One wish for bunny hopping

**Red_Lizard2** · 03-22-11, 06:10 PM

side to side is an issue, unless 1.5 fixed it, as the hitboxes lag (thus if your like me and actually tried to hit the person moving side to side, you failed and got killed. If you shoot behind them, it works Oo)

**styley** · 03-22-11, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by SovietDooM

Well it's quite simple, really. You reading the comment without full presentation of the facts. To claim BF2 requires not thinking is clearly wrong. To make a statement that PR requires more thinking and strategy is correct.

How do you justify this?

How do you say chess takes more thinking than checkers?

I'm not sure were these "facts" are coming from?'

One requires more thinking because its more complicated? There are plenty of games that are fairly easy to learn, but hard to master.... for instance, golf. I wouldn't say some other sport like lacrosse or something takes more thinking because its more complicated. I've played BF2 and PR before, not much, but I think they are both fun, I wouldn't say one is better/worse than another just because it takes more thinking/is more realistic.

Originally Posted by SovietDooM

Please understand I am working off my experience, which is limited to Halo 1. So, if the later Halo's made dramatic changes please feel free to bring those to my attention. But I understand that newer Halos are going to have new features, such as I know Halo ORTS has much less health.

Now, HALO requires planning but not adaptive planning do to the fact that a player can play through a map once and have a decnet idea of what the map looks like, where the enemy will come from, what enemies they will face. *Theortical* Oh the temple scene, I know there's a hunter coming up.
Then it requries you to spend the time building the REFLEXES not the brain power to master the game. I can get my sniper cross hairs over the guys head quicker then someone who just picked up the game.

PR and BF2 provide a sandbox environment where the player can become familiar with the terrian but an unpredicatable enemy. You don't know if going to power plant will yeild a tank, APC, Airstrick Arty, or infentyr.

PR, compared to BF2 provides similar maps on a larger scale without Numerous abilities:
No UAV you have to find the enemy yourself or with help from the TEAM, hmm team there's a strange word.
No map spotting, you know where you forces are but the enemy doesn't jump out and say HEY wer are over here
No hit detection, I think I shot that guy over there? I can go and check it out but to do so means risking a 60 sec respawn, the walk from the FOB, and tickets. Let me get a spotter conformation out.

You have to think ahead, you have the think of the consequense, you have to consider how it can damage the teams effort. You can't just stumble into things and hope it all goes well.
Checkers v Chess comparison.

You have to plan out well ahead before you move. Can you plan ahead in checkers? Sure, but you don't have to. It's not vital to winning, you can just be a good shot and still win.

PR, own I wanna park my tank on this bunker and camp all the poor souls spawning on South bunker. Boom, oh, guess I should have thought about the other guys using a LD to call in a JDAM.

I want to go run over here and kill everyone who is attacking this flag. But if I don't go over here to defend this then that attack will be useless because flags have to be captured in a certain order.

Well, since I assumed we were talking multiplayer here, I was talking about Halo multiplayer, which, for the most part is exactly what you have described. It literally matches up with with what you have described, big picture wise, though there are radars in some game modes, but thats just a minor detail, but then again this boils down to "realism".

Why are you so against having a "radar". Its just a game mechanic, it can add or detract from the experience (that's up to you to decide and apparently you let it detract from yours). I don't understand why not having one is so much better than having one. Because it's more realistic? To me that's just part of the game, one game wants to have the radar element in it and one might not. They aren't better or worse just different. I mean obviously sometimes games should/shouldn't have radar and some use it better than others ect ect, and if you're saying you would like BF2 better without a radar that's certainly a valid opinion (I might even share it but I haven't played enough to tell you). But, to say all games with radar are bad because they aren't realistic is kind of silly. Again, it's a game. Some games have radars because they feel it adds to the gameplay mechanics and some don't because they feel it adds to the gameplay mechanics.

And I know I've just been talking about radars, but that really could apply to any of the game mechanics you've mentioned.

Originally Posted by SovietDooM

Indeed, please feel free to take a look at my BF 2 stats as I spent plenty of time playing what I consider to be "unreal" by your defanitions.
But as much Airwhoring as I did and the rush I get from dodgeing J10 while in a 35 are not as satefing as Getting up in a Mig to around 3000 meters and just circuling the map for 30 minutes talking with my squad and having them call me in for lazed target. Sometimes I enjoy taking a transport position and flying a HEUY full of guys into a hot zone where the risk of me screwing up means 8 tickets lost for the dead marines plus 5 for the chopper, 60 seconds while I wait to respawn a 20 minutes for the helo to respawn.

I like going into hobbles, searching home to home, never knowing where the enemy cache is, never knowing if behind the next door is a gernade trap or a civilian, not knowing if that next corner means a RPGs or empty streets, and the fear of hearing the Bomb truck in the distance getting loud as my squad scrambles to hide because we KNOW if he gets within 100 meters and goes off we are all dead.

Then those are just things you like in a game, you like things that are "realistic" (which by the way is VERY objective), or you like things that have bigger consequences for dying ect. ect., that's cool. But it's still a game. Those are just certain gameplay mechanics. Let's face it. If a game was too realistic nobody would want to play it (like you've stated in your last section: there are levels). But you calling a game that is "realistic" or subscribes to your level of "realism" is superior to a game that isn't "realistic" is silly. I think what you are really saying is you like the gameplay mechanics that come along with "realistic" games (such as ArmA and shit). That's cool, I enjoy that sometimes aswell, but that doesn't have to equate with "realism".

If I'm correct you would gladly play a game with aliens or something that played just like a Battlefield PR or something of the sort, wouldn't you?

**SovietDooM** · 03-22-11, 07:57 PM

How do you justify this?

Bases on the fact that I had not stated my arguement with the information I used to construct my logic.

How do you say chess takes more thinking than checkers?

Chess is to checker as PR is to PR

And yes more thinking as the player is required to develope a plan of attack and defence while being able to anticipate and adapt. While checker, a major course of the game can be affect simply by who moves first resulting in the player moving their peices until someone finally has to move a piece in a place to be jumped. If you do not believe chess to me a more complex game then checkers. Then wow I have no means of response to that.

I'm not sure were these "facts" are coming from?'

These facts come fron exposure to both games in question for extened periods of time well beyound "not alot" combind with general trend you will find by asking players of the games in question.

One requires more thinking because its more complicated?

Um, yes. A problem containing fluxating variables such as BF 2 requires the player to adapt, strategies, anticipate, and learn.
Tik tak toe requires the player to hopefully distract their opposition while they place their O.

Here y= 2x + 1 if x is 2 what is y.

y= (2x + sq rt pie)/ log3 when x is .1825

Are you doing more thinking?

I've played BF2 and PR before, not much, but I think they are both fun, I wouldn't say one is better/worse than another just because it takes more thinking/is more realistic.

Better or worse are defined by the individual. It's easy to learn PR, not as easy as BF2, but it's much harder to master then BF 2 if you main motivation is to simply shoot and rack up a nice score.

Why don't you take a look at the thread from the start.

No, it's I'm frustrated with cookie cutter FPS that are all the same, run around like a chicken with it's head cut off, bunny hopping, noob tubing, jerk circle and consider a game that offers a different system where the player is required to work as a team and function with in limited parameters such as the inability to jump off the second floor roof and use a parachute, make so people who spray and pray can't hit anything as small as a man unless they less farther then 10 feet away.

How do you say chess takes more thinking than checkers?

Upon review of ealier posts, I have the greater than sign when I ment the less than, have you miss typed as well and ment the reverse of your statement?
If so, ignore above if no then my statement stands.

Well, since I assumed we were talking multiplayer here, I was talking about Halo multiplayer, which, for the most part is exactly what you have described. It literally matches up with with what you have described, big picture wise, though there are [COLOR=grey !important][COLOR=grey !important]radars[/COLOR][/COLOR] in some game modes, but thats just a minor detail, but then again this boils down to "realism".

You should try making your crosshair invisable in BF 2 you will find much more difficult to target and hit player without the iron sights. Try it for awhile and tell me if you get an saticfaction of being able to over come this obstcal. And I mean this, back in the 56k days for me, which was when everyone else had Broadband. I was limited to nothing but bot matches, RAGED when BF 2 only allowed 16 bots, needless to say they can eventually be taken down with eas. Taking away my crosshair brought some fun back into the game.

Why are you so against having a "radar".

Why, I will tell you why. This october go to a hunted house and let me know if the set up is a straight hallway, well light, where you can see everything coming. There is much more excitment and litterly fear to be gained when you don't know what you up against. Your walking down the sidewalk with your squad, boom men infront you you drops dead, all you have to go on is where you heard the gun shot come from. Shit, do you fall back? Sounded like it came from the west. Where is the nearest cover? Better get some smoke out. Boom SLs down. Fuck where is it coming from. Via voip someone says they saw someone move in a window west of you. Okay. Get smoke to the west. Get a man watching West and another the direction of the likely enemy line, while the medic gets everyone on their feet. Okay let move south through this yard here. He will likely try to reposition some where over here.

Typical experience I get when playing PR

Now, BF 2, spawn, die... just go bombed. Respawn take out the guy on the flag. Run over here. Turn that flag. Oops heres a tank. Well that tank shot landed 3 feet away. Seehing how I'm still alive let me just hop in this conviently place TOW, boom he's dead.

Turn off your radar and icons, tell me if you don't fell more of a challenge.

Then those are just things you like in a game, you like things that are "realistic" (which by the way is VERY objective), or you like things that have bigger consequences for dying ect. ect., that's cool. But it's still a game. Those are just certain gameplay mechanics. Let's face it. If a game was too realistic nobody would want to play it

Indeed you will likely never see a game you get to play until you get shot once and then never get to play again.

But you calling a game that is "realistic" or subscribes to your level of "realism" is superior to a game that isn't "realistic" is silly. I think what you are really saying is you like the gameplay mechanics that come along with "realistic" games (such as ArmA and shit).

Again, never called it superior that's subject to personally interpretation and also lack any parameters.

But do you think a PGA tour thinks and guy who made a hile in 1 on the 18th at Joe's put and bat is getting exposed to anywhere near the same challenges and therefor being able to overcome harder difficulties?

There are more and more complex challenges in PR compared to BF2. There, that's my arguement, and present in this thread are some of the arguements and "facts" I've used to construct my premice.

And you belief that I find people should only play games because they are realistic is entirely false and won't even get into that for reasons that you should be able to figure out on your own.

**The Freak** · 03-22-11, 11:49 PM

Oh Geez... I think I have brain freeze from reading all of that... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
Peoples!! You can only bunny hop effectively with a single load shot gun. If you try it with anything else.. You will end up with Deathgods nuts in your face.

Thank you!
The Freak

**loki2158** · 03-23-11, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by The Freak

Oh Geez... I think I have brain freeze from reading all of that... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
Peoples!! You can only bunny hop effectively with a single load shot gun. If you try it with anything else.. You will end up with Deathgods nuts in your face.

Thank you!
The Freak

I seem to do well enough with it....