THERES 2 VS 2 ANd 4 VS 4 !!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QDwW0zGthxA OH BOY
Fvrge i've seen a comment on youtube (Coop move video) where you said that PS will be released before blacklist...
Is that true?
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 09:56:08 AM
Fvrge i've seen a comment on youtube (Coop move video) where you said that PS will be released before blacklist...
Is that true?
Is it???
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 09:56:08 AM
Fvrge i've seen a comment on youtube (Coop move video) where you said that PS will be released before blacklist...
Is that true?
Pics or didn't happen.
I think I was anticipating at least one more big delay of Blacklist. Ubi usually needs 2 delays.
If things go as planned, we will be most likely be able to release at the end of 2013. If things don't go as planned, then I don't have a clue.
streetmarine
So are we waiting for? another 7 years or will this game be out before sc blacklist?
ProjectStealthGame
Before? SC Blacklist. Quality takes time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DYMgHxW7y0s
Quote from: frvge on May 08, 2013, 10:46:52 PM
I think I was anticipating at least one more big delay of Blacklist. Ubi usually needs 2 delays.
If things go as planned, we will be most likely be able to release at the end of 2013. If things don't go as planned, then I don't have a clue.
Great!
Guys you do realise every game Ubisoft has made after CT was a load of shit?
Assassin's Creed I, first instalment, great idea, great concept, poorly executed.
Assassin's Creed II sequel to the first one, greatly refined everything, the gameplay, the missions, everything.
First 2 Splinter Cells were amazing, but CT blew it out of the water and the campaign in CT was a lot, and I mean a thousand times better.
What came after?
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, pile of crap, nothing much new except a new location, the new content was so little it should have been an ACII DLC.
Assassin's Creed: Revelations: Billion of new different type of bombs, boring, the hook blade was so limited in terms of use, too repetitive and way too similar to the predecessors.
Assassin's Creed III: Amazing concept, amazing idea, but they left out what fans wanted the most, is to actually assassinate things, instead it's 80% searching for the target, 10% killing. It almost felt like a reverse Assassin's Creed I where you would be Assassinating so much, but barely searching.
Splinter Cell Double Agent: more technical glitches than any other game as far as I see.
Splinter Cell Conviction: great idea, amazing concept, deniable ops still has my vote for the 2 favourite characters, black and white meh, deniable ops was not updated enough to make it last a while.
I have little hope for Assassin's Creed 4 with pirates, but right now all my money is on Spy versus Mercenary mode because to me, it's a one of a kind game that is truly unique, and maybe, just maybe it will be a salvation for Ubisoft, since most of their products were bullshit.
With that said, stop worrying about Project Stealth not coming out before Blacklist Spy versus Mercenary, I doubt and I so hope I am wrong, they will update and patch the Blacklist multiplayer enough.
Where as Project Stealth is a standalone, no campaign, no requirement for extra props and characters, fully focused on the SvM.
As well as, you guys are talking to the developers nearly 24/7, try doing that on the Ubiforums, you will get a moderator who knows how to be moral and social on the forum, but he will not know anything about what it's like to be in a team of developers working on a deadline on a AAA game.
Facts vs opinions, that's all I'm gonna say.
Quote from: RisokunAraiguma on May 09, 2013, 01:16:11 PM
Guys you do realise every game Ubisoft has made after CT was a load of shit
Well, that is an opinion and a very biased one.
Quote from: SheikTheGeek on May 09, 2013, 05:40:15 PM
Quote from: RisokunAraiguma on May 09, 2013, 01:16:11 PM
Guys you do realise every game Ubisoft has made after CT was a load of shit
Well, that is an opinion and a very biased one.
Well, I would go by the statistics of other previous players who played the classics I guess?
But like, I completely understand what Conviction tried to do, and it is in the Industry to make stuff new and different new, but not so much that people feel like it's a completely different experience?
However, you have to admit, one of the examples CT and Conviction, Conviction had like 2 or 4 different movement speeds, where as CT had like...20? Every time you used your mouse wheel, the movement would change slightly, why was that removed?
Maybe it's to make the gameplay faster, but why not allow players to have both?
Why can you only kill and not KO? Where is the harm, well the harm is mostly in budget and deadlines, but I honestly think that's not an excuse with the comparison of what people make in the industry today.
Splitting movement into quiet/not quiet isn't actually that big a deal. In CT you barely used more than two (either standing running if you didn't care about noise, or the fastest crouching that wouldn't make more noise than the ambience) anyway most of the time. It's a little dumbed down, but nothing awful. Forcing kills isn't that terrible from a game perspective either since there was no difference between killing and KOing people in CT anyway unless you were an idiot and left bodies out in the open for people to find.
The real problem in Conviction is not allowing you to move bodies. I kill a guy standing in the open and if they see his body they'll all get alert and so I want to move it but I can't and what the fuck why can't I what the fuck how did you not consider people would always want to do this what the fuck. Seriously!
Regardless....
Fvrge, if you say that it will be released by the end of 2013 (which is super exciting by the way), will we see a beta before then by any chance??
That remains to be seen. I don't know currently.
I believe Ubi made Far Cry 3, so not every game after CT has been atrocious.
But damn close.
The freakin chain kills the spy was pulling off after an automatically aimed drop/kill from 5 feet above a merc is what had me concerned after watching the video. And killstreaks. And spies seemingly carrying UMP's.
But other than those things, I'm actually interested to see how this pans out.
There's no killstreaks in the game.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 11, 2013, 03:39:27 PM
There's no killstreaks in the game.
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg40.imageshack.us%2Fimg40%2F8417%2Fkillstreak3.jpg&hash=13ebea60e89ca4d2067e5826ad407fc22aa8c509)
He killed 3 people in a row, and got 400 points for doing a double kill in a short period of time. Every competitive multiplayer game involving kills has killstreaks if we go by that definition. You can get a killstreak of "3" in PT and CT. I assumed that you were referring to killstreaks as in Call of Duty.
EDIT: Found this on the Ubisoft forums from SolidSage, who was invited to play the game at the Blacklist reveal along with 6 other community members.
Quote from: SolidSageAll I saw was points. I had a 5 kill streak at one point but no perks or anything like that appeared to be available.
So you know there are killstreaks in the game, but when someone mentions the killstreaks in the game you assume he's talking about the ones that aren't in the game? How does that make sense?
Anyway the point is now the game encourages you to kill people. In CT killing dudes as spy was just a way to get them out of the way so you could achieve your objectives. In Blacklist the game is like FUCK YEAH YOU JUST KILLED THREE DUDES GOOD JOB BRO. That's the difference. Instead of stealth being a way to get around people, now stealth is a way to kill people. Like the difference between story and DM in CT, y'know?
The game gives you points for everything you do, and it gives you far more for completing objectives than it does for killing anyone. Given that you have infinite lives and the mercs are far more powerful, you're actually discouraged from killing, because it doesn't benefit you in any way. The only way to win the match is by hacking the objectives, and if you get killed while hacking from trying to kill mercs, you lose all your progress.
If you were discouraged from killing there wouldn't be special bonuses for getting multi kills. You don't discourage behaviour by rewarding it, that's not how things work.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:31:31 AM
If you were discouraged from killing there wouldn't be special bonuses for getting multi kills. You don't discourage behaviour by rewarding it, that's not how things work.
It's all about context, risk vs reward. The reward for killing mercs is unsubstantial next to the reward for hacking the objectives. And the risk to your objective from failing to kill very powerful mercs is substantial, because you lose all your progress on the objective. Your whole argument is invalid.
My argument is that rewarding behaviour encourages it. That's my whole argument.
Are you seriously disagreeing with that?
Eating pizza is very rewarding in my opinion; it tastes great, and appeases my appetite greatly. Does that encourage me to eat Pizza 24/7? Nope, not when considering the disadvantages of heavy weight gain among other serious impediments on my health. Killing is rewarding in three ways; points towards new gear in Blacklist mode, increased ranks, and prevents mercs from stopping the hacking process. But you gain more points from hacking the objectives, resulting in a higher ranking than kills, and the risk of death is so severe that it's often not worth the risk. It doesn't help you win the game unless your helping a friend who's hiding in the hacking zone. They can't go try going for kills by themselves because if they die, all of their progress is lost.
The game encourages you to avoid the mercs at all costs unless it's necessary to defend your teammates while they hack the objectives, and if you can catch them off guard with low risk. It's far less rewarding than in PT/CT, where killing them is actually an option to win the match.
There's a risk of dying while you try to hack. Does that mean the game doesn't encourage hacking?
If the game rewards you for doing something that's encouraging it, sorry. That's all there is to it, sorry dude. I'm afraid you're wrong here, just like you were wrong when you claimed killstreaks weren't in the game.
Hacking is the only way to beat the mercs. It's your absolute goal, it's the most important thing in Blacklist's version of SvM. Killing barely aids you towards this goal, and in general, attempting it in anything other than an ambush situation will result in death, setting you way back. Hacking is encouraged more than anything else in the game. You're having a battle of semantics with me here; killstreaks are in the very first Splinter Cell by your definition, along with PT and CT's SvM mode. Killing is encouraged to an extent, but by no means is it a high priority. It's far less of a priority than it was in PT/CT, that's blatantly obvious.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 02:13:49 AM
You're having a battle of semantics with me here; killstreaks are in the very first Splinter Cell by your definition, along with PT and CT's SvM mode.
My definition is the game giving you bonus points for getting multiple kills in a row without dying. Or just acknowledging it at all, really. Splinter Cell/PT/CT don't actually do that.
And why is this problematic? If you think people will go for kills because of the point system, hacking is a far more rewarding way of doing this. Winning the match is a far more rewarding way of gaining points than losing, and hacking is the only way to win. Killing barely aids you towards this goal, and who plays games to lose? The point system simply rewards you for every note worthy action in the game, it doesn't change the way the game plays out, that's the important thing.
If the devs bothered to add rewards for double kills/killstreaks then those double kills/killstreaks must be pretty common. Much more common then they were in CT. Which matches up perfectly with spies having instant kill melee from any direction, and having hacking where they can still move around and attack, which also takes ages so mercs can always get there in time so there's always a conflict.
Basically what I'm getting at is that this is a very aggressive game and I'm not so into that. Like DM in CT, it's just kinda hmm. If you like that then that's good for you and I hope you enjoy it.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 02:39:14 AM
If the devs bothered to add rewards for double kills/killstreaks then those double kills/killstreaks must be pretty common. Much more common then they were in CT. Which matches up perfectly with spies having instant kill melee from any direction, and having hacking where they can still move around and attack, which also takes ages so mercs can always get there in time so there's always a conflict.
Basically what I'm getting at is that this is a very aggressive game and I'm not so into that. Like DM in CT, it's just kinda hmm. If you like that then that's good for you and I hope you enjoy it.
Double kills are a mechanic in the game, that's why they're recognized by the system, not because they're common. Death from above is rewarded, and that's going to be far less common in a game without free jumping. The system exists because it's proven to be fun for millions of people across multiple games. It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience. In general, people enjoy the experience of working towards new equipment, and while the point system facilitates that in Blacklist mode, everything is open from the start in Classic mode.
There's a different between fast pacing and aggressive gameplay. There's a difference between dumbing down the game and removing a mechanic like grabbing, which only serves to slow down the process of snapping necks. And before you bring up grabbing mercs to immobilize them long periods of time, it would totally imbalance a game where spies can freely move around while hacking. Knocking people out is still possible, but you have to use gadgets like sticky cams in order to do so, which is still challenging.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 02:45:53 AM
It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience.
If BF3 has no killstreaks then why do I have like a thousand combat efficiency ribbons? And for that matter, why is my highest killstreak recorded on battlelog?
You're making my point for me, dude. CT had no killstreaks and killing wasn't the main goal. BF3 does have killstreaks and killing is a main goal. Blacklist also has killstreaks, so, y'know, what does that hint at? Right.
Are you deliberately being obtuse, or do you really need me to spell it out for you again? Killstreaks as you put them simply define killing people in succession; they exist in both PT and CT. The only difference in BF3/Blacklist is that they reward you for doing this with points. Does that make them the main goal? Nooooooooope. You weren't awarded points for hacking the objective in PT/CT, they were simply represented by a number (just like kills/lives). Hack-streaks exist in PT, CT and Blacklist, oh shit. The new representation and reward for progress in Blacklist doesn't having anything to do with the main goal in the game. The main goal is hacking, not kills, because you can't win without hacking the objectives. Hacking is more important than kills. Your argument is invalid, because the fact that you get points for killing is irrelevant.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 03:06:44 AM
Killstreaks as you put them simply define killing people in succession; they exist in both PT and CT.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 02:22:39 AM
My definition is the game giving you bonus points for getting multiple kills in a row without dying. Or just acknowledging it at all, really. Splinter Cell/PT/CT don't actually do that.
So are you refusing to read my posts, or are you misinterpreting me on purpose?
Also you musta missed the part of my post where I mentioned BF3 has killstreaks. You should respond to that part, since you were kinda wrong when you said it didn't.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:39:30 AM
My argument is that rewarding behaviour encourages it. That's my whole argument.
Are you seriously disagreeing with that?
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 12:11:30 AM
He killed 3 people in a row, and got 400 points for doing a double kill in a short period of time. Every competitive multiplayer game involving kills has killstreaks if we go by that definition. You can get a killstreak of "3" in PT and CT. I assumed that you were referring to killstreaks as in Call of Duty.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 02:54:45 AM
You're making my point for me, dude. CT had no killstreaks and killing wasn't the main goal. BF3 does have killstreaks and killing is a main goal. Blacklist also has killstreaks, so, y'know, what does that hint at? Right.
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.stack.imgur.com%2FjiFfM.jpg&hash=10d1ac3c1109f1eb5609abb3d80051e90b0c7a38)
Yeah, yeah, image macros, real cool.
How about responding to the whole you being completely fucking wrong in regard to BF3, bro?
(or is admitting that you fucked up just too hard for you?)
(it is, isn't it?)
While editing my post I added the part where I originally mentioned I was referring to "COD style" killstreaks, you responded slightly before that. However, I did mention that BF3 rewards you with points for killing people, just like Blacklist. Your original "proof" that Blacklist has killstreaks is that the game awards you points for it. I mentioned earlier that every game where you shoot multiple people has killstreaks, you just aren't awarded for it. The fact that you get ribbons for kills is totally irrelevant. Blacklist gives you points, BF3 gives you points and ribbons, but neither of them have traditional "killstreak" rewards that actually affect live gameplay like Call of Duty. Why do you think this went unnoticed?
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 02:45:53 AM
The system exists because it's proven to be fun for millions of people across multiple games. It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience. In general, people enjoy the experience of working towards new equipment, and while the point system facilitates that in Blacklist mode, everything is open from the start in Classic mode.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 03:25:40 AM
While editing my post I added the part where I originally mentioned I was referring to "COD style" killstreaks, you responded slightly before that.
Well unfortunately we're talking about the Blacklist style killstreaks. Because we're kind of discussing Blacklist? Maybe you didn't notice. But I guess they just don't count as killstreaks, because that'd be admitting you fucked up when you claimed they weren't in the game, right? Just like how when BF3 says it has killstreaks they don't count either.
I was comparing BF3 to Call of Duty. Despite killstreaks having no effect on live gameplay, they're still rewarding because they give you points. Blacklist also rewards with you points, and they also have no effect on live gameplay. To say that points encourage kills is to ignore the game as a whole. Thumbs up for reading comprehension, I think we're done here ;)
You probably shouldn't bring up reading comprehension after you completely failed to understand my defintion of killstreaks earlier, bro. I gave you a specific definition and even explained how PT and CT didn't meet it, and then you claimed they did anyway.
You played BF3, by the way? Just outta interest.
When I said "there's no killstreaks in the game", I was responding to Farley4Fan. He mentioned killstreaks as if they were a new addition to Blacklist, but nothing has changed. You get rewarded for killstreaks in Blacklist, but killstreaks exist in PT/CT too. You posted a picture to prove that the game has killstreaks, but all you proved is that the game rewards you for it, which I already knew. Traditionally when people talk about a game having "killstreaks", they're referring to COD style rewards that affect live gameplay, like missle strikes and so on. Otherwise they'd just be stating the obvious. "Oh look, the environments are dark in Blacklist". No shit?
BF3 player info: http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/VaNiilaa/stats/170925964/. Quits percentage is from random disconnect bugs when the game first launched if you're wondering.
Chaos Theory doesn't give you bonus point for killstreaks.
Blacklist gives you bonus points for killstreaks.
I call that a change. It's changed from no bonus points to bonus points. If that's not a change, what is it? Same way BF2 didn't give you bonus points for killstreaks (I dunno if you played BF2 or not, but it didn't give you bonus points for them), but in BF3 you have 26 ribbons for them.
It's kinda weird to assume we're talking about CoD when Blacklist has KILLSTREAK in big letters right there. I mean, obviously we're gonna be talking about the killstreaks that are in the game rather than the ones that aren't. Because, I mean, they're in it.
It's a change to the way the game recognizes killstreaks, the game hasn't changed in regard to streaking kills. Rewarding points doesn't affect live gameplay at all, and if you look on any forum where people discuss killstreaks in other games, they usually aren't talking about points. They're talking about things like Call of Duty, where you can bring a UAV online after streaking a few kills among other things. So when I said there's no killstreaks in the game, that's what I was referring to. I even clarified it before we started talking about BF3. It's weird to think that I'm talking about the points system as killstreaks when in the same post about BF3, I mentioned the points system in Blacklist.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 02:45:53 AM
Double kills are a mechanic in the game, that's why they're recognized by the system, not because they're common. Death from above is rewarded, and that's going to be far less common in a game without free jumping. The system exists because it's proven to be fun for millions of people across multiple games. It's implemented in BF3, a game with no killstreaks at all, and yet it's still a rewarding experience. In general, people enjoy the experience of working towards new equipment, and while the point system facilitates that in Blacklist mode, everything is open from the start in Classic mode.
I don't play BF3 much any more, lost interest :P
Hey, points alone change how people play. If you played BF3 you musta seen all those Metro 24/7 servers where people just sat and spammed grenades all day because it was an easy way to get points. People love that shit. Besides, it's kinda indicative, isn't it? If they're putting in killstreak bonus points then that kinda says they want people to get killstreaks. Or at least that they think it's likely to happen. Seems kinda aggro, y'know? I mean, yeah, maybe the game will play totally different. But I kinda doubt it.
And yeah, fuck BF3. It's kinda fun trying to knife your friends, and I had some fun flying jets and having people on the ground call me a cock (hence all those combat efficiency ribbons because lol jet balance), but overall it is kinda shit isn't it?
I like the game, but I played it for a few months, stopped because I was too busy, and then I wasn't interested in getting back into the game. The thing in BF3 is that you can afford to play however you want; you can snipe from a distance and rack up points, and even if your team loses or you don't reach the top of the board, you've had fun and you've made progress. Like COD, success is defined more by points than the actual result of the match.
In Blacklist, with very small teams, every player is vital to the outcome of the match, even in "Blacklist mode" with 4v4. So every player has to go for the objectives, at least in 2v2. In 4v4 you could have two spies teaming up as a kill squad while the others focus on making their way to the objectives. But that wouldn't be a result of being rewarded for points, it would be because the game gives them the option to do that effectively and still be successful. Anyway I wasn't trying to be a dick before, but I do completely disagree with the points you've made.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 04:37:03 AM
but I do completely disagree with the points you've made.
I... kinda gathered that.
I guess we can wait and see how things turn out. Just, y'know, expect me to make a thread saying HAHAHAHA STONE WAS WRONG if there's lots of killing.
Alright :D
Awww, how sweet :)
*adding fuel to the fire*
I define killstreaks as killing multiple opponents within a pre-determined maximum amount of time from each other and having a reward that is not-standard to gameplay.
In PT/CT, the reward is standard to gameplay: Mercs are not there. No difference with the Merc being in another place of the map.
In B, the points are an extra-gameplay award, besides the fact that they are not there (when they are dead, of course).
So the real question should be:
What are the benefits of killing multiple Mercs in succession for normal gameplay, when there are infinite lives and Mercs can get to the hacking spot quickly from spawn, besides getting more points and a (slightly?) higher chance of finishing the objective by using the extra "safe" time?
Lol this is just great.
There may not be a game-changing killstreak reward, but the fact that spies getting double kills and streaks of 3+ are common enough that they added a point bonus and a clip in the trailer, it's concerning.
Yes, spies die faster, but why do I get the feeling that it will be ridiculously easy to kill the merc if you take him by surprise?
I like that you're posting opinions from those who have played the game. Certainly their 2-cents are interesting, but I can enjoy the shallowest experience for at least a day or two before I realize the lack of depth. I doubt I'm alone here. I get blinded by the fancy, shiny new things. Once the shine dulls down, the flaws become much more apparent.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on May 14, 2013, 06:40:56 AM
Lol this is just great.
There may not be a game-changing killstreak reward, but the fact that spies getting double kills and streaks of 3+ are common enough that they added a point bonus and a clip in the trailer, it's concerning.
Yes, spies die faster, but why do I get the feeling that it will be ridiculously easy to kill the merc if you take him by surprise?
I like that you're posting opinions from those who have played the game. Certainly their 2-cents are interesting, but I can enjoy the shallowest experience for at least a day or two before I realize the lack of depth. I doubt I'm alone here. I get blinded by the fancy, shiny new things. Once the shine dulls down, the flaws become much more apparent.
I agree that the novelty could wear off after a couple of days, I didn't think about that. We'll have to wait and see, but so far the game looks awesome to me :P. However, I don't agree they added a point bonus for double kills because they're common. Everything you do is rewarded, so it only makes sense that along with rewarding standard kills, they reward double kills. Single kills are far more common than double kills, and yet they're still rewarded. It does look easy to kill a merc by surprise, but the big risk is that if he sees you, you're probably going to die. It's an even bigger risk than CT because the guns are much more powerful, and unlike CT, the mercs can also perform instant melee kills. Given that risk, and the fact that everyone has infinite lives, I don't think fast ambush kills are going to be a problem, but we'll see.
Quote from: frvge on May 13, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
Awww, how sweet :)
*adding fuel to the fire*
I define killstreaks as killing multiple opponents within a pre-determined maximum amount of time from each other and having a reward that is not-standard to gameplay.
In PT/CT, the reward is standard to gameplay: Mercs are not there. No difference with the Merc being in another place of the map.
In B, the points are an extra-gameplay award, besides the fact that they are not there (when they are dead, of course).
So the real question should be:
What are the benefits of killing multiple Mercs in succession for normal gameplay, when there are infinite lives and Mercs can get to the hacking spot quickly from spawn, besides getting more points and a (slightly?) higher chance of finishing the objective by using the extra "safe" time?
You brought up something I didn't think about until just now. But, the points could matter if there's a Quick Match/Ranked Match setting as well. Thinking back o Double Agent, the amount of points you could get could be a BIG deal in Ranked, while in Quick Match, they would just be there for End of game score.
So, I just went again through all the stuff that was shown about new SvM Blacklist and then looked at what project stealth has to offer and I must admit, I felt much better about what is being created here then what Ubi is trying to pull off again. Project Stealth feels much more like CT versus in a lot of ways, while SvM blacklist (I am naturally talking about classic mode) feels like all new games - a lot faster, a lot more brutal. Wether there are killstreaks by any definition or not, we can't deny the fact that spies are now actually able to do Double kills from front with a knife. THAT is what should be the topic of discussion here since, I can bearly imagine that to be CLASSIC MODE if you can do such a thing! Secondly something that bothered just a little was the moment in the vid when merc gets on the ladder and view changes to third person - WHY?! I can already see myself doing that, just to sneakpick what's on the other side!
But yea, basically we should be worried about the knife thing since it looks very badly from our perspective.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on May 11, 2013, 06:24:35 AM
I believe Ubi made Far Cry 3, so not every game after CT has been atrocious.
But damn close.
The freakin chain kills the spy was pulling off after an automatically aimed drop/kill from 5 feet above a merc is what had me concerned after watching the video. And killstreaks. And spies seemingly carrying UMP's.
But other than those things, I'm actually interested to see how this pans out.
Far Cry 2 though....*Shoots himself in the face*
FC2 wasn't bad. The bad things were the plot and the shitty stealth system.
FC3 was nice, but the tatau bs and the health system made the game more easy, also the MP was the worst cod copy that i've ever seen. I was thinking to get black ops, then i thinked, uhhh i already have FC3, also the mp system is a total crap.