Quote from: skull-splitter on Feb 20, 2010, 11:03:16 AM
Face it, it could've been easily implemented, but Rebellion opted for a remake of their original in ALL aspects... Which is it's main issue: it's not 2010-enough.
It could've been easily implemented, but that doesn't mean it
should be implemented. The game is essentially about close-quarters encounters and there's literally
one moment in the campaign where ironsights would've been useful. As for multiplayer, they'd be
useless. You'd be surprised how accurate the pulse rifle is if you burst fire.
In terms of mechanics, I believe people are focusing way too much on what it leaves out and are ignoring on what it's putting in or reintroducing. No ironsights? Big whoop, that's one mechanic designed for games based on open warfare. This game introduces solid melee combat into the first-person shooter genre, not to mention it uses two different sets of stealth mechanics.
This is absolutely incredible pedantism.
One popular FPS mechanic is gone and the game is suddenly outdated? If anything, the flexibility of AvP's gameplay and the depth of its atmosphere is by and large a step ahead of anything else out there. The lack of ironsights is just one element of a cohesive whole that aims to be something very different from any other game out there and this is largely a successful effort. Claiming that any one mechanic is integral to a game for it to be modern and competitive with other titles is just narrow-minded at best. Two excellent Valve titles, for instance, get away with being very different: Team Fortress 2 is old-school FPS action at its finest, and Portal doesn't even have any true weapons, instead forcing you to solve both puzzles and combat situations using a device that displaces objects. Neither ever get criticised for this.
AvP can't be judged based on the norms of its peers. The game has its own shortcomings, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the gameplay design.
Could've used a crouch function in SP, though.