PDA

View Full Version : The Difference in Movies and Games


darkjedimonkey
09-13-2007, 04:04 PM
The only thing I can't shake is why it takes about 4-5 secs to shoot an AI or other player but in the movies its a one shot deal. i never understood that.
its like in medal of honor frontline. they go realistic and it takes a one shot in a certain body part to kill a nazi. but star wars is taking a different approach.
anyone know why?

SilentScope001
09-14-2007, 02:16 AM
GAME BALANCE.

In Medal of Honor: Frontline, it's a singleplayer game where you are genociding National Socialists NPCs. It's okay for you to be superpowerful and kill them all in one hit because NPCs don't complain, they just line up to be shot for fun. In BF1, BF2, and possibly BF3, you can play against other people, who are also controlling units as well. You are playing (or can play) against actual humans, who may or may not like your game. And if they don't like your game, they can decide not to buy it, costing LA valuable money.

How would you like it if you were a trooper who spawn in and then some other player or NPC shoots you with a laser and you die instantly, so you are only able to play for 3 seconds? It would be a pretty unfun game and you'd likely return it to the store. It would be unbalanced to have you get killed in one hit, giving the advantage to whomever is the sniper and far far away, rather than letting you able to retaliate against the enemy. Therefore, the current system works fine actually.

TripHammer
09-14-2007, 10:20 AM
GAME BALANCE.

In Medal of Honor: Frontline, it's a singleplayer game where you are genociding National Socialists NPCs. It's okay for you to be superpowerful and kill them all in one hit because NPCs don't complain, they just line up to be shot for fun. In BF1, BF2, and possibly BF3, you can play against other people, who are also controlling units as well. You are playing (or can play) against actual humans, who may or may not like your game. And if they don't like your game, they can decide not to buy it, costing LA valuable money.

How would you like it if you were a trooper who spawn in and then some other player or NPC shoots you with a laser and you die instantly, so you are only able to play for 3 seconds? It would be a pretty unfun game and you'd likely return it to the store. It would be unbalanced to have you get killed in one hit, giving the advantage to whomever is the sniper and far far away, rather than letting you able to retaliate against the enemy. Therefore, the current system works fine actually.

I agree entirely.

Fettscommander
09-14-2007, 01:01 PM
GAME BALANCE.

In Medal of Honor: Frontline, it's a singleplayer game where you are genociding National Socialists NPCs. It's okay for you to be superpowerful and kill them all in one hit because NPCs don't complain, they just line up to be shot for fun. In BF1, BF2, and possibly BF3, you can play against other people, who are also controlling units as well. You are playing (or can play) against actual humans, who may or may not like your game. And if they don't like your game, they can decide not to buy it, costing LA valuable money.

How would you like it if you were a trooper who spawn in and then some other player or NPC shoots you with a laser and you die instantly, so you are only able to play for 3 seconds? It would be a pretty unfun game and you'd likely return it to the store. It would be unbalanced to have you get killed in one hit, giving the advantage to whomever is the sniper and far far away, rather than letting you able to retaliate against the enemy. Therefore, the current system works fine actually.

Yeah same here...but It worked pretty well to die in 3 or so shots in the call of duty games...

jawathehutt
09-14-2007, 05:24 PM
The idea works fine in TEC and +123(I think), I think they should at least make it 3 hits max for the basic trooper.

darkjedimonkey
09-14-2007, 10:13 PM
yeah i know i was just wondering becuz i was watching the 5th movie
and was sort of puzzled by the difference
sorry for the stupid