Comments on: game of the year 2005: SWAT 4 http://toase.net/2006/02/07/game-of-the-year-2005-swat-4/ Love/Hate Video Games. Sun, 02 Oct 2011 11:05:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: gatmog http://toase.net/2006/02/07/game-of-the-year-2005-swat-4/#comment-379 gatmog Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:36:37 +0000 http://toase.net/wp/?p=342#comment-379 Ah! Thanks for bringing this up. I, too, found that the AI in this game was a little inconsistent. Unlike in Rainbow Six (where your team members <i>do</i> actually crouch if you crouch), the fire teams in SWAT 4 only follow direct orders. That means you have to tell them precisely what you want them to do – whether it’s to stack up at a doorway to prepare a breach, cover an open area for threats or secure a hostile that’s surrendered. That last one got a little tedious after a while, because after the suspect has clearly surrendered, why should I have to tell my team to put the zipcuffs on him? Those few seconds used to issue the command left the team wide open for hostile contact if you weren’t sure to command your men to cover the whole area first. This type of micromanagement might turn some people off, and it actually made me appreciate the intelligence of the AI in Brothers in Arms or Full Spectrum Warrior where the limited squad commands are made up by common sense scripting that forces your squad to do some tasks automatically, like taking cover. On the same token, I think the game works well as a tactical shooter because the number of options within the command interface gives you a lot of control - and therefore choice - over what happens. It’s not like you’re at the mercy of the game’s AI; you’re the one telling them what to do. You can set up your fire teams at separate doorways to the same room and issue the command to bang and clear at the same time. They will fan out and search for hostiles and neutralize them if necessary. Though without a bang first to startle the room’s occupants your squad will sometimes be ambushed, since the hostiles are clearly at an advantage. And this is stuff you only learn through experience, something the game is clearly making a point of teaching. Drop me an email when you’re available; I really want to try this co-op. Ah! Thanks for bringing this up. I, too, found that the AI in this game was a little inconsistent. Unlike in Rainbow Six (where your team members do actually crouch if you crouch), the fire teams in SWAT 4 only follow direct orders. That means you have to tell them precisely what you want them to do – whether it’s to stack up at a doorway to prepare a breach, cover an open area for threats or secure a hostile that’s surrendered. That last one got a little tedious after a while, because after the suspect has clearly surrendered, why should I have to tell my team to put the zipcuffs on him? Those few seconds used to issue the command left the team wide open for hostile contact if you weren’t sure to command your men to cover the whole area first. This type of micromanagement might turn some people off, and it actually made me appreciate the intelligence of the AI in Brothers in Arms or Full Spectrum Warrior where the limited squad commands are made up by common sense scripting that forces your squad to do some tasks automatically, like taking cover.

On the same token, I think the game works well as a tactical shooter because the number of options within the command interface gives you a lot of control – and therefore choice – over what happens. It’s not like you’re at the mercy of the game’s AI; you’re the one telling them what to do. You can set up your fire teams at separate doorways to the same room and issue the command to bang and clear at the same time. They will fan out and search for hostiles and neutralize them if necessary. Though without a bang first to startle the room’s occupants your squad will sometimes be ambushed, since the hostiles are clearly at an advantage. And this is stuff you only learn through experience, something the game is clearly making a point of teaching.

Drop me an email when you’re available; I really want to try this co-op.

]]> By: i2o http://toase.net/2006/02/07/game-of-the-year-2005-swat-4/#comment-378 i2o Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:13:55 +0000 http://toase.net/wp/?p=342#comment-378 I have to agree it is a pretty stellar game. I just wish the team would be a little more intelligent. They fail to crouch when I crouch and they never peak around corners. Instead they walk out into the line of fire and their ultimate demise. I guess there will always be room for improvement and as such a SWAT 5. I have to agree it is a pretty stellar game. I just wish the team would be a little more intelligent. They fail to crouch when I crouch and they never peak around corners. Instead they walk out into the line of fire and their ultimate demise. I guess there will always be room for improvement and as such a SWAT 5.

]]> By: Brinstar http://toase.net/2006/02/07/game-of-the-year-2005-swat-4/#comment-377 Brinstar Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:26:58 +0000 http://toase.net/wp/?p=342#comment-377 Sounds like an amazing game. I'm particularly impressed with the choice it gives you _not_ to kill people. I have a friend who is into FPSs (he's in the military), and I'd bet he'd love this game because of its focus on simulation and realism. Myself, I haven't the practice in the FPS genre, though I attempted the F.E.A.R. demo. It was great, but I didn't finish it (kept dying). Sounds like an amazing game. I’m particularly impressed with the choice it gives you _not_ to kill people.

I have a friend who is into FPSs (he’s in the military), and I’d bet he’d love this game because of its focus on simulation and realism. Myself, I haven’t the practice in the FPS genre, though I attempted the F.E.A.R. demo. It was great, but I didn’t finish it (kept dying).

]]>