DUST Search - My UnWarranted Opinion On Dust

Aighun wrote:

Indy Strizerger wrote:

It even seems a bit unimaginitive at times, I'm not expecting anything whimsical or grandiose or artsy, but seeing the objective in the middle of the open with just a stack of boxes next to it isn't exactly going to be one of those memories I'll keep as a gamer where I'll look back in a few years and be like...

"Man, that was awesome! I want to revisit that place!"

Even as I enter the massive and imposing facility towards the end of skirmish mode, I actually feel a little underwhelmed... I feel it's a bit lacking in that regard, I do hope future installations get a little more interesting, nothing whimsical, just a bit more complex, but I think playing against organized teams will fix this.

It is my understanding, or perhaps just my naive and hopeful daydream, that the biomass facilities, and the communications facilities that we have seen in the beta are player controlled assets. So that each map is essentially a blank canvas and as different groups of players take over territory they will be able to build up complexes using the game pieces they can afford. Up to and including the large installations.

If you look at the complexes in the top down map you see that they are almost like tiles that could potentially be fit together in groups, with different road layouts, etc. And if you think of all those installations as game pieces, rather than a cinematic backdrop, it's conceptually breathtaking. Because you could potentially own anything on the map and place it wherever you wanted to. Such is my dream.

We do know that every other installation, and even the MCC, can be owned or purchased and deployed by players.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
[Veteran_Indy Strizerger] 0	Posted - 2012.06.17 12:11:00 - [1] - Quote I've been playing this beta, very little, but thinking a little too... Reading threads here and there, getting my bearings and this is my opinion... I think the game would be at it's best if it mixed playing styles, without any style dominating the others- as far as I know, it actually does this fairly well... For the most part, I seem to get killed equally by different weapons and in understandable circumstances... For the most part that is... Already though, the forum shows a clash over this game's direction, you have advocates of different play styles bickering... Anyways, even the map seems designed for this, different styles of play that is, with it's many different types of areas, you have your choke points, you have your ledges, your corridors, your cover, roads for vehicles, your turrets, and open objectives to suicide swarm, hills... I imagine that, with coordinated teams, this could lead to some interesting scenarios... Things aren't hidden behind bushes and the buildings aren't complicated so it's easy for newer players to jump into. It is stimulating, but not very exciting for some reason... It even seems a bit unimaginitive at times, I'm not expecting anything whimsical or grandiose or artsy, but seeing the objective in the middle of the open with just a stack of boxes next to it isn't exactly going to be one of those memories I'll keep as a gamer where I'll look back in a few years and be like... "Man, that was awesome! I want to revisit that place!" Even as I enter the massive and imposing facility towards the end of skirmish mode, I actually feel a little underwhelmed... I feel it's a bit lacking in that regard, I do hope future installations get a little more interesting, nothing whimsical, just a bit more complex, but I think playing against organized teams will fix this. Still... After reading the forums a bit, one of the main concerns I have for this game is the... "realism" that people are advocating... How in the hell can people expect "realism" from a game with space soldiers with shields and laser guns? The game's style is gritty at the most to me... That's not realism, that's the same grittyness and plausibility people mistakened for realism in Batman Begins... If people are so concerned with realism, why isn't anybody talking about how shields work? Ammo? Gravity physics? What about that weird thing where everything disolves? Skill training? What about bullet drop...? Ricochet shots? Gun jams? What about dampened sounds of gunfire due to lack of air in the planet's atmosphere? What about getting to listen to your dust soldier suffocate as he bleeds out? No, that's not what realism is about... I'll tell you what realism to most of these players is... "Realism" is just an excuse to artificially impose the physical impediments that come with obesity and bad body coordination on players... It would explain a lot if all these players were obese or clumsy, no offense to you guys. I should be able to jump over a rail easily, instead, I tried twice and had to wait an entire 10 seconds before I could again to gain my breath... Just because somebody said that bunny hopping is "unrealistic"... Really? Well, I'm sorry if my d e c i s i o n to skip through your immersive space battlefield caused you to demand to get my legs genetically modified so I can't jump more than twice. It's no wonder videogames are so linear today... What about being able to turn my head while running? Do I have space scoliosis or something? Doesn't that just penalize players who can assess their enviroment while on the move? And if so, doesn't that make the game less intelligent and hardcore? Doesn't that just contradict what people are saying? Psht... Reality. Let's not let the game cater exclusively to the virtual gun fetishists who keep regurgitating pseudo-realism over and over, don't let this become an overweight space soldier simulator. Everybody should not be forced into that... If players don't care for bunny hopping, then fine, they can armor tank their assault soldiers, but let other players do it. I dislike grenades so I don't use them in my suit, but I shrug when grenades kill me. "Well played, grenade thrower, well played, but I'll get you next time..." This game is free, people will pick it up, but will they keep playing it... and enjoy it? We know it can take 7 years to train skills, but will they want to play that long? It's a F2PMMORPGFPS, it's in a unique position where any one person can mention it to all their friends and within the next few days or within a week- everybody will be playing it together to check it out, but it's also deep enough for more picky gamers to play... We should be able to do what we want. Also, killing players with different play styles is much more interesting I would think... This is something really special, let's not relegate it to the sluggishness of Battlefield: Bad Company 2, where I could only walk sideways 15% as fast as I could forward and the controls had extreme amounts of input lag... I'm not saying that I should be able to hop over everything, I'm saying that, let's not go overboard with this "realism"... EDIT: Also, I want to say, the bunny-hopping issues are just fine. Since I'm neither armor tanked nor have the respirator thingy to amplify my stamina to spam bunny hopping, so it seems balanced to me. It needs no nerfing.
[Veteran_iwillrock yourworld] 0	Posted - 2012.06.17 22:35:00 - [2] - Quote tl;dr? I read half of it, but i can see you dont grasp what "realism" is in the realm of FPS and especfically regarding DUST. There are levels to it, and I am sure no one wants an "Arma" shooter. Most people dont want a "Halo/UT" either. And I am sure some want Arma or Halo, but they seem to be the minority. But in general realism means a game where run-and-gun is not the main "tatic" as it is usually a tatic of shooter where consequences dont matter, where dying dont matter; What the realism crowd expect is a slower paced (not a turtle pace, mind you), well organized game where platoon movement is more desirable and encouraged than rushing objectives and derping all things. Basically we want a mature game, as EVE is. Hell, its so good to not listen kids on comms... Right now its the understanding of the comunity that run and gun is dominant most because broken game mechanics that will be addressed like fixing the hit boxes. I also believe that once its fixed the game will have better balance between gamestyles, but we will see fi its enough. After the new build, in the 29th most likely, everyone will be re-evaluating the state of the build, both camps. Talking about this current build is pointless at this time, and a waste of time since all one can do is talking about dead horses. Edit: you dont need 7 years to build a character. It will take just a few months, if not shorter. Especialization is the word.
[Veteran_Aighun] 0	Posted - 2012.06.18 03:37:00 - [3] - Quote Indy Strizerger wrote: It even seems a bit unimaginitive at times, I'm not expecting anything whimsical or grandiose or artsy, but seeing the objective in the middle of the open with just a stack of boxes next to it isn't exactly going to be one of those memories I'll keep as a gamer where I'll look back in a few years and be like... "Man, that was awesome! I want to revisit that place!" Even as I enter the massive and imposing facility towards the end of skirmish mode, I actually feel a little underwhelmed... I feel it's a bit lacking in that regard, I do hope future installations get a little more interesting, nothing whimsical, just a bit more complex, but I think playing against organized teams will fix this. It is my understanding, or perhaps just my naive and hopeful daydream, that the biomass facilities, and the communications facilities that we have seen in the beta are player controlled assets. So that each map is essentially a blank canvas and as different groups of players take over territory they will be able to build up complexes using the game pieces they can afford. Up to and including the large installations. If you look at the complexes in the top down map you see that they are almost like tiles that could potentially be fit together in groups, with different road layouts, etc. And if you think of all those installations as game pieces, rather than a cinematic backdrop, it's conceptually breathtaking. Because you could potentially own anything on the map and place it wherever you wanted to. Such is my dream. We do know that every other installation, and even the MCC, can be owned or purchased and deployed by players. edit* Also, just thought I would throw this out there but everything dissolves as it is being cannibalized by nanites. All battle tech is produced in ultra fast production runs through nano-tech. Once an asset is damaged beyond repair it self destructs and the nanites dismantle what is left. See - the beauty of sf. don't know why we are all still using bullets that sound like bullets. I guess that is where the fps aspect of comes into play.
[Veteran_Indy Strizerger] 0	Posted - 2012.06.18 03:39:00 - [4] - Quote iwillrock yourworld wrote: tl;dr? I read half of it, but i can see you dont grasp what "realism" is in the realm of FPS and especfically regarding DUST. Please enlighten me then, please tell me how making me slower is more realistic within the realm of FPS. Please, tell me, I'll be sure to read what you have to say rather than look the other direction. Articulate it clearly, really... I want to understand... iwillrock yourworld wrote: But in general realism means a game where run-and-gun is not the main "tatic" as it is usually a tatic of shooter where consequences dont matter, where dying dont matter; What the realism crowd expect is a slower paced (not a turtle pace, mind you), well organized game where platoon movement is more desirable and encouraged than rushing objectives and derping all things. Basically we want a mature game, as EVE is. Hell, its so good to not listen kids on comms... In your world, it seems like slowing the game down makes it more realistic, and if it's more realistic than that automatically makes it tactical... That's not what makes things tactical. A game that is tactical should have many tactics, not just crab walking along and shooting people from behind the bushes. You're just saying we should slow the game down so people who think less quickly can benefit, people who can aim less quickly benefit, haven't you ever read the art of war? Even Sun Tzu himself said that rapidity is the essence of war, but it's also my choice, I should be able to play as quickly as I want and if other players are content with hiding behind a wall or laying prone sniping, then that's not my problem... iwillrock yourworld wrote: Right now its the understanding of the comunity that run and gun is dominant most because broken game mechanics that will be addressed like fixing the hit boxes. I also believe that once its fixed the game will have better balance between gamestyles, but we will see fi its enough. After the new build, in the 29th most likely, everyone will be re-evaluating the state of the build, both camps. Talking about this current build is pointless at this time, and a waste of time since all one can do is talking about dead horses. I wasn't really talking about the current build, I didn't mention anything about the hit box, the swarm launcher, or any of those things as much as I was talking about the direction the game is going and my impressions of the game's concept itself, not the current build... I almost went into that, but it'd be a moot point, if you read that and actually were capable of critical thought, you'd figure this out already to be honest. iwillrock yourworld wrote: Edit: you dont need 7 years to build a character. It will take just a few months, if not shorter. Especialization is the word. Are you really that hellbent on using every single little thing I say to make me look dumber than you? You're mocking me, I know it, you're going to quote me and make some sort of self-referential joke and you'll think your recursive mockery is witty and intelligent and give yourself kudos, well how dare you! You sicken me.
[Veteran_Indy Strizerger] 0	Posted - 2012.06.18 03:40:00 - [5] - Quote Aighun wrote: Indy Strizerger wrote: It even seems a bit unimaginitive at times, I'm not expecting anything whimsical or grandiose or artsy, but seeing the objective in the middle of the open with just a stack of boxes next to it isn't exactly going to be one of those memories I'll keep as a gamer where I'll look back in a few years and be like... "Man, that was awesome! I want to revisit that place!" Even as I enter the massive and imposing facility towards the end of skirmish mode, I actually feel a little underwhelmed... I feel it's a bit lacking in that regard, I do hope future installations get a little more interesting, nothing whimsical, just a bit more complex, but I think playing against organized teams will fix this. It is my understanding, or perhaps just my naive and hopeful daydream, that the biomass facilities, and the communications facilities that we have seen in the beta are player controlled assets. So that each map is essentially a blank canvas and as different groups of players take over territory they will be able to build up complexes using the game pieces they can afford. Up to and including the large installations. If you look at the complexes in the top down map you see that they are almost like tiles that could potentially be fit together in groups, with different road layouts, etc. And if you think of all those installations as game pieces, rather than a cinematic backdrop, it's conceptually breathtaking. Because you could potentially own anything on the map and place it wherever you wanted to. Such is my dream. We do know that every other installation, and even the MCC, can be owned or purchased and deployed by players. I do hope this is the case honestly!
[Veteran_Drake Lyons] 0	Posted - 2012.06.18 05:42:00 - [6] - Quote iwillrock yourworld wrote: But in general realism means a game where run-and-gun is not the main "tatic" as it is usually a tatic of shooter where consequences dont matter, where dying dont matter; What the realism crowd expect is a slower paced (not a turtle pace, mind you), well organized game where platoon movement is more desirable and encouraged than rushing objectives and derping all things. Realism must be considered with an emphasis on context. An FPS that forced the teams into ranks who stood Apart from each other on rather open ground and simply fired into each other's masses would be deemed unrealistic. Yet many battles were fought in a similar fashion. So what is realistic that people want? It looks like it's the face of Western war over the past 20 years or so - squad maneuvers, covering fire, etc. Everything you are supposed to get in a dozen other games. But New Eden is not now. We play not as crudely armored and armed soldiers wading in to a battlefield with the specter of death overhead - we are immortal soldiers to whom a 7.62mm round or a bit of shrapnel would go unnoticed. Our shields and armor soak dozens of rounds from Plasma weapons, and can reasonably withstand the damage of man-sized missiles exploding at our feet. If you think small-squad combat is the be all end all of warfare, you're probably in a pretty respected group. I imagine the first man with a spear thought he had it all figured out. So did the first guy with a bow. Hoards of horses were at one point considered a finality in war, as were relatively large groups of organized infantry. Unfortunately, they were all outdated and outmoded in time. War changes. Tactics evolve. New Eden is not Earth ~2000 AD. There is no fear of death for us - the biggest concern is the troublesome walk in our new body back to the fight.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page