Anime Untitled John Woo-inspired FPS from the developers of The Hong Kong Massacre

[Citizen]

First person shooters are unable to take equilibrium into account.

Mirrror's Edge 1 had rolling camera and it looked good

 

[Pound Meat]

Speaking of John Woo, I'm currently watching Windtalkers with Nick Cage, directed by John Woo. Should I be afraid? John Woo is overrated and Nick Cage is- well, Nick is Nick. But damn, I'm such a WWII Japan Get's Whooped buff!

The only version worth watching is the director's cut. It's not great but it feels a lot more Woo-ish and has more violence.

Selaco is a BLM simulator.

 

[JarlFrank]

Those clips look like Hong Kong Massacre's gameplay and levels ported from top-down to a first person perspective. Which isn't a bad thing.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Looks nice, but is this in a universe where aiming down sights is illegal?

Any modern "FPS" that doesn't let you use sights is ROFL levels of decline.

ADS slows the gameplay, if you want Woocrobatics gameplay it's not necessary.

 

[Lyric Suite]

You know what's retarded? Having your movement glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot. Being unable run in one direction while looking in another. (How many first person shooters disable running if you're not pressing W or going forward?) The crappy rolling up there is just one symptom. I like good first person shooters, but third person shooters (Good ones, which no one wants to make.) could potentially do things first person shooters can't.

First person shooters will awlays do one thing better than third person shooters: the actual shooting part.

Who gives a shit about rolling? Good shooting is more important.

 

[Ezekiel]

You know what's retarded? Having your movement glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot. Being unable run in one direction while looking in another. (How many first person shooters disable running if you're not pressing W or going forward?) The crappy rolling up there is just one symptom. I like good first person shooters, but third person shooters (Good ones, which no one wants to make.) could potentially do things first person shooters can't.

First person shooters will awlays do one thing better than third person shooters: the actual shooting part.

Who gives a shit about rolling?

Why does the actual shooting have to be better in first person? Because the gun is much closer? Please. Either way, first person or third, you're mostly still aiming with that magic dot or reticle. The moving mechanisms of the gun, the smoke and flash are still visible in third person view. The impact on organic and inorganic objects is still the same.

Being unable to look anywhere but where the gun is pointed, all with poor peripheral vision, is a big drawback. Like your whole head and the arms it is attached to are part of a rigid tripod on treads. Unable to sense the rest of the body as it bumps up or crashes into objects. At least in third person you can see the body and therefore have more of that situational awareness. As I mentioned, unable to keep running in one direction while checking your sides and also clumsier and more chaotic if you wanna implement mechanics that deal with equilibrium. If I could have either the best, funnest possibly designed third person shooter or the best, funnest possibly designed first person shooter, I'd pick the third person one. Even if the player character happens to move into my reticle/dot momentarily, I still overall will perceive my surroundings much better than with a big gun always in front of my limited FoV. So long as the camera is pulled back sufficiently enough, as in Max Payne, and I can swap shoulders at any time with my preferred Z key.

People who say third person shooters can't be as good lack imagination.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Why does the actual shooting have to be better in first person?

Because it's a straight line between your line of sight and the target.

Third person disembodies your perspective making it much more difficult to get a sense of where you are shooting, not to mention your own character being in the way.

It's like shooting a gun attached to one of those sticks retards use for selfies. It's not natural.

Magic dot? Try playing it without crosshair and see how you like it. I actually do that with most of my shooters 'cause muh realism.

As for peripheral vision, that shit only matters in melee. And rolling i guess lmao which like i said who gives a shit.

 

[Ezekiel]

Why does the actual shooting have to be better in first person?

Because it's a straight line between your line of sight and the target.

Third person disembodies your perspective making it much more difficult to get a sense of where you are shooting, not to mention your own character being in the way.

No more than the gun your character holds blocking part of your view. The only time the character in a third person shooter should ever block your line of sight is in the part of a second in which you are swapping shoulders or if you are backed up against a wall, but there are ways around that too, like making the character slightly transparent momentarily or bringing the camera up and closer until you distance yourself from the wall again, which has been done.

Actually, most of the time when I swap shoulders in Max Payne 3, for example, the reticle is slightly above the character's head. It's only when I hold the right mouse button for lower sensitivity (making the camera pull closer to the shoulder) and swap that my light of sight is blocked, as I recall.

It's like shooting a gun attached to one of those sticks retards use for selfies. It's not natural.

Almost nothing about shooting games is natural, if we're talking realism. Much of what you're arguing for is robotic/mechanical.

Magic dot? Try playing it without crosshair and see how you like it. I actually do that with most of my shooters 'cause muh realism.

I want the magic dot there. I hardly play ADS games anymore.

As for peripheral vision, that shit only matters in melee. And rolling i guess lmao which like i said who gives a shit.

Seeing your surroundings matters in almost any kind of three-dimensional action game. All the more the faster and more hectic the action is.

 

[Konjad]

Fear: graphicwhore edition?

FEAR is the only FPS besides ArmA series where the AI wasn't completely dead retadred. ArmA simulates large encounters well, but quite bad small ones, and FEAR simulated small ones pretty well.

Too bad they removed that AI in Fear 2 and 3 because consoles couldn't handle it (and PC is always an after-thought port), so the series went to consolized trash.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

John Woo certainly seems to have his fanboys but there's no way I'd ever attempt another re-watching of Windtalkers, directors cut or no directors cut. Those opening moments just reek of unreality with his whole obtrusive and bad sub-Peckinpah style. No re-editing can fix that.

 

[JarlFrank]

You know what's retarded? Having your movement glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot. Being unable run in one direction while looking in another. (How many first person shooters disable running if you're not pressing W or going forward?) The crappy rolling up there is just one symptom. I like good first person shooters, but third person shooters (Good ones, which no one wants to make.) could potentially do things first person shooters can't.

I dunno. Not many?
None of the classics do, for sure. Doom, Quake, Unreal, Build engine games... they all have speedy side-strafing and backpedaling. Circlestrafing is a common tactic in Quake, for example, and it's just as speedy as walking forward.

Look at this:


How is the movement here "glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot"?

 

[Ezekiel]

You know what's retarded? Having your movement glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot. Being unable run in one direction while looking in another. (How many first person shooters disable running if you're not pressing W or going forward?) The crappy rolling up there is just one symptom. I like good first person shooters, but third person shooters (Good ones, which no one wants to make.) could potentially do things first person shooters can't.

I dunno. Not many?

Most.

None of the classics do, for sure. Doom, Quake, Unreal, Build engine games... they all have speedy side-strafing and backpedaling. Circlestrafing is a common tactic in Quake, for example, and it's just as speedy as walking forward.

Look at this:

Shooters mostly aren't designed like this anymore. Haven't been for many years. That Doom reboot was a rare exception. Nowadays, they nearly all disable "sprinting" if you're not going forward. As if your character doesn't have a neck or muscles in his eyes.

How is the movement here "glued to the direction of your vision, like some robot"?

Visually, by the fact that you can't look anymore but where the gun is pointed. Even with running being much less restrictive than in a modern shooter. Moves kinda like this:

 

[JarlFrank]

Shooters mostly aren't designed like this anymore. Haven't been for many years. That Doom reboot was a rare exception. Nowadays, they nearly all disable "sprinting" if you're not going forward. As if your character doesn't have a neck or muscles in his eyes.

But Lyric Suite was arguing from the perspective of oldschool FPS like Doom, Quake, Build engine games, Unreal. The guy is known for liking oldschool FPS for their design elegance, he wasn't arguing that modern console FPS are better shooters than third person shooters... he was arguing that games like Quake are better.

Also unless you've been living under a rock, you must have seen the recent oldschool FPS revival movement: games like Dusk, Ion Fury, Prodeus, Viscerafest, Wrath, Amid Evil, etc are popping up left and right and play almost exactly like those oldschool 90s shooters with fast movement.

 

[Ezekiel]

Shooters mostly aren't designed like this anymore. Haven't been for many years. That Doom reboot was a rare exception. Nowadays, they nearly all disable "sprinting" if you're not going forward. As if your character doesn't have a neck or muscles in his eyes.

But Lyric Suite was arguing from the perspective of oldschool FPS like Doom, Quake, Build engine games, Unreal. The guy is known for liking oldschool FPS for their design elegance, he wasn't arguing that modern console FPS are better shooters than third person shooters... he was arguing that games like Quake are better.

Hard to guess after he mentioned turning the reticle/crosshair off for "muh realism." "Muh realism" or authenticity is what shooting games are so much about now (and what lead to much of their decline).

Also unless you've been living under a rock, you must have seen the recent oldschool FPS revival movement: games like Dusk, Ion Fury, Prodeus, Viscerafest, Wrath, Amid Evil, etc are popping up left and right and play almost exactly like those oldschool 90s shooters with fast movement.

I don't pay attention to them. It's like those indie teams are TRYING to be amateurs by making them look thirty years old. These people seem to have no visions of their own, which turns me off. I've hardly played ANY shooters in the last few years.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Modern shooting games are anything but realistic. It's all LARPing, the games are actually less realistic than Quake was.

I used to turn off the crosshair back in the days of Doom and Quake. It's not surprising that the first time i tried Operation Fleshpoint or Arma i got instantly hooked. I guess i'm just wired for this kind of stuff.

 

[schru]

Doom and Quake didn't have a cross-hair. Operation Flashpoint and Arma on the other hand did.

Also, as a point of interest, the second leader of the mod Forgotten Hope for Battlefield, which maintained a decent mixture of realism and casual action gameplay, and who had some background in medicine and some idea of spatial awareness, insisted that it was more realistic to have a marker of some general kind (not fixed the centre of the screen) to emulate the human ability to co-ordinate sight and manual operations, as there was a discussion about doing away with cross-hair altogether. Operation Flashpoint/Arma's way of doing it would be the right way to do it, then.

 

[Ezekiel]

Modern shooting games are anything but realistic. It's all LARPing, the games are actually less realistic than Quake was.

I used to turn off the crosshair back in the days of Doom and Quake. It's not surprising that the first time i tried Operation Fleshpoint or Arma i got instantly hooked. I guess i'm just wired for this kind of stuff.

That's why I lumped "muh realism" in with authenticity. Gamers nowadays get hard on the idea of their games imitating so many aspects of reality, like ADS in EVERYTHING (with horrible hip-fire accuracy, most of the time), two or maybe three weapon limits, no health packs, "believable" level design, limited jumping, slow movement and only being able to run forward (which is bullshit and not really realistic anyway). Not to mention the graphics in most of them, but that's getting away from gameplay.

 

[aweigh]

 

[Catacombs]

Looks like some John Woo shit.

 

[HoboForEternity]

Looks like max payme but if max payne induce motion sickness

 

[Nutria]

This is the kind of stuff that zoomers listen to who want to pretend they're into le wrong generation music. Fuck off kid. Needs to be 1980s Cantopop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdQJWPOkNdA

Grab some asses. Be a chad. Murder lots of people. Become a bitter, vengeful old cripple.

Or as the guy describes it in My Girlfriend is a Gumiho, "Real Action!"