model, then sure, there are NO realistic multiplayer games on the market. Big whooptee doo discovery there.

But I'd much rather have some distance drawn between the gameworld and the real world. It's a matter of preference, which is why I said "if you're into..." that certain kind of games... which I'm not.

Oh dear... :/

shihonage wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 13:50:
[...] It's usually a tacked-on mediocre rehash of the same old.

The novelty of "look ma there are multiple people on my screen shooting at me and they're REAL HUMANS" wore off in 1998, so there has to be actual GAMEPLAY behind it.

BF3 will have solid multiplayer (if you're into the disturbingly realistic kind) because it's primarily a multi game. [...]

Contradict much?

shihonage wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 13:50:
I rather don't care for multiplayer in 99% games. It's usually a tacked-on mediocre rehash of the same old.
[...]

If I had a lousy aim and a shoddy movement (which I actually have) I'd say that, too.

shihonage wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 13:50:
[...]
BF3 will have solid multiplayer (if you're into the disturbingly realistic kind) [...]

Now that one confuses me. Have you actually played the Battlefield games? How is that disturbingly realistic?

I rather don't care for multiplayer in 99% games. It's usually a tacked-on mediocre rehash of the same old.

The novelty of "look ma there are multiple people on my screen shooting at me and they're REAL HUMANS" wore off in 1998, so there has to be actual GAMEPLAY behind it.

BF3 will have solid multiplayer (if you're into the disturbingly realistic kind) because it's primarily a multi game. But Rage shouldn't even bother wasting time on that nonsense when that time could be spent polishing the single-player... or... GASP... putting a REAL co-op mode like you did before Doom 3, Carmack.

These are sad times indeed when one has to dismiss an id game because of the lack of a proper multiplayer.
Oh id, where did it all go wrong?

I'm going to pass since multiplayer is what i love so BF3 will be my FPS fix.

Smooth Gravy wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 08:04:

shihonage wrote on Jul 21, 2011, 22:28:
I've yet to see a 3D game where textures never look muddy. Rage is going to be great. Borderlands was a complete waste of $50. Can't believe I went for that... the Hellgate London-ey videos should've been enough of a warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA

I can see muddy textures all over that scene! Look at that model, it's got the uncanny valley written all over it!

Creston wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 11:42:
The environments in the game look fantastic. It may genuinely have the best level design I've seen in a long time.

The characters look like shit, however. And why does everything you can pick up GLOW?? Can console players really not figure out that ammo on the ground can be picked up if it doesn't fucking glow?

Grumble.

I'm probably still getting it. The environments alone would make it worth it for me.

Creston

Console gamers are like crows. They like shiny things. Although the comparison is not fair towards crows because they can probably outwit an average console gamer. Those crows are dangerous man.

The environments in the game look fantastic. It may genuinely have the best level design I've seen in a long time.

The characters look like shit, however. And why does everything you can pick up GLOW?? Can console players really not figure out that ammo on the ground can be picked up if it doesn't fucking glow?

Grumble.

I'm probably still getting it. The environments alone would make it worth it for me.

Creston

At first I thought RAGE was like borderlands, but then I read into it and am now cautiously optimistic.

KAG wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 07:49:
I can't believe no one at ID asked, "Why are we remaking Borderlands with slightly better graphics ?"

It was probably closer to, "Why is Borderlands copying our style?" Since, from what I've heard, Rage was being developed first.

KAG wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 07:49:
I can't believe no one at ID asked, "Why are we remaking Borderlands with slightly better graphics ?"

More like "Hey lets make Borderlands with a real combat system and a decent engine". Borderlands was shallow, mediocre and repetitive throughout, one of the most bland experiences I've ever seen in a videogame. It's fun to play with other people in the same way that getting drunk and doing anything at all is fun with other people. HEY GUYS I ROLLED MY BUGGY BY BASHING IT AGAINST URS LOLOLLL oh the comedy Borderlands game of the year. Can't wait for the sequel that will undoubtedly have broken multiplayer and console porting warts for three months like the original.

This comment was edited on Jul 22, 2011, 09:22.

shihonage wrote on Jul 21, 2011, 22:28:
I've yet to see a 3D game where textures never look muddy. Rage is going to be great. Borderlands was a complete waste of $50. Can't believe I went for that... the Hellgate London-ey videos should've been enough of a warning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA

I can't believe no one at ID asked, "Why are we remaking Borderlands with slightly better graphics ?"

xXBatmanXx wrote on Jul 21, 2011, 22:55:
If you didn't like Borderlands - you might want to skip this as well.....looks almost identical....

Setting aside, it looks nothing like it. It looks more like DNF than it does Borderlands.
Ew. I just made myself throw up a little bit. :x

yuastnav wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 05:02:
Gonna wait for Saints Row 3. At least that one's insane.

Yes! That's the game I'm looking forward to more than any other.

Dades wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 07:03:
Saints Row 3 isn't an FPS though?

Hmm. I didn't intend to imply that but it may look like it.
Your post makes me sad, though, because now I realise that there really are no upcoming first-person shooters that I might be looking forward to. Guess I'll have to stick to warsow and ezquake.

Saints Row 3 isn't an FPS though?

Cutter wrote on Jul 22, 2011, 04:48:
Oh come on, this game has meh written all over it.

I agree. At first I was kinda excited but the more screenshots and videos were released the more I realised that it's a pretty mediocre fps.
Gonna wait for Saints Row 3. At least that one's insane.