09-01-2011 11:24 AM
All of which are sadly on life support since Socom 4.
I will go with this and would like to highlight COMPETITION.
EDIT: On second thought, if I was to make my own list I would say:
That being said, as others pointed out 3 things does not define any one game. there is so much to it that a book could be writen about it. Just ask tombstone ;0).
P.S. If his version of SOCOM was made, I would buy it. I may have differences of opinion with him and others, but I consider them minor and the game he would make would be a great one. It would not be my perfect game, but even if was in charge of the game developement I bet I would not be able to make my perfect game, LOL.
09-01-2011 12:10 PM
I see alot of good ideas that i agree with. BUT i think lobbies and USER RANKED CREATED ROOMS is 80% of what SOCOM is.Which gives you endless game types, TRY OUT rooms, Clan Rivals. And a sense of community. You can still have your play now option.
09-01-2011 12:26 PM
All of these things for me fall under the community catagory. The Lobby Server listing really created a sense of a community. Knowing you could go into us east 3 for example and find the same people/clan every night to play with was awesome. Then you could join a lobby room where you could voice chat by PUSH TO TALK and chat it up or text chat until everyone would "g^" and get the match away. Then theres the clan system that created the competition and rivalries between players. How about the simple communication during a match that took place would create a friendship between players than you never intended to make in the first place. The teamwork that it took to storm the beaches of fishhook as a SEAL for example and destroy the other team that had the upper hand from the start of the clock countdown.
2.) Game Modes/Maps
Demolition, Breach, Escort, Extraction, Suppresion these modes are the foundation of the SOCOM series. No other game has them and no other game will ever duplicate the experience of playing them. Without these modes you simply do not have a SOCOM game. If you never played the series you wouldnt understand how important they are. Then there are the maps that were actually built around the gamemodes. All of the maps were unique
Go turn on SOCOM 1/2 and even 3... they all play like SOCOM games. Its really hard to summarize the gameplay of SOCOM. Its the things like third person point of view, round based non respawn focused and then also its the little things like custom taunts or being able to breach the wall on a desert glory as an alternate entrance point. Im not going to list everything here just go play the older games they represent the feeling and gameplay we were used to for years.
09-01-2011 01:40 PM
This is a difficult one to answer because it was combination of major core features as well as the hundreds of smaller features that came togeather to make what was orginally SOCOM. I'm going to TRY and give you what I feel were some of the most important aspects in my mind.
No respawn, themed objectives, played on maps designed specifically for those themed objectives, played in an 8 vs 8 format. That is probably what got me into the game more then anything.
The no respawn incouraged people to step up and play as a team, use tactics and strategy. It was about shooting but even more so about thinking and being cooperative. Which promoted teamwork, which promoted you to play with specific people that you were familar with, which promoted people to communicate, which in turn created friends and competitive clans, and wars.
The themed objectives made me feel like there was a sense or realism to the game... like it was truly the good guys against the bad guys and less like I was playing in an arena or paintball field despite it still being a game. When the maps were tailor made to the game being no respawn, to the specific mode, and to the number of players they worked great, and were fun... even when a particular side had a great advantage. They did not have a sense of coming out of a cookie cutter, they did not feel generic or boring.
I did not realize it at he time when first starting SOCOM but the player count was right inside the Goldilocks zone... just right. A standard competitive game of Counter-Strike, which I also liked, was/is 5 vs 5. For me 5 vs 5 is lacking a little. I want a bit more players to orgainze with and against, it feels too simple in a way. However having more the 12 players per team in the unforgiving enviornment of no respawn is too much. It becomes more difficult to orgainze and tactically operate with and against that many people. For no respawn games the maps become either too congested or too large. With more players that either need to be eliminated or worked around the effective round times also begin to go on longer... which is not something I, or I think the average player, wants with no respawn games. For no respawn I think 10 v 10 is the maximum the player count should ever be. Beyond that I think it starts to significantly have negative effects on all sorts of parts of the game.
Beyond what is above I loved the extensive movement of SOCOM. Players had a lot of freedom above your average game out there. You could lean, jump, climb, jump and then climb, crouch, prone, dive to prone, lean while prone, open doors, activate switches, operate things, climb ladders, slide down ladders, you got knocked on your face or rear from explosions, fell to one knee it hit critically. The movement speed may of been a bit fast at times but it kept things fast paced and fun. Gun mechanics were tight enough that the game felt skillful, no aim assist.
Another thing I really liked about the game but don't think is very critical was I liked the perspectives.... and I am stressing the plural aspect of that. I liked the 3rd person it HAD, that you COULD also go into 1st person, as well as optic views. After playing other games I don't think it would of been too much different of a game if it had only been 1st person... by and large it would of been the same great game. However playing recent versions of SOCOM I think they stink without a 1st person option and these uncentered 3rd or a person views that are too close up. The game would be better solely in first person then it is in 3rd only.
For a future SOCOM to gain my interest it is going to have to drop the player count back down to 8v8 or 10v10, its primary game format has to be no respawn (that is what I get games like SOCOM and CS for!), the maps must be designed for specific game modes, and it MUST have a 1st person option... I will never again torture myself with uncorrectable camera collision issues in a game that is supposed to be competitive.
Oh yeah and lobbies... I want to be able to join or make a custom game or playlist and be able to actually connect with people... beyond my friends list. Nor do I want to depend upon the failures and limitation that can come with only having a matchmaking system.
09-01-2011 02:24 PM
I wrote this lengthy piece back in the beta, and since everything else has basically been covered, I'll share it again -
Quite possibly my favorite thing about the past SOCOMs were the maps. Death Trap, Fish Hook, Foxhunt, The Mixer, Requiem, Guidance, and The Ruins were all maps I could play over and over, and still would. Even Crossroads, Frostfire, Desert Glory, Nightstalker, and Vigilance would still be fun after playing them in Confronation constantly. And then my favorite maps all belonged to Breach Medley - Enowapi, Sujo, and Sandstorm.
It isn't difficult to figure out why these maps were so great (at least for me) -
Those are just five reasons (in no order), as there are more minor stuff and I'm sure you all have your own reasons. But those five are all major components that provide a great map to play on.
- For numero uno, I wrote (KEY) because it's the most important aspect. When a map is designed around one objective, all the pieces fall in on their own. You're able to create a suitable defensive structure(s) pertaining to the objective, as well as tactical points and areas that become primarily utilized.
Take Enowapi for example (my favorite of all time): The terrorists are provided a major tactical advantage by being placed on a heightened platform, contrary to the SEALs, who are deployed at the base of the hill and must work their way up. Originally there are only two gates for access (that the terrorists can also operate), along with multiple machine gun nests equipped with thermal scopes. Inside the walls, terrorists are also provided cover with the use of foliage and other objects.
Then finally, the SEALs' objective is placed within an underground bunker that is limited to two entrances (one of which is simply a ladder). Navigating the bunker once inside is also difficult in its own right especially if the lights have been shot out, and PMN mines become very hard to locate.
But to counter these defenses, SEALs are provided with a few tactical advantages of their own. One is utilizing an air strike to attack certain defensive positions and to also blow up a third entrance. Another is an MG nest conveniently located outside the fortress and pointing at its direction (more specifically, the ramp going into the underground bunker). Silenced weapons also become vital in maps like Enowapi to maximize stealth, and the SEALs are provided with ample amount.
Overall, it's very difficult for the SEALs to win a round, much less six, and that's why the map had such replayability for my friends and me. It felt great to be able to defeat the terrorists on that map, and I think Breach is the most rewarding game mode (although Convoy has an arguement).
- For number two, different environments are important because they change scenery up, and allow for different play styles. I don't know about you guys, but before Cold Front was released, I became sick of playing desert maps for months straight.
- For number three, interactivity is something I believe is underrated. Yeah, opening/closing doors, shooting out lights, and breaking windows aren't necessarily major factors of gameplay, but they make the maps a bit more realistic looking. Doors provide a defensive component that allow players more awareness to their surroundings. And by defensive, I don't just mean whoever is hiding inside the building, but it also helps attacking players determine if someone is inside by whether or not the door is open/closed.
Exploding barrels and cover is a poor excuse for interactivity, and will only be tactically effective once you're able to blow up buildings similar to a few of the Battlefield games.
- For numero cuatro, focal points and chokepoints are important because they define the map. Imagine a Crossroads without the fishmarket or red room. Perhaps Citadel without the blue room (or red room, whichever one had the stairs leading to the roof). Or maybe even Frostfire without the computer room or box room.
Maps like Blood Lake and Fish Hook don't necessarily need designated areas of action because the objectives alone provide that. But maps based around Suppression and (in some cases) Demolition do, and is the reason why such maps thrived on past SOCOMs. When you have maps with no real flow or objective to them, you end up with crappy symmetrical designs like Port Authority and Assault & Battery. The warehouse in PA sort of operates as a chokepoint depending on the objective, but the building itself is so hard to defend that it's not much of a defensive structure. There are around 6-7 entrances (without doors) that anyone can simply walk through, and to top it off, there are tons of boxes everywhere that nobody can see over. I find it very easy to waltz in and kill whoever is defending the building.
But elsewhere, everyone is able to run around freely until they approach someone camping behind one of the thousand pieces of cover. I simply can't find any flow to these maps.
- For number five, this may seem like an odd factor, but I think it's necessary for some maps. Case in point, Blizzard on Confrontation. This was a great map on S1 and S2, but now that snipers are able to see across the map instantly, it becomes a stalemate and quite possibly the least fun map to ever play.
Now imagine if Foxhunt was brought back in HD? The hostages the SEALs escort would be dead within a minute if they're not hidden in the crack the entire round. I would definitely hate to play that map if the fog didn't exist, and the same applies for Requiem and Blood Lake.
...I guess I'm simply frustrated with these "next-gen" maps. They're all based around respawn and no objective in particular. They also have a bucketload of boxes and broken walls scattered everywhere that would make a cover camper cream himself.
09-01-2011 02:34 PM
There was a report in the last year or so about older gamers being at risk of heart attacks while playing video games. As far as I was concerned they were talking about me and SOCOM. Playing 1 life and having the added suspense of gun hot to make your heart pump like mad is SOcrack and that is why I am so addicted to this game. Too bad someone at Sony/Zipper thought this needed to change.Sig.
Hurry up and bring back Slant Six, we want Confrontation 2.
i really miss that, the oh crap moment when ur gun went up in a nonrespawn room was great, to know that there was someone in the area that also knew u was there was what i played for all the time
also at the very least give us options to turn stuff on/off individually, give us lobbies and matchmaking/search tool, classic game modes,and classic maps from S1-CA and classic skins would be nice
give us classic guns and you could even add in the modern guns its more options, everything is unlocked when you start the first time
add in recoil, d-pad lean zoom, single action button for pick up open/close, taunts, etc...
im tired of thinking and typing so pretty much give us stuff from S1-CA with options if you add options then people will be happy....and im sure i missed lots of things
09-01-2011 03:59 PM
3 points only is missing the SOCOM experience. Here is your response:
1. Round-based gameplay and customizable rooms. (User created ranked rooms)
2. Lobby system (i.e. text chats in briefing rooms and lobbies, community info, ect.)
3. PS2 SOCOM's character mechanics. (i.e. Ability to lean while standing, crouched or prone, pushing up on the d-pad giving you first person view, accurate weapons with recoil as the aiming hurdle.)
Again, to ask for only 3 points is completely missing the SOCOM vision. You need to ask better questions to get better feedback! You are not asking the correct questions to get SOCOM where it needs to be. Contact me and I will ask the community questions or work with whomever to get the job done correctly and precisely.