PS3: SOCOM 4 - U.S. Navy SEALs
01-24-2011, 03:38 PM
#1
I shoot people
Thread Starter
PS3: SOCOM 4 - U.S. Navy SEALs
seems like they focused more on the single player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHwaXcXumo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdSrlqsPr4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkHwaXcXumo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdSrlqsPr4g
02-20-2011, 12:21 PM
#3
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
I play SoCom 
02-20-2011, 12:37 PM
#4
Ohhh okay.. We have 1 other than me. I have been playing since Socom 2. Pretty religously I might add. My clan is pretty well known but for some reason 5 months of no Socom and I cant think of my clan name to save my life. Either way this is my same username on PS3
02-23-2011, 11:02 AM
#5
E92
SOCOM has gotten progressively worse since 2. Confrontation was okay but movement was WAY too slow and there were too many things to hide behind like crates, barrels, and cars scattered around everywhere so everyone just camped. It just wasn't the same. I've tried to be optimistic with previous titles but this game is going to suck and it'll be the first SOCOM game I don't buy. Online play is gonna be very generic if they focused more on single player, and it looks like they've put the regenerative health in like call of duty, and are going to have respawn on, making it even more generic.
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
Last edited by TommySalami; 02-23-2011 at 11:05 AM.
03-01-2011, 02:02 PM
#6
SOCOM has gotten progressively worse since 2. Confrontation was okay but movement was WAY too slow and there were too many things to hide behind like crates, barrels, and cars scattered around everywhere so everyone just camped. It just wasn't the same. I've tried to be optimistic with previous titles but this game is going to suck and it'll be the first SOCOM game I don't buy. Online play is gonna be very generic if they focused more on single player, and it looks like they've put the regenerative health in like call of duty, and are going to have respawn on, making it even more generic.
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
I agree but I still love it. I love it enough to keep trying. I dont play no where as much as I use to back in SC2 days but I still get in a good amount of time.
Trending Topics
03-03-2011, 04:04 PM
#8
SOCOM has gotten progressively worse since 2. Confrontation was okay but movement was WAY too slow and there were too many things to hide behind like crates, barrels, and cars scattered around everywhere so everyone just camped. It just wasn't the same. I've tried to be optimistic with previous titles but this game is going to suck and it'll be the first SOCOM game I don't buy. Online play is gonna be very generic if they focused more on single player, and it looks like they've put the regenerative health in like call of duty, and are going to have respawn on, making it even more generic.
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
Socom 2 was the best for a few reasons. There was no stupid gun customization, all the maps had pre-set gameplay modes so they felt a lot more involved, as opposed to maps now where they're completely symmetrical and all follow the same formula: two big areas on each side and like 3 smaller paths between the areas where people fight/camp. Remember Foxhunt? or Sandstorm? Fish Hook? You'll never see maps like those anymore. Ranked games had respawn turned off, which meant that you had to use strategy and stay alive as opposed to just running around all willy-nilly because if you die you'll be alive again in 3 seconds anyway. Friendly fire was on by default as well, something you never see these days either. Also, gameplay was fast and was more about who could keep the crosshairs on their target. Now you've got slow players and you have to aim down the sights to hit anything, making you even slower. Yeah, it's more realistic but it just promotes camping. The game also had 22 maps, which you'll never see in any modern shooter now. Games now have like 10 at the start then make you pay 15 bucks for 3 or 4 more after a year.
/rant
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ExcelerateRep
4G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
8
10-14-2015 08:20 AM
