Dgc1808 said:
Jay520 said:
Chark said:
Jay520 said:
M.U.G.E.N said:
ugh I call BS. Sony are known for giving more freedom to their devs with the games they make
and can someone who played the game tell me what parts they had that were taken from infamous/uc etc? |
Cover system, regenerating health, camera angle, etc etc. |
I think your confusing that with EVERY GAME THIS GENERATION.
Honestly those mechanics are not new or exclusive to any of those titles. If this is true then they were trying to push forward generic successful game mechanics that are "oh so popular" among current gamers and mainstream 3rd person shooter titles. Nothing wrong with tested and true mechanics if you're trying to make money and appeal to an audience already receptive to it, just a lack of creativity and originallity can easily be sacrificied placing those mechanics above all else.
.
|
I doubt the author meant Socom copied exclusively from those games. He likely meant that Socom copied from the industry in general. He just mentioned the aforementioned games to give examples. |
In any case, one thing's for sure. Those features were extremely foreign to SOCOM. Even Confrontation stayed away from most of that which while slammed by reviews at launch, was a very active game that the fans still embraced and kept alive.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/29/socom-confrontation-bigger-than-killzone-2-resistance-2-says-so/
The SOCOM community was enraged when we first got a sight of what SOCOM 4 was turning out to be. No one was excited for it. |
I remember that article. Even with its significantly lower reviews and its broken launch, it was still more active than Killzone 2 which sold considerably more AND was several months newer. You would think Sony/Zipper would learn, but no. Lets try to be more generic!
