An Early Look At Next-Gen Shooter Bodycount 238
If you ask fans of first-person shooters what feature they'd like to see in a new game, their answers — now and for the past 15 years — probably involve destructible environments. Game developers have tried to satisfy this demand with scripted events, breakable objects, and more crates than you can shake a rocket launcher at. However, Bodycount, an upcoming game from Codemasters Guildford, is aiming to deliver what gamers have wanted for so long: the ability to blast apart whatever you please. Quoting the Guardian's games blog from their hands-on with the game:
"... it's not just about effect, it's about access. In Bodycount, you can blow chunks out of thinner interior walls, allowing you to burst through and catch enemies by surprise. You can also brilliantly modify cover objects – if you're hiding behind a crate and want to take out enemies without popping up from behind it, shoot a hole in it. Bingo, you've got a comparatively safe firing vantage. The difference between this and say, Red Faction or Bad Company, is that the destruction isn't limited to pre-set building sections. It's everywhere. This should, of course, grind the processor to a halt, but the team has come up with a simple compromise to facilitate its vision. 'The trick is that we're not running full physics on everything,' explains lead coder, Jon Creighton. ... This is tied in with one of the best cover systems I've ever seen. While in a crouching position (gained by holding the left trigger down), you can use the left analogue stick to subtly look and aim around your cover object, ducking and peeking to gain that perfect view of the war zone. It's natural, it's comfortable and it's adaptive, and it will surely consign the whole 'locking on' mechanic to the graveyard of cover system history."
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, but I'd also like to point out that the technology is ready to give players the separation of vision and aim.
I want to be able to watch in a direction, run in another and shoot in another one. As running is going to be linked to a hand (as foot controls are cumbersome) and shooting to the other, vision should be linked to head movement.
What I'm suggesting is: Don't "evolve" to mouse control if you can truly evolve.
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, uh, how do you line up a target your not looking at?
Re:Space Invaders (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that if a shot from your gun makes a nice hole in an object for you to see through, how many holes in the object can the enemies make? And how many of those holes will proceed with their holiness into you?
FULLY destructible? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space Invaders (Score:3, Insightful)
Bender: [panicked] He's a mad man! A mad man!
Paradox? (Score:5, Insightful)
...fans of first-person shooters... ...can use the left analogue stick...
Your implication is quite ludicrous, sir.
Next Gen, huh (Score:1, Insightful)
Next gen for a console, that was developed 5-6.... uh, quite a while ago. Same ol' tricks huh, what to look forward too, a F.O.V of 75 for added difficulty that cant be changed, an AI that stands while your hiding behind a box before returning to original position. 2 graphic settings, translated A B C D control that still appear in pop ups with a description down below and bad/lazy work covered up by bloom with an that Orange tinge these games seam to have. Yet marketed as next generation and ported incomplete to a PC where it gets even worse. So when is the next gen FPS coming where you can shoot yourself in the foot.
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:5, Insightful)
PC games: RPGs, first person shooters.
If it ain't on PC, you can take one lost sale away from the "OMG TEH PIEWATS!" statistics, and add it onto "Don't know which platform a game should be developed for" chart.
I've played FPS games on a PC and a console. If I have to wait 2+ seconds to spin 180 degrees, or the same amount of time lining up the crosshair / ironsight to get a headshot, you've failed in creating a good FPS.
Next next gen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:1, Insightful)
I can flick the thumb stick and the crosshair lands pretty close to the target. No different than using a mouse. A little step left or right with the left stick and there's the headshot. No different than an adjustment using "A" or "D". The controller feels as natural as a keyboard and mouse.
Mostly, the reason for this is that the game is developed with the expectation that users are playing on a joypad. All number of compromises extend from that. Along with frame rate and display limitation issues, this serves to limit the scope of the game.
There is a reason that 99% of console fps can only be played online against other console users. If you mixed PC and console clients the experience would not be enjoyable for either party. Hands up who played Quake 3 online against Dreamcast players.
I've been playing multiplayer fps since ~1996 and after a long hiatus from games, moved to a console for convenience reasons (time, practicality). Within a few months I found myself with my first new PC in 7 years and back to hopping PC servers. Console fps are a different breed to their PC cousins and while I understand that many enjoy them, I don't like what the console is doing to my favourite genre.
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your eyes have apparently gotten worse as well if you haven't noticed that most modern console shooters are that easy because they're basically doing half the aiming for you.
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. The reason we can't control our characters in PC gaming is because game manufacturers have figured out that they can cut a corner and port their crappy console games for PC.
Companies that don't develop specifically for the PC platform are leaving a lot of money on the table, DRM or not. The ones that figure that out are going to make a lot of dough.
The Half-Life games were not crappy console ports, and they made Valve enough money to start Steam. And Gordon Freeman was not some 2nd-person wooden puppet that I had to use combination techniques to fight with or run with. When I said "jump" he said "how high?". When I said "duck" he ducked. With a crowbar in one hand and his dick in the other he crossed friggin' dimensions to put shit right...
Sorry, I got carried away there. Anyway as I was saying, somebody's going to figure out that people on PC's want to play games and we've got the hardware to do it. We'll pay for games, too, but you can't fuck us around with console ports and if you treat us like criminals with the always-on DRM, we're going to act like criminals.
Re:The only question that counts: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't this done before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't this done before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wasn't this done before (Score:1, Insightful)
Left Analog Stick? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Space Invaders (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good point, and shouldn't enemy fire have the same capacity to eventually blast through your cover?? the advantage then becomes who knows where the other guy is, which could go to you or them. Sounds like fun to me :)
Re:Space Invaders (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it stop? Probably because some guy set a couple of oil drums on fire, which lit the grassland and started a forest fire.