New Wolfenstein Game

[IrocJeff]

http://youtu.be/o5NazZLoBNw

 

 

Was watching Wings of all shows on Youtube and this was in the featured or sponsored video slot. There are a few more trailers there if you search Wolfenstein The New Order as well. 

 

This looks pretty good. 

[spior]

Hopefully this is like RTCW and not 2009 Wolfenstein.

[IrocJeff]

I played the Demo of the 2009 Wolfenstein and the only thing I didn't care for was the upgrading weapons part. Was kinda dumb I thought. How was the whole game if you played it?

[spior]

No, I didn't play it through. I hated the engine and the game mechanics overall.

Story wise it's pretty damn good, judging from the friend who suggested I should play it.

[MoonDog]

Yeah I've been following the limited previews and play descriptions lately. Its come a long way since the 2013 plays.

[Grab]

RTCW will be still better. There aren't good new shooters. Graphic only.

[eezstreet]

RTCW will be still better. There aren't good new shooters. Graphic only.

lol.

[MoonDog]

lol.

+1

[Grab]

lol.

Show me any good new FPS.

[Circa]

That's completely subjective.

[Grab]

Because saying game is great by watching trailer is objective.

[eezstreet]

Show me any good new FPS.

Depends on how far back you mean by 'new', but I would classify CS:GO, BioShock: Infinite, Quake Live and the remake of Rise of the Triad to be good.

 

Because saying game is great by watching trailer is objective.

I didn't say it was great at all? I just said that your argument is silly (especially since you more or less said that all new FPSes suck without any evidence of why).

Although I will admit, based on what people have been saying about the previews, it sounds like a pretty good FPS. You're entitled to your opinion however.

 

EDIT: Also, you can't very well call any game 'good' while being objective. It's physically impossible.

[MoonDog]

Because saying game is great by watching trailer is objective.

 

 

No one said anything but that the trailer looks good.

[Sentra]

I like the new Far Cry 3, Blood Dragon add-on.

Also enjoyed 2009's Wolfenstein, very interesting, beautiful and just awesome shooter.

[Ping]

That's completely subjective.

No it's not.

 

But on topic: The game doesn't look very bad and from what I read it seems to be doing many things right. This, alongside the reboot of Shadow Warrior, makes me feel slightly more optimistic about the genre in general.

[MoonDog]

No it's not.

 

But on topic: The game doesn't look very bad and from what I read it seems to be doing many things right. This, alongside the reboot of Shadow Warrior, makes me feel slightly more optimistic about the genre in general.

 

Is it not?

 

Bioshock Infinite is lauded as a very good FPS game. It is in a lot of ways. Its a narrative masterpiece. So for a lot of people, its a fantastic FPS that made a lot of memories for them.

 

However, it has some of the most horrid combat ever. If you look at it from a combat perspective, it's a series of arena combat type slogs where they throw AI at you haphazardly. There isn't a lot of rhyme or reason to geometry in terms of FPS gaming standards. You'll be met with frequent irritating design choices, such as enemies shooting you from a great distance while you have enemies spawning in behind, fighting behind you, or fighting in your face.

 

So on the other hand, it fails as a fun FPS experience for a lot of people, because the game fails to decide how it should balance FPS mechanics and the mastery of narrative.

 

 

 

 

So in closing. Yes it is.

[Ping]

You say that some people enjoyed Infinite because they valued the narrative over the gameplay, and that the narrative was good, and other people didn't enjoy Infinite because the combat was actually terrible. But if things were "completely subjective", you couldn't say that the combat was actually bad and the narrative was actually good, and you couldn't say that the latter group didn't like the game 'despite it being a narrative masterpiece' or that the former group liked the game 'despite the terrible combat'. You even gave reasons for backing up your claim that the combat was bad - this also would not be possible, or at least wouldn't make much sense to do, if things were "completely subjective". All you could ever possibly say would be: "According to my taste, the combat was bad. But if someone else likes the combat, then him liking the combat is equally as justified and valid as me disliking it, because its merely a matter of taste."

 

So in closing, you already assume that it is not. You assume it in everyday life, you assume it when playing and talking about games, you assume it in your work as a game dev or a modder.

[MoonDog]

Those are not facts as not everyone agrees with them. I used an example to show my personal feelings, tastes and or opinions to draw a comparison. Which is the text book definition of a thing that is subjective.

 

This article only slightly touches what I found wrong with the combat:

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/bioshock_infinite/b/pc/archive/2013/03/25/enjoying-the-view-from-above.aspx

 

This article finds the combat amazing:

http://www.gamesradar.com/bioshock-infinite-review/

 

 

 

There is no formula or exact plan for what makes a game great. There is no Mendeleev table of elements for video game building blocks and elements. Pretending that a great game comes down to a series of absolutes that are not subject to a high degree of elements based on personal opinion in design is a fallacy. In fact most people can't even articulate the reasons why something is good or bad.

[Ping]

Disagreement about something does not preclude that something from being a fact. There is plenty of disagreement about facts. But it's very good that you point out that there are websites dedicated to giving arguments as to whether or not a game is good (or its combat, for that matter) and that there is a very large amount of dispute about those things. But if something were completely subjective, there could be no rational justification for it, as we can see with actual expressions of taste: If I say that I don't like ice cream and you ask me why, there is not much I can say besides 'I just don't'. There is a large difference between those cases and, say, disliking Infinite's combat, on which a lot can be said and many reasons for disliking it can be given.

 

In fact, some people make a livelihood doing just that: namely disputing the merits of games and we even hold competitions (think IGF) that are based on the possibility of making judgements about the merits of a game. If it's all completely subjective though, it implausibly follows that all of those things are based on a mistake, namely that professional critics etc only seem to appear to judge a game on merit, but what they really do is state personal preferences - and indeed, they take hundreds of words to put the phrases 'I like it' or 'I don't like it' into as many different variations as they can. And, also, they constantly use misleadingly wrong language, saying that something actually is good or bad (as you did many times over the course of your last two posts), whereas what they actually mean to say is that they like/prefer that something. If that were true, why wouldn't they just say it? There are more problems: I already hinted in my previous post that if it were completely subjective, every opinion on it would be equally as valid, even the ones that are argued on the basis of features that don't appear in the game or don't even exist. 

 

I'm not saying there is one undisputed way of making a good game or anything as ridiculously radical as that. But I don't think the exact opposite position is any more plausible. There are some games that I'm sure we can all very uncontroversially agree are better than some other games, likewise there are some skins, models and even mods that are better than others. We don't have to go completely subjective to stay open minded, respect the work of others or to have something to tell people like grab off.

[Jango40]

Counter-Strike Global Offensive is a good new FPS.

Case closed?

[MoonDog]

So I can take one game and test it across different nationalities, ages, psychological maturities and without fail always get the same exact opinion on that game. That's pretty much what you are arguing. That makes no sense. A vast degree of personal experience goes into whether or not a person is going to label something as "good" when they play it. I do not honestly care what game journalists say, it was merely an example. Their personal experience across genres is so varied, that their basis for forming an opinion and writing reviews( Reviews are opinion pieces mind ) is going to be different because they have a great deal of memories to draw comparisons off of.

 

We are talking about the core experience of a game. I'm not even trying to touch on assets such as textures and models. An experience is different for each individual. If every experience is different, how can every opinion be the same? This is why they are called opinions, and the experiences themselves are subjective. If you have a very competitive video gaming history, your values are going to be night and day different from a casual gamer who has played maybe 2 hours of a game on average per week over a year.

 

Let's even talk about culture. Chinese youths were not raised playing the same kinds of games as lets say, Americans or some Europeans. We are conditioned, for example, to know that glowing or shiny objects are good and should be collected. (Pacman, Mario, Zelda, Etc... etc... etc.. etc... ). When we play an experience that capitalizes on this ingrained lessons, (Kill confirmed in CoD), we know that collecting these glowing objects is a good thing to do. We understand the experience, and we have fun.

 

Chinese youths for the large part( Extremely large part ) never learned these lessons because their gaming industry has developed a little slower, and in a different direction. When they are presented with a mechanic such as collecting a dog tag(Or any glowly spinny thing) they have no frame of reference or ingrained knowledge that they should collect it. It's not understood, its ignored, the experience makes no sense, they go back to playing CrossFire. That's an FPS they understand based on personal experience, preference, opinion and knowledge. They do not have fun or even appreciate the same experience that is lauded as a great innovation in other parts of the world.

 

Meaning that the experience is subjective to so many factors, its not even funny.

[Ping]

So I can take one game and test it across different nationalities, ages, psychological maturities and without fail always get the same exact opinion on that game. That's pretty much what you are arguing.

Nope, widely off the mark.

 

 

We are talking about the core experience of a game.

We're talking about whether a game is good. You argue that there is nothing outside of you experiencing the game that determines whether or not it is "good". I disagree and I gave reasons as to why I disagree that you didn't care to address. That's alright, but I don't see why I shouldn't return the favour.

[eezstreet]

But the problem with such competitions is that you again have the same problem as an awards ceremony: you can't account for every persons tastes. Consider The WarZ. A lot of people will claim it to be a bad game. In fact, it's almost universal that it's a terrible game. Yet you will find at least one person which will claim it to be a good game and that it has 'charm'. 'Charm' can help determine a bad game from a good game, as it impacts your opinion, yet it is completely and utterly arbitrary. The entire idea of determining whether a game is good or bad is a subjective process as you aren't comparing objective facts. For example, the Triangle Shirtwaist disaster was a much more deadly incident than the recent fire in a nursing home - this can be determined from the facts. But let's consider two games which are very very similar - Rollercoaster Tycoon 1 vs Rollercoaster Tycoon 2. Rollercoaster Tycoon was basically the same game as 1, but it added a sandbox mode, a scenario editor, much more rides, higher resolution modes, a larger palette, more scenarios, etc. But is it a better game than 1? It depends on who you ask. I personally think 1 was a better game as the scenarios are better (in my opinion), it has fewer 'junk' rides (rides which serve no strategic purpose) and the new rides in 2 didn't fit the artistic style of those in the first game. But again, it's subjective. Just because everyone (or seemingly everyone) agrees with something, it doesn't change the fact that it's purely subjective.

[MoonDog]

 

Nope, widely off the mark.

 

Your argument is that determining whether or not a game is good is NOT subjective. It is a very untenable point of view now matter what counter argument I choose to use to circumnavigate that strange logic.

 

 

 

We're talking about whether a game is good. You argue that there is nothing outside of you experiencing the game that determines whether or not it is "good". I disagree and I gave reasons as to why I disagree that you didn't care to address. That's alright, but I don't see why I shouldn't return the favour.

 

 

In return, you too are widely off the mark. I deluded my argument down to the base experience designed around rather than starting to talk about the "quality" of models, textures, skins, etc...

 

You are saying that using an absolute like, "The quality of a game is subjective to the individual" is something that you don't agree with. In return, you are offering a counter absolute that a game can always be reduced to a status of "good" or "bad" regardless of the individual. How is that NOT ALSO AN ABSOLUTE?

[Ping]

@@eezstreet: Likewise, just because people disagree about the matter doesn't make it any less of a fact. I've already said that once. I'm still waiting for someone to actually address my points (or even read my post).

 

 

 

Your argument is that determining whether or not a game is good is NOT subjective. It is a very untenable point of view now matter what counter argument I choose to use to circumnavigate that strange logic.

Once again, no. I argue that it is not COMPLETELY subjective. The matter is not as black and white as you make it out to be, and I've already mentioned once that the exact opposite of saying that "x is completely subjective" is itself a terrible position.

 

I also don't argue against making "absolute statements". That's a very strange turn. How the hell did you get there?