By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - MGO - Body Damage Debate..

Is there 5 maps? I've played for a couple hours (after my PS3 decided it likes being connected to the internet after installing the latest update from a flash drive) and only played on 4 maps.

Oh and RocketPig, please, tell us how you really feel.

And yes the body damage is messed up, I emptied a clip from an AK into somebody from behind and he didn't die, lucky for me I was able to empty a second clip into him before he was able to get to many shots into me. I actually switched to an M4 because it killed people more easily in the actual game and it didn't help, so I am just using the generic rifle that costs no drebin points because of the laser sight, easier to head shot with it.



Around the Network

MGO is mainly a starter pack. Charging to have more characters is just the start... I'd expect they're going to want money for as many little things as possible from maps to weapons.



Let's take some things into consideration. These are units that don't feel pain. I'm assuming that sticking to the story line!



cwbys21 said:

Is there 5 maps? I've played for a couple hours (after my PS3 decided it likes being connected to the internet after installing the latest update from a flash drive) and only played on 4 maps.

Oh and RocketPig, please, tell us how you really feel.

And yes the body damage is messed up, I emptied a clip from an AK into somebody from behind and he didn't die, lucky for me I was able to empty a second clip into him before he was able to get to many shots into me. I actually switched to an M4 because it killed people more easily in the actual game and it didn't help, so I am just using the generic rifle that costs no drebin points because of the laser sight, easier to head shot with it.

No kidding. After being a big fan of the M4 in almost every game I've ever played (including MGS4), I have found the M4 in MGO to be entirely useless. It's as if the gun is firing nerf bullets and I may as well throw the weapon at someone as fire it; I may do more damage that way.

 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
windbane said:
rocketpig said:
GodofWine said:
rocketpig said:
Body shots in that game suck. I was forced to adapt my play style and as a result, 3/4 of my kills are headshots.

I have literally unloaded two clips into a moron "hiding" from point blank range and he didn't die.

Body damage is completely out of whack in this game.

Good...Im not alone / crazy.

I guess this why Im looking forward to SOCOM.

Ditto. Warhawk just didn't draw me in and MGO is pretty mediocre overall IMO.

Here's hoping that SOCOM kicks ass.

 

Something tells me you'll find some minor fault in SOCOM, too, and you'll just focus on that.

MGO does so much right, so much unique, that it is quite worth going for headshots. My experience with MGO is that it is the best online experience out there right now. It did take some adjusting to (coming off CoD4 and others), but it is really worth it. I think playing the single player MGS4 will lessen the controls barrier for people, too.

As for realism, 1 shot to the head can kill someone, but many shots to a kevlar-protected body might not.

 

You just won't give up, will you?

There are several people bitching about the same thing yet you point me out as if I'm making something up. I didn't even start the thread.

But, if you want me to go off on MGO, I'll be happy to:

- The lack of aiming speed options are fine for MGS4 but for online gaming, they just don't cut it.
- Midtown Maelstrom is a poorly designed sniper whore map.
- People not talking to each other in a team game sucks.
- CQC is borderline broken in online combat. Just mash buttons and hope something good happens.
- Adding skillset customization and making us pay for everything past the first character is bullshit.
- Not using the PSN login or structure is also bullshit.

Happy now? I could keep going on all day.

Shit, Warhawk is a vastly superior game to MGO. At least there aren't glaring control & hit location faults in that game and at least Sony isn't trying to charge me a quarter every time I hop in a Warhawk. Besides, no console shooter will ever get the title "best online experience going." Sorry, PC games will hold that title for the forseeable future.

You criticize everything...obsessively.

1.  There are aiming speed options for both 3rd person and first person, so I have no idea what you mean...in fact, they are in MGS4, too.

2.  Having played that map a lot in beta, I rarely used snipers and had success using knives even.

3.  Yes, people not talking sucks, but for now that's a lot of PS3 games and not just MGO.  I've been in a lot of games where people talk, though.

4.  CQC has a lot of depth to it and changes based on how many skill points you put into it.  I have the most fun using CQC out of everything else in the game, so I strongly disagree that it is broken.  It's the best part of MGO to me, because it's something that no other game does.

5.  You can change your skillset at any time, including before every new map in a game...

6.  Ok, not using PSN log-in is stupid.  How many times does that effect your game?  Oh yeah, the initial login...

To me, it is the best on console right now.  I'm sorry I have to specify that.  The problem with consoles is lack of mods, although I look forward to exploring the UT3 mods since I just got it for $12.  MGO is very unique, has a lot of depth and strategy, and it very well executed, imo.  I think the problem is people are jumping into it expecting CoD4.  When I first played MGO, I thought it was garbage, but it turns out I just didn't know what was going on yet.  I am not saying that will be everyone's experience, but it was mine.

 



Around the Network
Ssyn said:
rocketpig said:
dawve24 said:
@rocketpig

I know warhawk didn't grab you but it is still a good game.

Absolutely. I'm just not a "vehicle shooter" type of guy. I admit that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the game, it just doesn't cater to my tastes.

A game like SOCOM is much more my style and I was hoping MGO would tide me over until it releases. Unfortunately, MGO is entirely "meh" and feels unfinished. I've been gaming in online shooters for 12 years now and I'm sorry but I was playing games released in 1999 that were more entertaining and less broken than MGO.

 

+100$!

It is unfinished, notice why we only have 5 maps and only half the guns from the single player game; granted their fault for being unfinished but I'm sure Konami suits forced it in with MGS4.

 

It was always planned to just be a starter pack in MGS4.  Well, that's not true, because originally it was 2 seperate games and MGO was supposed to come out first.  Anyway,  there was a post on Kotaku recently that some Japanese mag or site said that the full MGO might be dated next month or so...so we'll see what happens with that.



^You have to admit that's a little more than irritating. Konami is basically expecting fans to cough up anywhere from $100-120 for a game they should have paid $60 for on launch day. Let's not pretend that Konami isn't making a mint off this anyway. At this point, they're just milking the consumer for money. No game loses money when 4 million copies sold are basically a guarantee.

It's like Bethesda adding a multiplayer to Oblivion and then trying to charge for it. Games don't work that way. Put it in the box, bitches.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Are you complaining that there wasn't enough game in Oblivion?

Warhawk is a stand-alone MP game, many games are stand-alone single player, as was every Metal Gear game until MGS3: Subsistence. If MGO is 60, then perhaps that's too much. I expect it will be $30-40. I think that's worth it.

I've already spent $120 on MGS4. I hope they are making a lot of money.



Again I shall ask, are these people supposed to be wearing body armour?



I believe they would be wearing armor, yes...