Alliance: The Silent War

What do you prefer? (POLL)
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Eskiya_38 [ Tue May 16, 2006 3:49 am ]
Post subject:  What do you prefer? (POLL)

I personally love the fast FPS's better... but sometimes they get TOO fast^^ so i think/hope Alliance will be THE game for me^^

Author:  Bingham67 [ Tue May 16, 2006 7:48 am ]
Post subject: 

Realistic slow fps for me :)

Author:  dannomite [ Tue May 16, 2006 9:47 am ]
Post subject: 

What would be innovative is to offer both modes. By default a long/slow realistic FPS, but also a mode where you can move through quickly and get quickly into the battles and move on.

Author:  Edgefilm [ Tue May 16, 2006 10:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Although I would go for realistic/slow, the two are not joined at the hip. Actual combat is often incredibly fast-paced. You don't run out like a maniac and circle-strafe your enemy, granted, but I've never seen any game capture the intensity and speed of an actual firefight.

It is the bits between the combat (bounding through streets, unaware where the enemy might be coming from) that is relatively slow.

Author:  rugripper40 [ Tue May 16, 2006 10:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

i would like both,a mixture of slow tactful missions and some fast and furious missions.there are too many splinter cells on the market,we need a hoping for both elements,makes it more diverse and fun.

Author:  Eskiya_38 [ Wed May 17, 2006 2:32 am ]
Post subject: 

americas army is too slow!!! but then again... unreal tournament 2004 is too fast!!! counter strike source is something between... thats why im still playing cs: s...

i hope alliance will be the same...

Author:  Tango Lima 832 [ Wed May 17, 2006 4:05 am ]
Post subject: 

Voted for realism... I hope if a game is historical it is going to be serios - no shooting while running, ability to switch off the HUD, no healing... All this makes you think before doing anything and makes a tight team work vital to survive in multiplayer.

Author:  AllianceAsi [ Thu May 18, 2006 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 

I think the answer is going to be one of balance and options. We too favor a good mix, and a speed that is believable (slower than the futuristic shooters) but still fun (faster than AA, etc.) And we're big fans of gameplay options, which will allow players to pick and choose from various configurations.

The levels, too, will vary in intensity and flavor. Some will involve more intrigue and spywork, and others will find you in the thick of it during all-out war. That's the beauty of the story throughout Alliance- a lot of variety!


Author:  rugripper40 [ Thu May 18, 2006 11:53 am ]
Post subject: 

awesome... :P ... :D

Author:  Odin [ Thu May 18, 2006 6:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

Vote for AA style gameplay and full real with historical accuracy.. Please no more CS and Call of Duty like games :(

Author:  Edgefilm [ Fri May 19, 2006 12:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Tango Lima 832 wrote:
Voted for realism... I hope if a game is historical it is going to be serios - no shooting while running, ability to switch off the HUD, no healing... All this makes you think before doing anything and makes a tight team work vital to survive in multiplayer.

You have a strange impression of realism, my friend. Shooting while running is not unrealistic, just inaccurate. In the marine corps there are two types of healing: self-aid, buddy-aid and corpsman(medic)-aid. However, medical personnel weren't prevalent on the field until world war 2, so perhaps for the earlier conflicts it would be inappropriate. But if you mean walking over a health pack and being insta-healed, i agree.

Agreed about the hud though. Toggleable huds have to be next-gen standard imho.

Author:  rugripper40 [ Fri May 19, 2006 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 

exactly man couldnt have said that better myself

Author:  Tango Lima 832 [ Sun May 21, 2006 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

To Edgefilm:
Agreed about healing, and shooting. As for shooting I meant something as it was in Operation flashpoint - shoot precisely when flanking ahead is impossible, slill you can aim while walking.

Author:  Tycan [ Sun May 21, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

personally, I loved the gameplay of some things fast (aka Halo 2). But then again, I can't say that for all fast games (aka Unreal Tournament). That too goes for slow/realistic games. I loved HI (Hostile Intent mod for the HL1 engine) but hated.... wait nvm, i don't hate any slow games. As long as the game gets my blood flowing and is easy/fun for everyone (including noobs), then the speed doesn't really matter.

Author:  Bidiot [ Mon May 22, 2006 1:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Slow games, Opflash is by far one of the best games I have every played.

Author:  Ossie [ Wed May 24, 2006 8:21 am ]
Post subject: 

It's tough to find an original FPS. The faster ones are all cookie-cutters that spout better graphics than the ones before, because that's really all they have to offer. I suppose it's a production model that has worked for the mass market though.

Author:  AeroCmdr [ Wed May 24, 2006 8:22 am ]
Post subject: 

I really love the realistic ones.

Author:  Labrat [ Wed May 24, 2006 8:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Definitely prefer the realistic.

Author:  Muhler [ Wed May 24, 2006 8:51 am ]
Post subject: 

I have to go with realistic too.

Author:  Teku [ Wed May 24, 2006 12:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

I like nonstop action. I voted for fast, but I don't mind if encounters take time, as long as there's not a lot of time between the encounters. If it gets my blood pumping and keeps it pumping, I'm happy with it.

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group