Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Bitmob.com - Shooters only need eight guns.
At last count, Borderlands contains over 17.5 million color-coded, procedurally generated firearms. The gun population of planet Pandora outnumbers the individual populations of Cuba, Greece, Israel, and Switzerland. What the hell am I supposed to do with all that? I know we're talking about a loot drop game where the entire appeal lies in those loot drops, but outside of dollars, I don't need 17.5 million of anything. That's way, way, waaaaaaaay too much crap to ever constitute fun. Hell, even the comparatively modest arsenals of Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 quickly blur into one amorphous, nondescript mess.

Eight guns. That's all you really need. Maybe fewer. And imposing that kind of limitation will net you a better game to boot. Here's how.

View
30. Re: Op Ed Jan 8, 2012, 19:01 Jerykk
 
Probably. The appeal of CoD is in the frenetic gameplay, not the names of the guns. However, it's the setting that defined the guns, not the reverse. A game set in WWII will have (generally speaking) WWII-era weapons. A game set in modern times will have "real-world" guns. It's the time period that defines what guns are used.

While I agree that the setting generally defines what guns are used, I strongly disagree that the series would be as popular if it used fictional guns. One of the biggest reasons why military shooters are so popular is because they are familiar. Players get to use their favorite weapons from real-life. I'm pretty sure this is one of the reasons why CS became so popular. It was the first pseudorealistic shooter to offer such a wide array of real-world weapons. Rainbow Six and Delta Force came out before CS but they weren't nearly as accessible.

Luckily yes, as it doesn't have more than 10 weapons. It just has a bunch of various stats for its weapons.

Different stats are equivalent to different weapons. For example, almost all of the weapons in military shooters are just slight variations of one another. This one has a higher RoF, that one has higher accuracy, this one does more damage, etc. An M4A1 and an AK-47 are just slight variations of the same assault rifle archetype but they're still considered different weapons.

Sure, if I were playing a game called "Quake X", and it didn't have those, I wouldn't consider it any less a Quake game.

I'm pretty sure you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. A Quake game without a rocket launcher is not a Quake game. You seem to be neglecting the fact that weapons have a significant impact on how the game plays. If a game's arsenal consists of high RoF, hitscan weapons that can kill enemies in 1-3 hits, then the gameplay is going to be mostly cover-based. If a game revolves around weapons that fire relatively slow-moving projectiles and with a slow RoF, gameplay will be mostly run and gun.

Well, the translocator isn't a gun, but if we're stretching... Again, sure. There's no requirement for those items to be present for it to be a UT game.

Again, you'd be the only one to hold that opinion. What you're basically saying is that you could take Halo, change the name to UT2012 and that alone would be enough to qualify it as a UT game. Most fans would disagree.

This comment was edited on Jan 8, 2012, 19:13.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Jan 7, 17:03 Re: Op Ed Silicon Avatar
  2. Jan 7, 17:12  Re: Op Ed Agent.X7
  3. Jan 7, 18:14   Re: Op Ed Prez
  5. Jan 7, 18:33    Re: Op Ed FloorPie
  7. Jan 7, 19:39    Re: Op Ed Agent.X7
  4. Jan 7, 18:25 Re: Op Ed jacobvandy
  6. Jan 7, 19:24 Re: Op Ed panbient
  8. Jan 7, 20:07  Re: Op Ed gilly775
  9. Jan 7, 20:32 Re: Op Ed Cutter
  10. Jan 7, 20:57  Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  11. Jan 7, 21:15   Re: Op Ed Prez
  12. Jan 7, 21:17    Re: Op Ed Agent.X7
  14. Jan 7, 22:06     Re: Op Ed Retired
  29. Jan 8, 12:10   Re: Op Ed Beamer
  13. Jan 7, 22:00 Re: Op Ed Retired
  16. Jan 8, 00:17  Re: Op Ed Agent.X7
  15. Jan 7, 22:17 Re: Op Ed WarpCrow
  17. Jan 8, 01:49 Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  18. Jan 8, 02:26  Re: Op Ed PHJF
  19. Jan 8, 03:21   Re: Op Ed J
  20. Jan 8, 03:46  Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  21. Jan 8, 04:55   Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  22. Jan 8, 05:47    Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  23. Jan 8, 06:25     Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  24. Jan 8, 06:43      Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  25. Jan 8, 06:51       Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  26. Jan 8, 07:10        Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  27. Jan 8, 09:59         Re: Op Ed Bhruic
>> 30. Jan 8, 19:01          Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  31. Jan 8, 19:44           Re: Op Ed Prez
  32. Jan 8, 19:59            Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  33. Jan 8, 21:32           Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  34. Jan 8, 22:17            Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  35. Jan 8, 23:00            Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  36. Jan 9, 07:04             Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  37. Jan 9, 11:41              Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  38. Jan 9, 12:19               Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  39. Jan 9, 16:53                Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  40. Jan 9, 17:34                 Re: Op Ed Beamer
  41. Jan 9, 19:20                  Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  42. Jan 10, 11:27                 Re: Op Ed Bhruic
  43. Jan 10, 23:14                  Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  44. Jan 11, 00:14                  Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  28. Jan 8, 11:59 Re: Op Ed theyarecomingforyou


footer

Blue's News logo