Foreign media commentary: environmentally damaging environment should be the new standard in the game industry

Gamasutra's editor, Douglas Baker, released a new review article:< the environment should become industry standard > repulsion: I made a mistake at the Christmas party at my wife's company. There were a lot of young people at the party, and my wife's boss knew I was a hardcore gamer, and we discussed a lot of topics at the party, and she was playing Call of Duty: Black Ops let me talk. I said: "I took it back to our conversation to a halt ...."　　Surprised eyes all turned to me, with the sound of broken glass and the screams of women, my wife's boss asked: You said, you return ... So, a 10-minute trial against me began, I said I buy the game on the day, respectfully (pun, dutifully, can represent serious play games, can also represent the game led by the nose) to play for a while, and then spend a few days playing through the single plot, but also try to play a game.　　Then in order to avoid the bigger loss, I returned it to GameStop, in fact, I used it for a plate of star: Yarn Legends (defeating the island Crisis 2 and other games to win the 2010E3 Best Picture award 2d game). Looks like don't like the latest work of a Call of Duty series, like unpatriotic, disgusting. People at some age will be madly obsessed with a series, no matter how irksome his flaws may be. If you dare raise objections, you will be expelled by the church.). Like living in Dallas,　　But to be blunt about your favorite football team is Pittsburg, in fact you may be worse. For the Battle of single player, my view is that the plot is uneven and embarrassing.　　I don't know who you are, what you're fighting for is really bad for FPS. In the last One-third parts of the game, too much editing scenes and dialogue is a thankless thing. The failure of this story highlights another game industry, the giant crocodile--–halo:reach, which tells a quiet, hopeless, meaningless story. You knew from the start that you were destined to fail, and then try to stop it from happening.　　The story mechanism of reach is far from perfect, but the initial gameplay experience is consistent with your entire failure journey, logical and more fascinating.　　Not only did it not jump from one continent to another, it did not tell me what had happened, but also let me know what time I was in. What the hell am I in Vietnam? The Soviet Union in the 80 's? I guess the writer wanted to imitate director Christopher Nolan's film "Memory Fragments" or "Inception." But this idea is better for passive entertainment, such as movies and TV dramas. In interactive entertainment you have to give consumers enough information to lead, otherwise it will be like call of duty, lack of coherence,　　Nor does it evoke any emotional resonance of the player. Save my multiplayer game: Cod:bo still have totake place, such as multiplayer games.　　What?..... wait, it's not like that. The map is indeed all cleverly designed, through a number of barriers to control the two teams of the area of activity, so that the game becomes more intense. upgrades to weapons, accessories, etc. are good. And I let the multiplayer experience of the Cod:bo crash is only the most basic thing. Like the battle part can be compared with REACH, the multiplayer part I use Battlefield: Rebel Company 2 control. Anyone who has played a multiplayer game, regardless of the length of time, will find that there are two basic facts in this gaming world: 1. I'm going to go, anything can be broken. 2.　　As such, the player's strategy must be changed by changing circumstances, and no two games are exactly the same. Here's a simple example: I'm a Scout (sniper) and I'm in position on top of those oil pipelines. I have a perfect perspective on a rush point, and it strikes the enemy. We turned to point B after we had lost a, but the big tree was blocking my view. There's one of the commandos in my team.　　I asked him to help me knock down a few trees with a grenade launcher. You want to ask, do I have a grudge against the tree? Why do I have to knock down trees instead of changing my position?　　First of all, my position is very good, if I move, change a position, may delay the opportunity, also may be discovered by the enemy, finally * * *.　　Such situations abound in the dice battlefield, where we deal with the enemy in buildings and forests. Armed helicopters and tanks can take you quickly to rip off enemy lines.　　In general, these fragile and environmentally damaging environments allow for a positive posture, if you're defending a stronghold and your house is hit by a mortar, you'll have to find a sniper to release the mortar quickly. You and your team will work together to find a source of threat, eliminate it, and then face another threat. Solidified concrete sand box so imagine, when I quit from the battlefield and into the Cod:bo, I could do nothing to stop the small branches of my progress. Launch a RPG. Look at the bushes and see what happens? This major flaw in the game world or flawed design, stupid useless game experience, like a solidified concrete sand box, the only thing that can interact in the sandbox is the player himself. Fixed game maps cause players to often die in their familiar position, consider the following two conditions: 1. You and your partner are driving tanks through the streets of the city, you find an enemy carrying a rocket launcher into the building, and you know his character launch RPG can be a heavy blow to your tank, so you have to destroy him. You fired, but he hid in the house without a head, and after a constant bombardment, the House could not bear the collapse.　　, and crushed him to death.　　When your opponent is reborn again he will understand that the next time you can't retreat into the house, you must change your strategy, open a back door on the wall and run out to find a place to hide or sneak up on you. When you're hiding in a building, sometimes it's even more dangerous than the outside. 2.And the same scenario, you can't even leave a dent in the building, you fire, it looks like damage to the building at first, huge smoke, debris splash, after the clouds open fog, the building stands still. Even a thatched hut can withstand the heavy bombardment of tanks and artillery from a few meters away,　　This makes you feel a sense of frustration. and evil enemies from the window out of the RPG, swish ... watch your tank blown up and smile.　　This happens every time, because the house will never be destroyed, and the people who take the RPG also understand, so every time will be back into the house this is why there is no tank in the call of duty. Because if the only target that can be attacked is the player, what is the use of the tank, the gun in the hand is 10 times times faster than the tank. I know that call of duty is like Madden Rugby, where everyone plays, but doesn't want to change.　　The change I want to see is treyarch to strengthen the design of the map and let it feel the real world. Then balance, make the environment fairer and give the novice some opportunities. Like the halo, which does not provide a damaging environment, it is balanced. (Digging the shell net)