SOCOM 4: US Navy SEALs

[BiG-LUCK]

This is just something I had been thinking about lately but I would like to know from you guys at ZIPPER is why do you think that SOCOM 4 should be in the  MEDIUM of other games already out there? What ever happen to the originality or uniqueness that SOCOM has always brought to the table? Why or what is it that makes you think that there is only one audience of video game players?

Does any one in this community recognize the trend of video games these days? They all seem to be centered around certain features that seem to be a must have. It seems to me that video game Devs are trying to bunch all video gamers in to one. Video games to me these days seem to be like watching a pron movie, If you seen one... you have seen them all because they all are the same.

[David2Crazy]

Certain aspects of SOCOM 1/2 was unique to the console experience (ie: designing multiplayer maps around 1 mode, and round-based gameplay - two things which are hopefully still a part of SOCOM 4), but the way it played, handled damage, etc, was par for the course in 2002 & 2003. Games have evolved and there is a reason why they aren't like the way SOCOM was, developers have found a more "fun" way of doing things.

And I realize fun is subjective, but I also think our memories have gotten the best of us in a lot of respects. I still feel, apart from the game speed, that Confrontation was like SOCOM 1/2 in most respects, and that game just wasn't very fun. Even something that I had pushed really hard to get into the game, the lobby system, just didn't have the same importance that it once had. SOCOM 1/2 were a perfect storm. Came out at the right time, dropped in the laps of a perfect community, and did things, like the lobby system, that were clearly perfect accidents.

What I mean by that is, Zipper didn't make SOCOM 1 with that lobby system (of a limit of 256 each server) knowing that we would create our own little communities around them and make a name for ourselves on our own server. That lobby system was created that way because of their limitations on technology at that time. 

So much of what made SOCOM 1's online so great, was an accident. And they built upon that happy accident with SOCOM 2, before flipping it on it's head for SOCOM 3 and essentially ruining everything.

But now we're in a generation where online shooters have come a long way, and it simply doesn't make sense for Zipper to ignore all that progress when creating SOCOM 4.

[PAUL-AWOL-]

Next Gen Gaming is all about mass production and apealing to the Casual Gamer, they keep forgetting if it wasn't for the older gen gamers who supported every console made since Playstation 1,  there wouldn't be a PS3.  Strange how they ignore our wants and say they will cater to the Ol Skool Socom fans who have been very loyal to the series, but seem to always get straight up lied to.   Most Socomers are older than the Wii crowd, so Sony you need to appeal to the Socom Die Hards not the Socom Casuals.

www.beerclan.biz

[Colin_Powell]

---

PAUL-AWOL- wrote:

Next Gen Gaming is all about mass production and apealing to the Casual Gamer, they keep forgetting if it wasn't for the older gen gamers who supported every console made since Playstation 1,  there wouldn't be a PS3.  Strange how they ignore our wants and say they will cater to the Ol Skool Socom fans who have been very loyal to the series, but seem to always get straight up lied to.   Most Socomers are older than the Wii crowd, so Sony you need to appeal to the Socom Die Hards not the Socom Casuals.

www.beerclan.biz

---

I couldn't agree more.

Confrontation convinced me to buy the ps3. If i didn't still enjoy the remnants of the series I once loved, i'd be stuck with an expensive blu-ray player. If they keep this up, God help the ps4.

[JackD6pk]

---

David2Crazy wrote:

Certain aspects of SOCOM 1/2 was unique to the console experience (ie: designing multiplayer maps around 1 mode, and round-based gameplay - two things which are hopefully still a part of SOCOM 4), but the way it played, handled damage, etc, was par for the course in 2002 & 2003. Games have evolved and there is a reason why they aren't like the way SOCOM was, developers have found a more "fun" way of doing things.

And I realize fun is subjective, but I also think our memories have gotten the best of us in a lot of respects. I still feel, apart from the game speed, that Confrontation was like SOCOM 1/2 in most respects, and that game just wasn't very fun. Even something that I had pushed really hard to get into the game, the lobby system, just didn't have the same importance that it once had. SOCOM 1/2 were a perfect storm. Came out at the right time, dropped in the laps of a perfect community, and did things, like the lobby system, that were clearly perfect accidents.

What I mean by that is, Zipper didn't make SOCOM 1 with that lobby system (of a limit of 256 each server) knowing that we would create our own little communities around them and make a name for ourselves on our own server. That lobby system was created that way because of their limitations on technology at that time. 

So much of what made SOCOM 1's online so great, was an accident. And they built upon that happy accident with SOCOM 2, before flipping it on it's head for SOCOM 3 and essentially ruining everything.

But now we're in a generation where online shooters have come a long way, and it simply doesn't make sense for Zipper to ignore all that progress when creating SOCOM 4.

---

So how come God of War III plays esactly the same as God of War I?? You know what.. it sold alot of copies too.

[LUKENBACHER]

Sony built an empire with gamers like us.

Now, that empire has a bigger appetite and needs to take over the world. 

[David2Crazy]

---

JackD6pk wrote:

---

David2Crazy wrote:

Certain aspects of SOCOM 1/2 was unique to the console experience (ie: designing multiplayer maps around 1 mode, and round-based gameplay - two things which are hopefully still a part of SOCOM 4), but the way it played, handled damage, etc, was par for the course in 2002 & 2003. Games have evolved and there is a reason why they aren't like the way SOCOM was, developers have found a more "fun" way of doing things.

And I realize fun is subjective, but I also think our memories have gotten the best of us in a lot of respects. I still feel, apart from the game speed, that Confrontation was like SOCOM 1/2 in most respects, and that game just wasn't very fun. Even something that I had pushed really hard to get into the game, the lobby system, just didn't have the same importance that it once had. SOCOM 1/2 were a perfect storm. Came out at the right time, dropped in the laps of a perfect community, and did things, like the lobby system, that were clearly perfect accidents.

What I mean by that is, Zipper didn't make SOCOM 1 with that lobby system (of a limit of 256 each server) knowing that we would create our own little communities around them and make a name for ourselves on our own server. That lobby system was created that way because of their limitations on technology at that time. 

So much of what made SOCOM 1's online so great, was an accident. And they built upon that happy accident with SOCOM 2, before flipping it on it's head for SOCOM 3 and essentially ruining everything.

But now we're in a generation where online shooters have come a long way, and it simply doesn't make sense for Zipper to ignore all that progress when creating SOCOM 4.

---

So how come God of War III plays esactly the same as God of War I?? You know what.. it sold alot of copies too.

---

Firstly, God of War 1 came out in 2005 so it's not as old as SOCOM 1/2. And that particular genre hasn't really evolved since God of War 1. God of War is it's own unique thing, with Dante's Inferno being the only other game that tried to capitalize on it, and that game definitely did not do anything to move that style of action game farther either.

Whereas with SOCOM, there have been a ****load of online shooters since SOCOM 1/2 that have evolved aspects of online play like the party/match-making system, regenerating health, etc.

[BiG-LUCK]

---

David2Crazy wrote:

---

JackD6pk wrote:

---

David2Crazy wrote:

Certain aspects of SOCOM 1/2 was unique to the console experience (ie: designing multiplayer maps around 1 mode, and round-based gameplay - two things which are hopefully still a part of SOCOM 4), but the way it played, handled damage, etc, was par for the course in 2002 & 2003. Games have evolved and there is a reason why they aren't like the way SOCOM was, developers have found a more "fun" way of doing things.

And I realize fun is subjective, but I also think our memories have gotten the best of us in a lot of respects. I still feel, apart from the game speed, that Confrontation was like SOCOM 1/2 in most respects, and that game just wasn't very fun. Even something that I had pushed really hard to get into the game, the lobby system, just didn't have the same importance that it once had. SOCOM 1/2 were a perfect storm. Came out at the right time, dropped in the laps of a perfect community, and did things, like the lobby system, that were clearly perfect accidents.

What I mean by that is, Zipper didn't make SOCOM 1 with that lobby system (of a limit of 256 each server) knowing that we would create our own little communities around them and make a name for ourselves on our own server. That lobby system was created that way because of their limitations on technology at that time. 

So much of what made SOCOM 1's online so great, was an accident. And they built upon that happy accident with SOCOM 2, before flipping it on it's head for SOCOM 3 and essentially ruining everything.

But now we're in a generation where online shooters have come a long way, and it simply doesn't make sense for Zipper to ignore all that progress when creating SOCOM 4.

---

So how come God of War III plays esactly the same as God of War I?? You know what.. it sold alot of copies too.

---

Firstly, God of War 1 came out in 2005 so it's not as old as SOCOM 1/2. And that particular genre hasn't really evolved since God of War 1. God of War is it's own unique thing, with Dante's Inferno being the only other game that tried to capitalize on it, and that game definitely did not do anything to move that style of action game farther either.

Whereas with SOCOM, there have been a ****load of online shooters since SOCOM 1/2 that have evolved aspects of online play like the party/match-making system, regenerating health, etc.

---

I understand what you are saying David but lets apply the same rule here with SOCOM. Dantes inferno did not make any head way by trying to emulate God of War. ZIPPER looks like they are trying to capitalize on what other gaming Devs have already done. How will SOCOM seperate itself from the others, other than being a TPS and not possibly take the same path as Dantes Inferno? Do they think they can add some of the same features as every other game out there and hit a gold mine? Obviuosly they do but IMO there is no pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

I would rather believe that the design of SOCOM should stay the same as it was which will automatically bring some thing new to the Next Gen gamer, other than the wash, rinse, repeat that they are use to today.

[fredwarlord]

---

PAUL-AWOL- wrote:

Next Gen Gaming is all about mass production and apealing to the Casual Gamer, they keep forgetting if it wasn't for the older gen gamers who supported every console made since Playstation 1,  there wouldn't be a PS3.  Strange how they ignore our wants and say they will cater to the Ol Skool Socom fans who have been very loyal to the series, but seem to always get straight up lied to.   Most Socomers are older than the Wii crowd, so Sony you need to appeal to the Socom Die Hards not the Socom Casuals.

www.beerclan.biz

---

Well the core Socom fans bought most of Zippers Socom games. I agree with you paul. Socom games should be developed for the fans not for the casuals.

[zpr_Roper]

I'll just simply say that things can't get better if you don't take risks and change things up. Some pay off, some don't, but you have to try.