Distancing from CoD is 'genre's biggest issue' - Bodycount dev

[mchaza]

NotStan said:

Killiana1a said:

Is he talking single player or multi player because both CoD and Battlefield do both quite well as their sales numbers attest to. Furthermore, why not mention distancing from Halo? Halo if anything introduced a vastly slower gameplay experience than Unreal Tournament and regenerating health (which most old school FPS purists hate with a terrifying passion).

My advice, look to World War 1. Have it be trench to trench combat where if your character stands up in a trench, then their head gets blown off, introduce poison gas in single player and multi-player gameplay, have the WW1 tanks in multi-player where they are veritable machines of death until they get stuck in a trench and blown to pieces, etc.

There are plenty of influences, they just aren't going back far enough.

I did WWI in great detail in histroy and I got to tell you, the technology leaps in WWI were probably the biggest in comparison with WWII(Atom bomb excluded for obvious reasons).

Really I think it can be interesting, bolt action rifles, with very few mounted machine guns, basic develop tanks, mustard gas, basic recon planes etc, it could get interesting, but I think it can get extremely unbiased, no rocket launchers, basic grenades, I have no idea how tanks will be destroyed. Although it is a good idea, there are just too many variables which can result in unbalanced multiplayer.

umm the only tank was the british one that was basically an tin can on wheels with the sole purpose of breaking lines. tanks didn't boom until the 20s with the introduction of suspension. But WW1 games can be done right with charging being that of exciting when you and 100s of your fellow comards are being wiped out. 

They can have alsort of missions like repeating what the australian victoria cross medal winner in galipoli and sneaking into an turkish trench and single handly killing like 10 turks by him self. 

Veitnam is the place to go.