Black Ops 3 Trailer just released

[McJob]

well it depends - do you enjoy exploitative guilt-trip cutscenes interspersed by decent performances of nolan north, with a majority of your time being spend in boring, drab, uninspired, and uninteresting third-person gameplay?

If that's what you think, you:

A) Missed the entire point of the game, meaning you probably didn't finish the game
B) Are mad, since the art looks loving beautiful (some guy took screenshots of a game with 4K settings and was able to sell them as prints)
C) Are crazy, because "guilt-tripping" is not what the game is trying to do
D) Are foolish, because I couldn't find a single gameplay element that wasn't as good or better than other shooters I play

[Ad Bot]

[McJob]

do you purposefully play games with terrible shooting and cover mechanics?

I strive to play games I enjoy. Name a couple of "terrible" shooter games you think I might play. I'm genuinely interested.

have you never played a decent third person shooter before?

So what is a decent third person shooter then?

[blockguy™]

i swear to god if this game is set in the future again i'm never playing COD again until the timeline is changed

[ZombiLoin]

What was so terrible about it, lol?

i'm going to copy and paste what lovebad said about the gameplay because he expressed it rather succinctly, and i don't feel the need to type out what's already been said.

Using cover is a natural element in any shooter, but the focus of a good gunplay model’s challenge is, shockingly, shooting people, as opposed to avoiding as much damage as possible.  When a shooter centralizes around sticking to cover, it places specific safe spots and discourages any deviation from them.  The majority of the combat consists of sticking to a wall or alternating between a few walls, popping up to fire on other people who stick behind walls, taking some damage and then sitting back down again to wait for that damage to vanish.  Because the game is third-person, there’s no loss of spatial awareness when hiding behind cover.  Because health regenerates extremely fast, there’s no incentive to leave that cover and make a risky move.  Because the environments are so restrictively linear, there’s no opportunity to decide where to go--there’s no need for either side to flank except in deliberately scripted events.  All of these omissions culminate in an extremely lazy design philosophy that promotes, oftentimes even enforces a lazy playstyle and trivializes a forgetton of elements that make fighting interesting in games.
And those were just criticisms of similar cover shooters as a whole.  Needless to say, they apply to The Line or else I wouldn’t be mentioning them, but the game has its own little problems.  Perhaps most important are the imprecise and simplistic controls.  The commands for sprint, toggle cover and context action are all mapped to the same key.  Sprinting is hard to control and even jerky at times, so it’s entirely possible to run into everybody’s line of sight on accident past the wall you were right next to that you wanted to use as cover.  Also, the squad tactic--that’s a singular “tactic”--that the game touts is nothing but a button press that tells your two squadmates to shoot somebody.

If that's what you think, you:

A) Missed the entire point of the game, meaning you probably didn't finish the game
B) Are mad, since the art looks loving beautiful (some guy took screenshots of a game with 4K settings and was able to sell them as prints)
C) Are crazy, because "guilt-tripping" is not what the game is trying to do
D) Are foolish, because I couldn't find a single gameplay element that wasn't as good or better than other shooters I play

As an example, at one point you encounter a minor character who is dying slowly and painfully, and you have the option to kill him with your gun instead.  But because he only appears in a small part of the story to help continue the narrative, there’s no real reason to choose one option over the other.  Even better, he is going to die either way, and because he has no real character whatsoever, his death matters as much as all the deaths that occurred in the mindless, piss-easy, on-rails infinite ammo grenade launcher segment that met its conclusion a matter of seconds before the scene in question.

[Folie à Deux]

i swear to god if this game is set in the future again i'm never playing COD again until the timeline is changed

Be ready for a long, long break.
someone already posted the cover art

[·::Kishgal::·]

I'm just waiting for the genius to say "omg just watch the video" to confirm that he has no idea what he is talking about and that all of his "opinions" are just regurgitating what he heard on YouTube.

Oops, while I was typing he did almost exactly that. What a surprise.

i swear to god if this game is set in the future again i'm never playing COD again until the timeline is changed

This was already confirmed to be the case, sorry bucko.

[blockguy™]

god loving damnit

[ZombiLoin]

I'm just waiting for the genius to say "omg just watch the video" to confirm that he has no idea what he is talking about and that all of his "opinions" are just regurgitating what he heard on YouTube.

Oops, while I was typing he did almost exactly that. What a surprise.
This was already confirmed to be the case, sorry bucko.

i really don't know why you're refusing to acknowledge any of my points but here, i'm going to put it in kindergarden terms for you why the gameplay is mediocre.

>sprint, use button, and cover are all mapped to the same key. it's impossible to change this in the settings menu.
>the ai runs from cover to cover and shoots at you, occasionally throwing a grenade or charging at you. because your health regenerates like a newt on cocaine, you never have to leave cover, even on the hardest difficulty.
>the controls are really, really sluggish. i was playing on the ps3, but that's no excuse to have stuffty controls in this day and age.

also, you must not be informed about how this game is, but people have been praising it by saying that the "mediocre gameplay was a purposeful decision on the part of the developers to show how we make war a trivial thing" or that "it's bad because it parodies other war shooters." so yes, you could say people play it because of how bad it is.

[McJob]

As an example, at one point you encounter a minor character who is dying slowly and painfully, and you have the option to kill him with your gun instead.  But because he only appears in a small part of the story to help continue the narrative, there’s no real reason to choose one option over the other.  Even better, he is going to die either way, and because he has no real character whatsoever, his death matters as much as all the deaths that occurred in the mindless, piss-easy, on-rails infinite ammo grenade launcher segment that met its conclusion a matter of seconds before the scene in question.

Which proves that two of you didn't play the game to find out that (spoilers!)it's very obviously a deconstruction of games like Call of Duty and Gears of War, showcasing how little choice you have, how those choices have almost no impact and no purpose, and how you trying to justify yourself as "the hero" when you're cutting down swathes of people and simply going with the flow with any rhyme, reason or idea of the actual situation probably points at the fact that you're the real enemy. It's supposed to be one massive "Take That!" at shooters, showing how this heroic bullstuff doesn't add up with how you get there in the first place. Anybody who finished the game would obviously know that, so it's clear you two didn't finish the game or weren't paying attention.

[Folie à Deux]

"who the forget plays games for story
i want my loving silky smooth CSGO controls, Arma 3 graphics, battlefield 4 maps, and *game with good AI* enemies.
if i wanted a story id read a book!!!!!!!"

[ZombiLoin]

Which proves that two of you didn't play the game to find out that (spoilers!)it's very obviously a deconstruction of games like Call of Duty and Gears of War, showcasing how little choice you have, how those choices have almost no impact and no purpose, and how you trying to justify yourself as "the hero" when you're cutting down swathes of people and simply going with the flow with any rhyme, reason or idea of the actual situation probably points at the fact that you're the real enemy. It's supposed to be one massive "Take That!" at shooters, showing how this heroic bullstuff doesn't add up with how you get there in the first place. Anybody who finished the game would obviously know that, so it's clear you two didn't finish the game or weren't paying attention.

awesome, you explained how the game manipulates players into filling the game's preconceived notions of the player.

"the hero" when you're cutting down swathes of people and simply going with the flow with any rhyme, reason or idea of the actual situation probably points at the fact that you're the real enemy.

but they're not people, they're just pixels with no backstory, emotions, or any indication they're people. why should i feel bad for killing them

[ZombiLoin]

"who the forget plays games for story
i want my loving silky smooth CSGO controls, Arma 3 graphics, battlefield 4 maps, and *game with good AI* enemies.
if i wanted a story id read a book!!!!!!!"

it doesn't help that spec ops the line is an exploitative, bland cover shooter that uses shock tactics to guilt-trip the player.

[Folie à Deux]

but they're not people, they're just pixels with no backstory, emotions, or any indication they're people. why should i feel bad for killing them

why do you even play games when you have jackstuff fantasy
no damn game puts a story emotion and indication behind every hostile AI

if you want all of that go play second life or some stuff

it doesn't help that spec ops the line is an exploitative, bland cover shooter that uses shock tactics to guilt-trip the player.

citation needed*

[·::Kishgal::·]

it doesn't help that spec ops the line is an exploitative, bland cover shooter that uses shock tactics to guilt-trip the player.

Leave already, nobody here cares about whatever garbage some minor YouTube personality spoonfed to you.

[McJob]

awesome, you explained how the game manipulates players into filling the game's preconceived notions of the player.

It's not manipulating anybody into anything. It's showcasing a big point about shooter games and stories. How you react to that is up to you, but there is a very clear message that the developers are showcasing.

they're just pixels with no backstory, emotions, or any indication they're people. why should i feel bad for killing them

THAT'S THE loving POINT. That's exactly what they said with Spec Ops: The Line. The game is saying how every killed character is meaningless in the long run. That point in the game where you use the mortar to launch you-know-what is supposed to show that exact point, and what it also does is reflect on the player.