Lets not make this into a Tim Burton Rehash!

[spiceymchaggis]

Hey guys, probably what I'm about to write might upset some people, might not but it's something that's been annoying me while I've been reading through these posts and listing/watching various opinions on Socom 4.

The way I see it is, a lot of people seem to be quite hung up on, "S1 & S2" (I've never played them, wished I had, but I'm not having a go at them) Now these games by reading the reviews seemed like they were epic, which is great.

But what I don't want too see is old brought into the new. Sure bring certain factors from S1 and S2 even Confrontation (there were some good points but a hell of a lot of bad points and I knew that just from coming to confrontation) but let's have a little bit of progression, a new game for a new genre, surely deep down that's what people want, It's returned to the developers that gave us Socom, I have faith in what their doing, I honestly think this is going to be epic. People ripping on it and it's not even properly pre-alpha yet.

And one other thing that's bothered me is this honour code, The game is what you make it. I some dude wants to run on down with his cannon, let him, I got something waiting for him.

And 1 last thing, I'm not some kind of fanboy, like wooo yeah just from confrontation, there's been times when I've wanted to open my window and see just how far I can throw that disc, I've done my reading up on what Socom used to be and I want that since I missed out on it, I would like to see the "vets" get what they want but I'd like to see it evolve into what it really could be.

[Cyanide]

Progressing doesn't mean unlocking guns.

You can produce a great game without weapon progression. There isn't anything "2002" about that.

[spiceymchaggis]

Progression was meant as in the actually game progression on a whole, not just unlocks and S2 refers to Socom 2, not 2002. That's really what I meant when i said there needs to be some progression ... hence the reason for my post.

[Cyanide]

I've acknowledged this.

Games don't progress because they have a fancy feature that makes people play the game. People play video games because they want to blow steam off. Don't relate me to everyone else because I am VERY optimistic, but when I played SOCOM in the beginning of the decade, I did it because I was having a fun time with friends because I was astounded by the whole "online" aspect of the PS2. i didn't do it because the AK-47 was the most powerful gun and I NEEDED to have it to have fun.

You can't query people who played the original titles because, clearly, you feel that video games are more a chore than a hobby.

Don't feel attacked because I'm not flaming you, but stating the obvious.

[spiceymchaggis]

Yeah dude, I'm not disagreeing that games are the best way to chill out after a bad day and jumping online with your mates is without doubt an awesome experience 1 that i personally love doing. I'm really unclear as to where your going with that, because I never mentioned anything of the sort in my original post?


And Im more than well aware that games progress in the way the experience feels. Guns/camo/attachments, whatever, are kind of trivial in that respect. I really didn't mean that sort of progression, unlocks, umm i think that's been around since 1995? probably earlier, just so you understand clearly what I meant by progression I'll spell it out,

I want to put that game in and never take it out, I want to be immersed in a world of Socom, where that is what I live and breathe, me my mates and anyone else who's online, next gen graphics, next gen ideas, next gen Socom. Something that ties in the factors that made Socom and Socom 2 what they were and what makes me still stick in confrontation, I want to see everything that those titles could of been ... be. That's what I meant by "Progression" Not your fixation with guns, which I mention nothing about.

And please, tell me at which point I remotely related you to anyone?
But if you want to play it like that, Don't YOU think that I sit and sigh at loading up my ps3, it is without doubt one of the best times of the day kicking back and powering it up.

Pot - Kettle - Black?

But don't feel grilled by this, I'm not working in McDonalds.

[Cyanide]

I was presuming you wrote this because of my rant thread in which you commented on.

Since you say that it's not, then it becomes your opinion.

[spiceymchaggis]

No, if it was related to your thread, it would of been posted in your thread.

And It really is just my opinion on other opinions made, which is stated in the first sentence of my original post.

[LUKENBACHER]

"Socom" was a huge ball of features all wrapped up into one beautiful shooter.

There were fine lines on balance and tweaking that "harmonized" to the perfect chord that resonated with a huge fanbase.

It's almost like the "systemic anomaly" from the Matrix lol.

Once you start ALTERING major game-play features like health regeneration and two different controllers in the same arena, the "harmony" I mentioned earlier starts to go out of tune.

Now, you can ADD new game modes, new maps, new weapons, new factions/characters, and add more elements to the clan wars/tournaments if you want "progression" and a "2010 shooter".....

That way it is still "Socom" but new & improved.....

But to "overhaul the GAME PLAY" starts tickling with the idea that it won't be "Socom".
A good example is the fanbase's reactions to Confrontation and some of it's "new features" and altered "game play", sside from the infamous, bug-riddled release.

I realize key MP elements have not been released yet, but it would have to DRASTICALLY be different than the single player aspect we have witnessed thus far.

All this is hard to describe to someone who didn't ride the waves of S1-S3/CA.

Thus why it is much easier to just say.......

"It needs a Socom 1/Socom 2 FEEL."

Sure, there were minor details about those two titles as well that we wanted to see improved. But at the same time, we also are not prepared to buy a "new song" either.

Know what I'm saying?

[BushWacker]

The latest and greatest changes in the Socom series all seem to be directed toward the "user" and not toward making the actual game itself better. "How can we make this game more casual friendly and appealing to the potential customer?" Instead of "How can we make this game better and more epic than anything we've made before?". I think if they concentrated more on the latter they would be surprised at how affective it was toward the first question.