So it seems like futuristic games are in vogue now but it seems like it's just the same game-play as CoD4 with window dressing.
Why don't they tap into the full potential of a futuristic setting? At the very least abandon gunpowder based ballistics, there's so much they can use if they stop striving for 'realistic' gunplay.
>Gravity gun (Crushing your opponents with artificial gravity, not like half life)
>Time gun (like stasis in Dead Space)
>Bio gun (rapidly causes tumours or ages opponent)
>Sound gun (like a kinetic wave of force that pushes back opponents)
>Tractor beam generator
There's so many choices and they stick with >90% hitscan firearms? You can still have a 'realistic' style gameplay and have fantastical gunplay, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Pic related is an example of an interesting futuristic gun.
destiny flopping will prove that futuristic games aren't a sound investment.
because investors/publishers lack the presence of mind to realize making terrible games built around the monetization of a ten year content trickle is the actual reason destiny failed.
But it's selling less and less with every revision, its half-life is running out. I'm reasonably certain that people would fawn all over more varied weaponry. Even the casuals.
It still sells more then most games.
Hence BIG AMERICAN MONEY wants it that way.
Destiny flopped the same way Diablo 3 flopped: it was financially successful but the majority of people disliked what they bought. I don't for a second believe that Activision was dumb enough to spend $500 million on a single game.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
>I haven't played it so lemme shitpost really quick hurrdurr
I have it. It's a 7-8/10. It definitely has issues but everyone got swept up by the hype that people generated. It wasn't even Bungie. And now everyone is pissed that it didn't live up to their insane expectations.
I don't think you know what 'flop' means either.
Like I said, I don't believe that they spent $500 million and I definitely believe that people are dumb enough to buy the expansions (at least a third of the people who bought it).
My dream game uses guns similar to the ones you listed.
> arena shooter movement
>dual weild guns
>left hand is for utility guns (stasis, tractor beam, teleport, etc) that either have a long charge time, low velocity bullets or a long cooldown.
The right hand is for offensive weapons like a rail gun, rocket launcher, plasma gun, lightning gun, etc.
are there any games that play similar to this? I know about quake and all that already.
Because recent attempts to do interesting things with sci-fi shooters have not done especially well.
>Unreal Tournament 3
Hell, section 8 was the best power-armor FPS anyone's ever done, and it still flopped because of GFWL shit.
>Because recent attempts to do interesting things with sci-fi shooters have not done especially well.
I get your point but plenty of military shooters failed before they became all anyone played.
It's true. And we ARE trending towards more sci-fi stuff.
>Battlefield possibly headed back in Sci-fi direction
>CoD clearly headed there
Might be a couple years before something seriously interesting comes out, but I can wait.
It's one of the reasons I liked Halo games
made by Bungie not the faggots at 343.
The needler, gravity hammer, sticky grenade launcher, regular grenade launcher, plasma pistol and splaser are some great examples of interesting weaponry. They're not 100% original either, but much better than generic futuristic assault rifle clones, and they add new things without completely breaking the balance.
Balance is a problem, but it's obviously not what stops them from making original weapons, it's only because they endlessly copy the CoD model.
give me a bitching awesome postapoc sandbox (non bethesda, overrated as fuck) where I can run around with ridiculous energy weapons and hovercars and shit absolutely wrecking everything without some stupid "HOOMANS V ROBUTtS" plot
>implying DE:HR was good
>implying NV wasn't shit
Either that or for DOOM 4 to become a smash hit.
>It's one of the reasons I liked Halo games made by Bungie not the faggots at 343.
>Balance is a problem, but it's obviously not what stops them from making original weapons, it's only because they endlessly copy the CoD model.
Definitely, although, like you said, the only reason balancing is easy for military shooters is because they copy either CS or CoD.
Shame how RAGE turned out, and I agree with your sentiments on DE:HR and NV.
Fuck the future, give me WWI.
I want some trench warfare action.
Stabbing fucks with bayonets mounted on rifles, pinning them to the ground as they struggle.
Mustard gas everywhere, having to use a gasmask or getting fucked.
thank god. I usually get torn apart when I talk shit about DE:HR and NV
they simply weren't good, end of story
I agree with you on RAGE. I was fucking mad when I downloaded it and played it. It was so disappointing.
I liked VATS but that's mostly because the game is fucking unplayable without using VATS, the gunplay is just shit unless you're sniping
HR was just... we're not even gonna talk about how disappointed I was in HR.
it was the first game I preordered since Morrowind and I was severely let down
It just felt so... bland, I don't know. The way it played, the enemies, the driving... it all felt so vanilla and didn't allow for any kind of off-the-determined-rail-path fun if that makes sense
I never understood why there never was a gun that fired ammunition that housed anti-matter.
Imagine how much damage you could deal with the reaction between the anti-matter and matter as the bullet housing itself split open and released the anti-matter into the target.
It would be glorious.
the game is boring as shit. I will say that the writing was absolutely phenomenal and it gave me a few chuckles but I never really had any moments of "dude, fuck yes, this is fucking awesome"
even in full power armor and a gatling gun
>I'd play a WWI game as well, but at the end of the day the gunplay would remain pretty much the same as a WWII shooter.
Are you high? WWI was pretty much all bolt-action rifles and fixed artillery and MGs. No semis or ARs. I played WWI mods with BF1942, and tbh it could get pretty boring. Unless you get a metric fuckton of other players to form a sortie across no-man's land, most of WWI was about hunkering in a trench taking pot shots and pooping yourself every time a shell came overhead.
Ah but only a small amount of anti-matter that would be housed in the bullet itself. Have an external coating that contains a core made of magnetic material that keeps the small amount of anti-matter static. Then when the bullet actually hits a surface then BOOM.
Even if you can't use it in a rifle, imagine arming Mechs or Tanks. Or even a personal Mech suit like in Edge of Tomorrow.
We can make anti-matter that lasts until it touches matter. Issue with creating anti-matter is not the decay rate (there is none) but rather the immense energy it takes to make a small amount.
Yeah but I like the idea of weaponizing it (remember in Star Trek the "photon torpedoes" were just anti-matter bombs) and imagine that if you were walking around with a Barrett that fired .50 BMG rounds with an anti-matter core. You would be able to vaporize tanks and anyone around them.
In theory, there is only a small amount of material in an antimatter bomb. 4.7 MJ = 1 kg of TNT. So 4.7 x 1015 Joules = 1 MT. 1 antimatter annihilation yields 2 x 109 eV = 3.2 x 10-10 joules, so 1 MT is about 1.4 x 1025 annihilations.
Yeah but surely if we could harness antimatter NASA (or whoevere) would have developed an engine fueled on it since it has such a high thoroughput for the weight. We could get to mars and back with very little antimatter and a (relativley) short amount of time.
Yeah but the problem is controlling the explosion. The second anti-matter touches matter it all goes critical all at once. Basically you get almost the entire energy potential out of something.
You can quickly calculate this with E = MC^2
Even with a small amount of mass, you can create a shit ton of energy. Lets say your spaceship has only 1 gram of antimatter in its fuel storage. One wrong bump and you have an explosion 3 times the size of Hiroshima.
Also NASA is shit (worked there as an intern) and they contracted out all of their space faring money to Virgin Galactic and Space-X.
This process was controlled in Star Trek by using a dilithium matrix in the warp core. Which is why that "radiation" thing was complete bullshit in Star Trek Into Darkness. Breaching the warp core when it's "active" would just cause a runaway explosion as demonstrated in the self-destruct sequence scenes in previous adaptations (thank you Based Roddenberry)
Section 8 and UT 3 can't really be called recent since they are from 2009 and 2007 respectively.
Tribes:Ascend was great, the problem with it is that the F2P model dictated how the gameplay got developed and expanded after release.
If Tribes Ascend had a 10 day free trial and then cost 25$ to get it forever, it'd have been a way better game.
I elaborated on that here: >>265287509
Gene created a material called "dilithium" that can be used to channel and control the anti-matter to power the warp core.
I saw the new Star Trek movies for what they were, a way to cash in on the "cool" parts of science fiction without so much of the science. I'm certain you're either too young or you lack the educational backing to understand what an affront the new Star Trek movies are to Gene's vision (although from an entertainment aspect theyre good movies).
I mean, Gene has gone on the record to state that DS9 was his least favorite of the Star Treks because it was about war and not about the advancement of man.
I understand that, but you can take the "fiction" part of the science fiction and extrapolate that we have yet to find a substance to efficiently harness, let alone control, an anti-matter/matter collision.
>I'm certain you're either too young or you lack the educational backing to understand what an affront the new Star Trek movies are to Gene's vision (although from an entertainment aspect theyre good movies).
First of all, Star Trek doesn't need anything more than a secondary education to understand second of all Star Trek doesn't deserve half the praise it gets. People love to overlook the fact that 85% of the episodes (of all of the series combined) were terrible.
There was a buy everything option on release - It got you a ton of gold, a booster and VIP status.
You could essentially buy everything that was released till that point with it. Very few people went for it tho.
Sorry, man, but it's always been this way. Before the modern military shooter, it was the WWII shooter (and some of you fuckheads want to go back to that). FPS--but ones that play the same as all their competitors--are a huge market. It will never go away.
Which is why I explained that no method exists to harness the power of antimatter/matter collisions. It's science fiction right now.
They need to solve the problem with mass producing anti-matter before they can create viable ways to harness it. This is what happens when theory outpaces technology.
Star trek was about capturing the ingenuity of humanity. What we are capable of. Think of how many scientists today can attribute their inspiration to shows like Star Trek.
It also made science palatable for the masses