Sniper rifles were fairly uncommon in Crysis 2’s multiplayer. This led to many players either using the sub-machine guns or assault rifles to adequately deal with all these fast-moving soldiers on the battlefield. With all this freedom of movement, there was very little incentive to stay in one spot or ‘camp’. Players had the ability to slide under objects, grab and quickly climb ledges, and power jump great distances. Crytek, the developers of Crysis 2, gave player characters the ability to move much like a free-runner or parkour practitioner in real life (but obviously with the added advantage of alien nanosuit technology). If I took Crysis 2 for example, you will find that it’s multiplayer is quite fast-paced. There are also many other factors that play into this. Give no information at all and it could prove frustrating for players who constantly find themselves in a death-streak due to an unknown enemy position. Give away too much enemy intel and it could provide little challenge to some players. The reason the killcam has become such a controversial idea is because it is a feature that could potentially make or break an FPS, or any shooter for that matter. Lately, Crysis 2 did cut-and-paste job with their “kill replay”, while Homefront was a little more original in that the camera panned up to your enemy after you died, revealing his location. It was an idea that became extremely popular during the release of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and many developers since then have included it in their own shooters, or a least a version of it. This has been a hot topic among gamers recently and I can see why.īut first, a killcam in a first-person-shooter, for those who don’t know, is a quick replay on your screen of what your enemy saw moments before he shot you dead. In a recent Q&A session with DICE representatives at GameCon 2011, it was confirmed that a killcam feature would indeed be included in Battlefield 3.
0 kommentar(er)
