All About spikepigeo
So I know it's too early to tell, but what do you think we'll see and what do you want to see?
I want to see graphics as good if not better than Crysis Warhead. These graphics do exist in the multiplayer component of Crysis, Crysis Wars so it is possible now let alone in mid-late 2010(when BF3 is expected to release).
I would really like to see some insane physics and destructable environments akin to the ones found in Bad Company. I absolutely do not want to draw a parallel to Bad Company in a any other way, however. To kill an enemy in that game takes way too many shots. I love the more realistic, more deadly feeling of attacks in BF2 and would like it to remain that way(not quite as real as ArmA II though). The controls should remain the same and should include all of the things you could do in BF2 but some additions would be nice, such as:
- Very quick animations getting in and out of vehicles to add realism but not frustrate the player from taking to long and being vulnerable.
- A light-weight cover system. By this I mean that it would remain in first-person view and would still allow full range of motion but would make you able to "snap" between aiming out of cover and going back into cover. It should allow you to easily snap to cover and out of cover easily without mistake.
- More squad team-work incentives. BF2 had great incentives but some new creative, fun incentives could be added to encourage "rowdy" players to commit to a realistic squad system and obey commands throughout the match.
- Swim underwater. I always was a little miffed when i was forging a body of water when all of the sudden, bullets started landing on and around my head and i could do nothing about it. It's common knowledge that bullets do not travel well underwater if at all. In a real-life situation such as this a soldier would retreat underwater for as long as he can to shield himself. This should be allowed, especially if Navy S.E.A.L.s are to be included. In the Special Forces expansion SEALs couldn't swim under water... i know they do much, much more.. but thats just not right.
- Realistic material penetration. Aside from basic and advanced physics that should allow the destruction of materials, materials that cant necessarily be destroyed should be able to be penetrated in different ways based on the material, how thick it is, the caliber of bullet hitting it, and the speed at which it hit which would, of course, be based on the distance it was fired from because like in BF2, bullets should have realistic ballistics.
- Better rag-doll physics. BF2's physics were there and worked but i know i wasn't the only one that noticed how odd that body flying through the air, spread-eagle, looked after it got to close to an artillery strike.
- Blood and Gore! Muahaha! I love blood and Gore in games. Call me sick, i don't care. Sure BF2 had blood but there was no lighting on the blood and there were no bullet hole wounds or gore. The blood was flat and existed only for a second. Shiny, gooey blood would be great and if a soldier gets hit by a fricken AT missile... they should maybe, shall we say, split up a bit. I'm not saying it should be quite as intense as Fallout 3.
- More modes. Conquest is the greatest multiplayer shooter mode I have ever played and should thereby be improved on with more complex goals. Modes should be game match modes that add goals on top of an already existing conquest base. Squads could be formed of one unit type and they could pursue one goal that their unit type would be good at accomplishing like Navy SEALs could be tasked with swimming ashore a beach and stealthily prepping the area for an all-out assault with defenses and traps and what not. I would not want to see deathmatch or team death match. That would ruin almost everything the BF series stands for. This is not a game for seeing who can get the highest head count so much as it is for who can contribute to the teams ultimate goal the most.
- and finally, maybe some more realistic, more cinematic animations wouldn't hurt. Maybe they would. All I know is that some cool, very quick, assassination animations coming from a combat knife strike might be cool along with some realistic dying animations based on where the enemy is struck by a bullet. this would just add to the overall realism and immersion of the game.
Aside from gameplay I think that the max players allowed per server should be increased no more than 128. If they wish to go by factors of 2 like they have been thats fine but even 128 seems like too much to me, maybe 96 would be a good number however 128 really seems to be the only fair choice seeing as how it can be equally divided all the way down to 2. 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2. This is the best and most realistic formula for squad configurations.
As far as factions go, I think maps should be an exclusive struggle between two factions like they were before so that the setting makes sense. the factions should once again include the USMC, MEC, PLA and maybe something from Russia or North Korea. If this ends up being a huge game and Special forces units are included then it should be completely changed. The factions should be by Country, USA, China, Russia, etc... and the units such as sniper, spec ops, Assault etc... should be within branches like Marines, Navy SEALs, Rangers, Air Force Paratroopers, etc... Maybe this is too much and too specific, but I'm just dreaming big. Like I said, they should do that only if they are to include Special Forces in the game instead of in an expansion like with BF2. That way you could really go in depth with exactly what type of unit you want to be.
Character creation would be absolutely fantastic. I always wondered why I was always black no matter what when I played as an Assault troop. After playing Battlfield heroes I realized how fun character customization in a battlfield universe was. The aesthetic customization should not be outlandish like in battlfield heroes though.
All in all, I say these things because I don't want BF3 to just be BF2 with better graphics, it should be an incredibly advanced, realistic modern military virtual battleground and all of these things I have noted, while complex and daunting, would achieve just that. but i believe they could do it. What do you think?
I was over at my neighbor's house the other day, who has an xbox360. I go over there right now, of course, to play the Halo 3 beta. It's really fun, but I left his house with a bad taste in my mouth. Not because of the Halo 3 beta, but because my neighbor, while we were playing Halo 3, said PC gaming is dying. This is not the first time I've heard this so after hearing it from him, i was upset. 'Is it true?' I thought to myself. 'Is PC gaming really dying?'.
It was soon after that, that I thought of all of the things that so recently made PC gaming the best way to game in existence. Things such as Dx10. Things such as Nvidia's 8 series of cards, one of which(the GTX) has twice as much power as the PS3. Games such as Crysis, Supreme Commander, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., and Bioshock...all of which you need a PC to play. Bioshock is a console game as well, but come on, lets be real. That game has killer graphics and no one wants to see them downgraded on the xbox360 or experience chugging framrates instead. It was at this point that I realized that every time I heard a doomsayer on the subject of the endtimes for PC games as we know it, it was just the voice of a jealous console fanboy justifying why he bought a console. PC gaming is far from over. In my opinion, it's just begun. Graphics that can, in some cases, trick the eye to see no contrast between the real and the not real only exist in PC gaming. How can a hardcore gamer that loves realistic graphics say that consoles are better?!? My neighbor is that someone and he did say it. I punched him in the face later that night. Just kidding, but I felt like it. How someone can say that and mean it is completely beyond me.
PC gaming is still the leader in FPS's, RTS's and MMO's. There's no question about it. On top of that, it is the leader in graphics, processing and phsysics power. Far from dead, PC gaming lives on and continues to crush consoles, console games and console fanboys alike. 3 cheers for PC's!!!
OK, so I'm all about Crysis right now. I'm living and breathing it as much as i can. Just look at my Profile. My banner is crysis, my avatar is crysis, my sig is crysis and if you could see it, you would see that my wallpaper is crysis. My last blog is about my new computer i just built... which i built FOR Crysis. Call me obsessed or tell me I need to get a life, I don't care, but this game IS gaming as I know it. It's amazing, enough said. The reason, however, that I have posted this blog is not to elaborate and swoon over the highly anticipated, high profile shooter, but to ask you - Are you worried about what I'm worried about?
I'm worried that it might not be all it's cracked up to be. With a lot of hype comes a lot of expectations. Crytek knows this and Crysis shows this, but are they going to be able to pull it off? Are they going to be able to pull it ALL off? I know my expectations for this game are part of my problem. I guess I'm just simply paranoid that the one game that has been fueling my locomotive in the game industry will fall flat on it's face and I will be left high and dry with no where to go with my fancy new rig. Sure there's a lot of other great games closing in fast, but crysis: this is it. I have not once seen anything to make me doubt how good this game will be, but at the same time, something is gnawing at the back of my brain... telling me something au contraire.
I hope I am the only one this paranoid cause there is WAY too much time between now and the release date, and i cannot have anyone else putting doubts in my head.
My Recent Reviews
spikepigeo does not have any recent activity. What a slacker! Maybe you should send spikepigeo a private message and ask, "Where are you hiding?"