imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   New Video Games/ Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1091)

Spartan198 01-26-2017 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43344)
do SEALs really keep their optics that far back on the rail

http://www.konstipation.com/stuff/ya...imseealan4.jpg
https://airsoftoutletnw.files.wordpr...nipers5da5.jpg
http://www.americanspecialops.com/im...fghanistan.jpg
http://www.americanspecialops.com/im...mk17-mod-0.jpg

It does seem to be more common than one would think.

SPEMack618 01-26-2017 03:35 AM

Think about how wearing body armor is,going to alter your stance and affect eye relief. I had my ACOG mounted pretty far forward, too

Excalibur 01-30-2017 04:56 PM

I've been playing Resident Evil 7 and so far, it's actually a pretty solid game. It's not action intense, though it feels like a cross between Outlast with a bit of Silent Hill creep factor, mixed with a bit of Don't Breathe and just to add flavor, the swamp setting and creepy red necks is giving me Deliverance vibes, especially when Jack is hunting you around the house.

I don't like how when you aim, you aren't looking down the iron sights. I haven't seen that kind of game mechanic in a long time. The "deputy", I assume sheriff's Deputy wasn't wearing body armor, gave me (a potential suspect) a weapon (a knife) and most likely didn't call for backup, otherwise there'd be more cops on scene.

The game doesn't explain why you, Ethan, didn't call the cops when you got a message from Mia. I'd expect any hand wavy explanation at this point.

I wish, the weapon's progression was better for the handguns. The Makarov is no stronger than the G17.

funkychinaman 02-10-2017 04:19 AM

It'd have to be a reboot, right? Between scheduling, character and actor deaths, I don't think there's any way to continue the show, short of pretending Serenity never happened.

http://www.slashfilm.com/fox-firefly-reboot/

commando552 02-10-2017 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43403)
It'd have to be a reboot, right? Between scheduling, character and actor deaths, I don't think there's any way to continue the show, short of pretending Serenity never happened.

http://www.slashfilm.com/fox-firefly-reboot/

You could just do a normal sequel from Serenity, Book is dead in continuity so there is no issue with Ron Glass dying, so the only living actor who would not appear would be Alan Tudyk. You could also set it between Firefly and Serenity if you wanted Wash back, just make it so that Book has already left. As for scheduling, it might be tricky but none of the case are currently working flat out, they should be able to find time to do a limited 6 episode run or something like that.

Excalibur 02-10-2017 03:07 PM

I think it should be a sequel. All the actors are a bit older now.

funkychinaman 02-10-2017 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 43404)
You could just do a normal sequel from Serenity, Book is dead in continuity so there is no issue with Ron Glass dying, so the only living actor who would not appear would be Alan Tudyk. You could also set it between Firefly and Serenity if you wanted Wash back, just make it so that Book has already left. As for scheduling, it might be tricky but none of the case are currently working flat out, they should be able to find time to do a limited 6 episode run or something like that.

Sci-fi shows tend to cost more, so I'm not sure if it'd be cost-effective to rebuild all the sets for just six episodes. I'd be willing to part with Book, but I'd really, really hate to lose Wash.

I always thought Netflix would've made a more logical choice for a continuation or a reboot. As a third party, they probably would've been in a better position to negotiate the rights issues between Fox and Universal, and we wouldn't have to worry about episode order. Sure, Whedon's stock has risen considerably since Firefly, but I don't think any network would give him the flexibility Netflix would.

Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't seem interested. They've seen the metrics, and I'm sure if they thought it'd work, they would've done it already. This is what they said four years ago, and I don't think anything has changed.

Excalibur 02-10-2017 07:35 PM

I think there needs to be more world building. Set it in the future where Mal is now the head of his own "company" called The Serenity Outfit or something similar and most of the characters have their own ships, Kaylee is the chief mechanic at their base with Simon going on and off the different ships as the doctor, River and Zoe have their own ships with Zoe's named after husband. Perhaps to bring in new audience, we have a new lead cast on their own ship on their own adventures with the previous cast rotating on their crew every so often.

StanTheMan 02-20-2017 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43406)
I always thought Netflix would've made a more logical choice for a continuation or a reboot. As a third party, they probably would've been in a better position to negotiate the rights issues between Fox and Universal, and we wouldn't have to worry about episode order. Sure, Whedon's stock has risen considerably since Firefly, but I don't think any network would give him the flexibility Netflix would.

Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't seem interested. They've seen the metrics, and I'm sure if they thought it'd work, they would've done it already. This is what they said four years ago, and I don't think anything has changed.

This is sadly true. I agree Netflix would be the better choice, but indeed they would have done something long by now. That and seems they are ardently going forward with their 'original content' promise, and for that I think that translates more into their own originally-conceived shows rather than continuing/delving-into other established franchises, Marvel and a couple other exceptions notwithstanding. Shame, I'd love to see them something with Firefly/Serenity. Ditto with RoboCop and a couple other things.

I will say I like Excalibur's idea of a sequel setting, and especially rotating cast a bit, just a bit of shakeup.

Speaking of Netflix, I'm still wondering what the hell I'm supposed to do for the six months between now and when Stranger Things comes back? Bah.

Of course it's the 30th anniversary of RoboCop and there's a lot of awesome stuff on that front, particularly the most ambitiously awesome RoboDoc, the also awesome Scream Factory release of RoboCop 2 and RoboCop 3 collector's editions that actually have special features, and the possibility that damn statue might get erected this year as well. So there's that. :D

funkychinaman 02-21-2017 07:47 PM

I haven't played Infinite Warfare yet, but even BO3 was a bit out there for me. But at the same time, I don't think going back to WWII is the right move. I wouldn't mind a return to the Cold War.

http://www.polygon.com/2017/2/9/1456...s-world-war-ii

Excalibur 02-22-2017 03:37 PM

Infinite Warfare isn't that bad. Like Advanced Warfare, the story mode actually has a lot of potential except unlike the miss opportunity to present a morally grey villain in Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare suffers from underdeveloped backstory. It can be compared to the show The Expanse about Earth vs Mars or...a ton of other fiction.

funkychinaman 02-22-2017 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43437)
Infinite Warfare isn't that bad. Like Advanced Warfare, the story mode actually has a lot of potential except unlike the miss opportunity to present a morally grey villain in Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare suffers from underdeveloped backstory. It can be compared to the show The Expanse about Earth vs Mars or...a ton of other fiction.

I haven't played it yet, but it's definitely stretching the boundaries of a franchise that started out in WWII. I can understand why they'd want to attach the CoD name, it'll sell millions of copies on the name alone, but it also raises a lot of expectations. I wonder how well it would've done as its own franchise.

Excalibur 02-23-2017 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43438)
I haven't played it yet, but it's definitely stretching the boundaries of a franchise that started out in WWII. I can understand why they'd want to attach the CoD name, it'll sell millions of copies on the name alone, but it also raises a lot of expectations. I wonder how well it would've done as its own franchise.

Go ask Titanfall and Destiny

funkychinaman 02-23-2017 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43442)
Go ask Titanfall and Destiny

I was thinking of Titanfall when I was writing the post. Maybe it would've wound up a CoD title if Zampella and West hadn't been fired.

funkychinaman 02-24-2017 02:18 PM

I'd really like to see this followed up with a Red Hood movie, but it may involve too much backstory.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...irector-978737

Excalibur 02-24-2017 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43444)
I was thinking of Titanfall when I was writing the post. Maybe it would've wound up a CoD title if Zampella and West hadn't been fired.

But I think without the support of corporate, the first Titanfall was just a multiplayer experience and the sequel as a lot of tacked on tropes. Still kinda fun though. I loved the mech fighting throughout the game. I just wish they got a better story. How hard is it to have compelling characters, even if the character is supposed to be a career military guy. Military guys do have personalities.

funkychinaman 02-24-2017 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43447)
But I think without the support of corporate, the first Titanfall was just a multiplayer experience and the sequel as a lot of tacked on tropes. Still kinda fun though. I loved the mech fighting throughout the game. I just wish they got a better story. How hard is it to have compelling characters, even if the character is supposed to be a career military guy. Military guys do have personalities.

I'm a campaign guy, and the lack of a real campaign meant that I didn't play Titanfall for long.

I'm okay with games that are only multiplayer with no campaigns, just as long as we're not paying full price for them. You make half a game, we'll pay for half a game.

Spartan198 02-25-2017 09:05 PM

Anyone played the Ghost Recon Wildlands beta? I'm loving it.

StanTheMan 02-26-2017 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43448)
I'm a campaign guy, and the lack of a real campaign meant that I didn't play Titanfall for long.

I'm okay with games that are only multiplayer with no campaigns, just as long as we're not paying full price for them. You make half a game, we'll pay for half a game.

Well said. I too am more a single-player guy, so when I see that kind of thing also, well, bah. That said, I agree about doing something other than WWII. It's really done. I'd prefer to see some Cold War-era stuff or thereabouts also.

Anyway.. still having considerable trepidation about the upcoming Blade Runner sequel. Yet it's one of the few things I'm actually looking forward to. I can't win.

Spartan198 02-26-2017 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanTheMan (Post 43451)
That said, I agree about doing something other than WWII. It's really done. I'd prefer to see some Cold War-era stuff or thereabouts also.

They should do the Korean War. AFAIK, no one has, while WWII, Vietnam, and the modern age have been largely done to death.

commando552 02-26-2017 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43449)
Anyone played the Ghost Recon Wildlands beta? I'm loving it.

I just finished it, I really enjoyed it overall. I only played it in single player though as I tend not to be able to play for long enough uninterrupted chunks to make multiplayer work. In single player the squad mates are kind of pointless most of the time, but the sync shot is kind of overpowered as the AIs are able to target through walls and other obstacles to make impossible shots. Maybe I just never bothered to work it out, but the amount of control you had over them was rather lacking, being unable to tell them to target specific enemies and instead just being able to command them to "open fire" with which they all run of individually Rambo-ing.

funkychinaman 02-26-2017 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43452)
They should do the Korean War. AFAIK, no one has, while WWII, Vietnam, and the modern age have been largely done to death.

The trouble with a Korean War game is that the weapons would be pretty much the same as with a WWII game.

commando552 02-26-2017 11:54 PM

It would never happen for a few reasons, but I would love a game about The Falklands War.

funkychinaman 02-27-2017 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 43455)
It would never happen for a few reasons, but I would love a game about The Falklands War.

Same here. Battlefield: 1982?

Excalibur 02-27-2017 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43456)
Same here. Battlefield: 1982?

Yeah, but with period specific weapons that were in common use.

Spartan198 02-27-2017 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commando552 (Post 43453)
I just finished it, I really enjoyed it overall. I only played it in single player though as I tend not to be able to play for long enough uninterrupted chunks to make multiplayer work. In single player the squad mates are kind of pointless most of the time, but the sync shot is kind of overpowered as the AIs are able to target through walls and other obstacles to make impossible shots. Maybe I just never bothered to work it out, but the amount of control you had over them was rather lacking, being unable to tell them to target specific enemies and instead just being able to command them to "open fire" with which they all run of individually Rambo-ing.

I'm not an MP guy either, so I feel you. It's worst when trying to clear a building, as they just pretty much wait outside while you do it. >_< Future Soldier had a fantastic (if admittedly OP, but then again these are the Ghosts we're talking about) room clearing system, whatever happened to that? Hopefully a day 1 patch (because let's be real: the purpose of the beta was to gather data and feedback for a day 1 patch) does some fixes for squad AI.

commando552 02-27-2017 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43458)
I'm not an MP guy either, so I feel you. It's worst when trying to clear a building, as they just pretty much wait outside while you do it. >_< Future Soldier had a fantastic (if admittedly OP, but then again these are the Ghosts we're talking about) room clearing system, whatever happened to that? Hopefully a day 1 patch (because let's be real: the purpose of the beta was to gather data and feedback for a day 1 patch) does some fixes for squad AI.

I would be surprised if they do a gameplay patch, the game is released in about a week. More likely the open beta was to get wider data about connectivity issues, and mainly more to market the game. They already did a closed beta where there were numerous bugs which were fixed for the open beta. I don't think they will ever add more direct control over AI squad mates as I think they really want to sell it on the multiplayer aspect, but tweaking their intelligence would be good so that when enemies know you are there they reliably engage the enemy more rather than just hiding whilst you get shot to pieces. As for clearing buildings, I found the only way to sort of do it was to tell them to "open fire" and they will go in, but you need to be quick to tell them to regroup or else they will sometimes run off looking for trouble and get themselves killed.

Excalibur 03-01-2017 04:41 PM

Going back on my gripe about COD's Black Ops period specific missions and how hard would it have been for them to get period specific equipment? I mean, why do I get the feeling that if they did COD 1 set in WWII today, they'd add weird optics on all guns you start with as the player like Battlefield 1?

For Black Ops, was it so hard for them to get CAR-15s Son Tay Raider style? or with the early Colt scopes on fixed carrying handles? Why basically an M4 that sorta looks like it's from the 70s with instead of pic rails, they put this literal flat top that's all smooth and does not exist ever? They could have used so many period specific weapons but because all the kids these days can't play a shooter game without a red dot, they'll put aiming devices on everything that can mount one, even on those that weren't design to mount anything

I remember griping in Black Ops 2 during the Panama invasion mission, your classic M16 rifle is still an A1 and not an A2 design even though by that point, everybody should be using the A2 style or for special forces, they'd be using CAR-15s still but with the early Aimpoints.

Spartan198 03-01-2017 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43462)
For Black Ops, was it so hard for them to get CAR-15s Son Tay Raider style? or with the early Colt scopes on fixed carrying handles?

Or a carbine version of the Model 656, which wouldn't have been out of the realm of possibility.

Excalibur 03-02-2017 02:50 PM

I'd even have been ok with them going Platoon and having you carry around a Model 653P because it sorta existed and didn't have a funky faux rail on top for optics that also didn't exist.

And a SPAS 12 again? Why not an 870 or a Mossberg or an Ithca? Do these guys not have google? And 30 rounds in a rifle that has a 20 round mag...

Spartan198 03-03-2017 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43464)
I'd even have been ok with them going Platoon and having you carry around a Model 653P because it sorta existed and didn't have a funky faux rail on top for optics that also didn't exist.

The whole point was to have the rail to attach optics to, so that would have put them back at square one.

commando552 03-03-2017 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43466)
The whole point was to have the rail to attach optics to, so that would have put them back at square one.

They could have picked anything really and just fitted it with a weaver rail on the carry handle when optics were fitted. This was period correct and done for both telescopic sights on M16s and for red dots on carbines.

Excalibur 03-03-2017 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43466)
The whole point was to have the rail to attach optics to, so that would have put them back at square one.

Not square one. Just period appropriate. I'd go with if they took the early almost flat top like upper and merge it with a carbine length handguard for looks and that'll be acceptable because it existed.

Also, square one of what? Before optics were used by every gamer and tacticool kids under the sun. People just forget that not too long ago, optics were a luxury item and untested on a mass scale. I know Marines coming out now that wondered what it was like before the ACOG was current issue.

I know lining up iron sights on a 2D plain that's giving you the illusion of 3D view with faux depth perception is unusual but to be historically accurate or at least to not be anachronistic, I think game developers need to rethink making games based in a time line before certain tech is the norm. I don't even want to begin talking about how the small arms weapons tech of Metal Gear Solid 5 is stupid

commando552 03-03-2017 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43468)
Not square one. Just period appropriate. I'd go with if they took the early almost flat top like upper and merge it with a carbine length handguard for looks and that'll be acceptable because it existed.

That would annoy me almost as much though, as it would be them totally making up a variant that didn't exist by using the receiver from a prototype weapon that I'm not sure was ever actually used anyway. There is a lot of photo evidence of M16s and carbines in Vietnam with a variety of optics fitted to the carry handle either directly or through a weaver base, so I don't know why they didn't just do that. Even without making stuff up or being anachronistic they could have still used Delfts, Colt scopes, Starlights, Oxford Lightnings, Armson OEGs or various commercial hunting sights. There is photographic evidence of all of them being used by the US military in this time period.

Spartan198 03-03-2017 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43468)
Not square one. Just period appropriate. I'd go with if they took the early almost flat top like upper and merge it with a carbine length handguard for looks and that'll be acceptable because it existed.

Also, square one of what? Before optics were used by every gamer and tacticool kids under the sun. People just forget that not too long ago, optics were a luxury item and untested on a mass scale. I know Marines coming out now that wondered what it was like before the ACOG was current issue.

Square one of not having an M4. Like I said, the whole point was to have a flat top upper for mounting optics. Besides, the fact that the game has a FAMAS Felin 30 years before it ever came into being throws any arguments of period accuracy out the window.

This is Call of Duty we're talking about. Accuracy isn't even on the radar.

Excalibur 03-03-2017 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43470)
Square one of not having an M4. Like I said, the whole point was to have a flat top upper for mounting optics. Besides, the fact that the game has a FAMAS Felin 30 years before it ever came into being throws any arguments of period accuracy out the window.

This is Call of Duty we're talking about. Accuracy isn't even on the radar.

This is COD NOW. It used to be a little bit better before Modern Warfare made it into something else. Would you not nitpick a little bit if they made another WWII game and suddenly all the guns got weird optics on them? And the excuse is that it's a COD game. MW game have the excuse of the guns existing in the near future but Black Ops wants to put us in the mood that it takes place in the late 60s, so, as gun guys, we should experience late 60s era weapons. At least in Battlefield one, all the guns used in the campaign and accessories existed in the correct time period, save for maybe 1 or 2 that was perhaps used just barely after the war ended. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had you use a Tommy gun, but they had good restraint on that part.

I didn't mention the FAMAS and the AUG and the fucking G11 being in Black Ops because those were just blatant and you'd have to have noticed how stupid their placement is here and did I mention the SPAS-12

Spartan198 03-09-2017 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Excalibur (Post 43471)
This is COD NOW. It used to be a little bit better before Modern Warfare made it into something else. Would you not nitpick a little bit if they made another WWII game and suddenly all the guns got weird optics on them? And the excuse is that it's a COD game. MW game have the excuse of the guns existing in the near future but Black Ops wants to put us in the mood that it takes place in the late 60s, so, as gun guys, we should experience late 60s era weapons. At least in Battlefield one, all the guns used in the campaign and accessories existed in the correct time period, save for maybe 1 or 2 that was perhaps used just barely after the war ended. I wouldn't have been surprised if they had you use a Tommy gun, but they had good restraint on that part.

I didn't mention the FAMAS and the AUG and the fucking G11 being in Black Ops because those were just blatant and you'd have to have noticed how stupid their placement is here and did I mention the SPAS-12

Yeah, the point is, period accuracy wasn't even on Treyarch's radar. If they were intent on having designs from 30+ years in the future, they certainly weren't going to bother with a period accurate XM177.

Excalibur 03-09-2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan198 (Post 43476)
Yeah, the point is, period accuracy wasn't even on Treyarch's radar. If they were intent on having designs from 30+ years in the future, they certainly weren't going to bother with a period accurate XM177.

Which is weird because a lot of their game posters actually has an accurate XM177 with a correct Colt scope on top of the carrying handle.


Anyway, I just started playing Ghost Recon Wildlands and....the first thing that annoys me is all guns that you know should come standard with 30 round mags starts off with 20 round mags as "standard" and 30 round mags are called extended mags. Thankfully they call them mags but really...you drop special forces guys deep into Bolivia with cool clothes but poorly equipped guns?

funkychinaman 03-13-2017 08:22 PM

I borrowed Titanfall 2 from the local library, and I have to say, the campaign is one of the best I've ever played. I've been really impressed by the level design, and the campaign does a great job of showing off the game's unique features. I haven't beaten it yet, and it'll take a few weeks since I can't renew it right now.

BlackHawk510 03-14-2017 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 43481)
I borrowed Titanfall 2 from the local library, and I have to say, the campaign is one of the best I've ever played. I've been really impressed by the level design, and the campaign does a great job of showing off the game's unique features. I haven't beaten it yet, and it'll take a few weeks since I can't renew it right now.

Speaking of Titanfall 2, the new weapons which weren't in the first game are animated by the guy most well known for making this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRm-BSukPds

That's one hell of an accomplishment for a guy who started out by making CS:S reskins.


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.