murphdawg1 wrote:
GaRcHoW wrote:
Saws this a while back. It looks like crap. Same BS OTS aim cover system garbage. The gaming industry sucks!
I HATE ZIPPER INTERACTIVE (PS3 Era)
And you're playing a ranked respawn FPS that probably has health re-gen. Am I right?
And Socom 4 is a TPS with ranked respawn and health re-gen... You're point?
I think it looks cool, the story is very intriguing. And they seem to have a very high focus on teamplay and tactics. With the HUB table and the fact that if your in a party, you wont be just a name in a lobby you will be walking around a room and interacting until you join a game *is how i understand it *.
MiamiBlue wrote:
murphdawg1 wrote:
GaRcHoW wrote:
Saws this a while back. It looks like crap. Same BS OTS aim cover system garbage. The gaming industry sucks!
I HATE ZIPPER INTERACTIVE (PS3 Era)
And you're playing a ranked respawn FPS that probably has health re-gen. Am I right?
And Socom 4 is a TPS with ranked respawn and health re-gen... You're point?
It is but you don't have to play it like that(or play it at all). I don't think BF 3 gives you that option.
Rainbow Six had non-respawn modes also and it ran the same kinds of things as SOCOM with round-based, one life kind of thing. You could restrict health regen too. Problem was always the major lag issues though.
First person game, but with a third person cover system. All in all, without the lag, it could run smooth enough to be playable. With it, even the damn single player AI lags like a B**** most of the time--Which I never quite understood why the heck that happened.
The few other problems were based off of their progression systems that unlocked weapons and things like that. Those were so different from SOCOM though. Game modes and things like that played pretty close and stuff, and maps were fair and some very good. Still, the downfalls easily ruined the game for most.
Support
Corporate
Community
