Red Orchestra Dev: CoD Has Ruined A Generation Of Gamers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Treblaine:

anian:
I'm no CoD supporter/fanboy etc., but their map design is reeeeeeally good. And the action is not so much flinch trigger based, as say CS:GO...CoD games just have really good gameplay.
And playtesting with people who's comment in the end is "It's not like CoD", is idiotic and may indicate what your problem is.

Yeah... COD is not about "flinch" as in needing to have good aim, it's not about skill, it's about random encounters, whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill. It's slot machine taking turns killing each other, you only have the illusion of control offer your destiny, like maybe if you pull on the One-armed-bandit just right you can get the result you want. You can camp, you can rush, but really it hardly matters what weapon or perks you have, it's ultimately just a huge hide and seek contest.

Games like TF2 or Quake have in depth strategy of engagement of counters and manoeuvres, there are pages and pages of strategy. But COD all that's irrelevant to who sees the other first, the weapons are so accurate and powerful, it's little more than a game of hide and seek. COD has to be the most terminally boring spectator game.

People can play COD drunk, high or while watching a TV show. It's faux-hardcore, it's casual dressed up in the clothing and pretences of modern soldiers and military equipment.

Now I'll admit, Red Orchestra is kind of throwing the typical COD player way in at the deep end... but the problem is a serious disconnect between what COD players claim to want and what they actually want. There is this huge problem with a generation engineered to play multiplayer without any kind of deep strategy... they fall for BS distinctions between the weapons that are near identical.

Where do you go from there? People get their "kills" without trying.

So what you are saying is the only way a competitive FPS can be good is if it is a hardcore skill based shooter. Did you ever pause to think the reason why CoD got so mainstream was because that's precisely what it is not? What Call of Duty has done an amazing job with is creating a game where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment. THe game offers enough depth in the unlock and metagame as well as shockingly, reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map. But at the same time your random joe can pop the disc in, play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.

I'm not sure if I'd call the guy pretentious, exactly, but certainly misguided in trying to sell a PC shooter to CoD/Blops players. They like what they like, and that's CoD or - occasionally - battlefield, if they're feeling adventurous.

As others have mentioned, might have felt his game was better received by the people who are into PC shooters in general. The Painkiller, Serious Sam, Counterstrike, Natural Selection, ARMA, Killing Floor, Left 4 Dead, Tribes, Team Fortress, Opposing Forces, Quake / Unreal, etc, players.

Basically, PC FPS fans who like trying new (and keeping alive old, beloved) things.

Lucky Godzilla:

So what you are saying is the only way a competitive FPS can be good is if it is a hardcore skill based shooter. Did you ever pause to think the reason why CoD got so mainstream was because that's precisely what it is not? What Call of Duty has done an amazing job with is creating a game where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment. THe game offers enough depth in the unlock and metagame as well as shockingly, reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map. But at the same time your random joe can pop the disc in, play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.

You know what I said.

Yes, I know that's why COD became a success, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Slot machines making loads of money doesn't mean slot machines make for better games than chess.

I am saying if you had any idea what the alternatives were and were open to trying them you wouldn't tolerate COD. It is terrible, but what have you got to compare it to?

where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment.

By what definition of "hardcore"?!?!

Competitive gamers are utterly derisive of COD. Hardcore for COD is not hardcore in any kind of broader terms.

And "What Call of Duty has done an amazing job of" is deluding casual that they are hardcore because they can game the system slightly in their favour by cheap and cowardly attitude in games, or just getting a string of luck scanning in the direction they pop out from. It's not about skill, it's about exploiting the inherent unfairness.

The game offers enough depth in the unlock

Depth? Meaningless depth. The unlock weapons that are almost totally indistinct. From sub machine-guns to machine pistol to assault rifles to light machine guns, they are all high damage, high rate of fire weapons. It's just several dozen reskins of a Quake Lightning-Gun with quad-damage.

Very few weapons break the mould significantly without being nerfed with the clear intention of saying they shouldn't be used other than generic full auto weapon.

The perks are nerfed and have to be because they can be used in so many unbalancing combinations. The "Create a class" system is inherently flawed by how it allows so many positives without negatives. Games serious about balancing have set classes. It's all good on the surface but any hardcore gamer very quickly sees the flaws. The perks don't change gameplay much.

And that's the problem, YOU the player, your skill, that is not progressing. Your weapons and accessories and perks are upgraded in almost entirely superficial or trivial way. It can't escape from how the weapons all fire so fast and are so powerful they are almost identical.

The depth should be in the gameplay, using the weapons and items in more and more advanced ways with new weapons being used in different ways, often to enhance your area of expertise.

reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map.

You think COD is the only game that does this? For such a slow and simple game it's not that is has a shallow learning curve, it plateaus almost instantly. It's just about edging out and spraying on people. It's too random, look left and they are on the right, you're dead.

play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.

This is part of the problem, this is the worst kind of reward to give in the game, it's kind of the dumb thing to ask for but that you shouldn't really take, like eating the ice-cream dessert before the main course.

Killstreaks reward the player with kills that don't play into the inherent gameplay of one-on-one combat.

It's a pavlov association trick. They get a number every time they get a kill, then you can just give them a number and they don't even see the kill and they get the appreciation. Either it's automatic where they don't see it or they are hugely detatched firing from some orbiting aircraft at Red-squares.

The original reward for killstreaks was announcer accolades. The likes of Unreal you couldn't just get a lot of kills, you had to get them in rapid succession. And you got your name revered on the whole server.

Now what's on balance better? Screwing up other's day with having them killed by super-bots, or awarding them with badass accolades?

I mean why are you stopping to use an ipad in a first person shooter?!?!

COD is casual... it's so casual. You can't care about the game it's just about getting random kills and to hell with balance. Hardcore games don't have things like killstreak that fly in a chopper gunner for getting a few kills in a row.

hazabaza1:
Oh, fuck off you pretentious git.
The reason Red Orchestra didn't sell well is because it's a fairly unknown shooter based in a time we've all moved passed that played and ran like shit, and also doesn't focus enough on supporting objective based play.

There's still a bunch of "hardcore" shooters out there, this guy needs to stop making excuses as to why his game didn't sell well.

As someone who joined in the beta stages of RO2, a lot of the complaints he mentioned are things I actually heard. The people who bought it on a whim tended to be mad at not having a KD ratio readily available for each match and spent most of their time running out into the open getting shot or complaining that the sniper rifle had to be manually sighted.

I also heard a bunch of complaints from the old RO crowd complaining that it was oversimplified and too easy to play so you can't please everyone.

RO2 is a harder game to get into than CoD, because you can't just run around solo and still do well. You can be the best player out there, but the objective based nature of the game means that if you decide to sit around and camp it will be a long boring game and you will lose anyway.

\

ImmortalDrifter:
I see a lot of people here claiming that CoD takes no skill. Wrong. CoD has a low barrier for entry, that's why it's popular. When you have to devote a huge amount of your time to learning how to game's conventions actually relates to player action (I.E. the way things are intended to work in compared to what people actually do) then people get turned off. CoD is a good introduction because when you shoot someone, they die. You don't need to memorize camping locations, what weapons to spam, or sigh with irritation because 99% of the game is fucking redundant because one particular thing absolutly dominates the entire game. As a side note get off your fucking high-horses. Just because people don't share your taste in games doesn't make them inferior. No one here is an arbiter of games with the power to say what is "better" or (god preserve us) "real".

So in conclusion; when you bitch because people don't take the time to wade through miles of frustrating bullshit to become even mildly proficient at your game, they aren't spoiled. You design games that require an investment of time that most people aren't willing to put forward.

EDIT: After reading the actual article I must say, this guy's tears are fucking delectable. Like a diamond goblet of the finest ambrosia imbuing each of my taste buds with the fiery grace of aphrodite herself. His entire argument amounts to this "I made a game based on what I consider fun. When I showed this to other people they didn't think it was as fun as a game they had fun with. They are stupid." Delicious.

first of all this post is unreasonably antagonistic. On to the real issue, while a low barrier to entry is a plus for COD, one cannot argue that it doesn't really take skill to play, only twitch reflexes and a decent gun that takes maybe a few hours to unlock. I haven't played COD since BLOPS 1 but it is more about the illusion of skill and knowing where to camp than anything else.

There is nothing wrong with having a learning curve to a new game, and your rage at the mere concept proves the directors point, if you just want to jump into a game with instant mastery that's kinda being an entitled twat. What the director is saying isn't that there's anything wrong with their definition of fun, but that they expect to be good with no effort when, as with all things there should be some investment to being good.

ImmortalDrifter:
I see a lot of people here claiming that CoD takes no skill. Wrong. CoD has a low barrier for entry, that's why it's popular. When you have to devote a huge amount of your time to learning how to game's conventions actually relates to player action (I.E. the way things are intended to work in compared to what people actually do) then people get turned off. CoD is a good introduction because when you shoot someone, they die. You don't need to memorize camping locations, what weapons to spam, or sigh with irritation because 99% of the game is fucking redundant because one particular thing absolutly dominates the entire game. As a side note get off your fucking high-horses. Just because people don't share your taste in games doesn't make them inferior. No one here is an arbiter of games with the power to say what is "better" or (god preserve us) "real".

So in conclusion; when you bitch because people don't take the time to wade through miles of frustrating bullshit to become even mildly proficient at your game, they aren't spoiled. You design games that require an investment of time that most people aren't willing to put forward.

It really doesn't take any skill... the weapons are so powerful and with aim assist.

COD does not have a particularly low skill barrier, it just plateaus so quickly and there is no escaping how powerful camping is. And he game is just so full of bullshit like claymores.

And the series have such simplistic ways of dealing with things like "oh there's a perk for that". What about a STRATEGY for that, something that is about the player skill, not just another computer aid.

because when you shoot someone, they die.

That's the problem, if you walk into someone's firing line before them there is virtually no counter. The weapons and tactics become irrelevant, it's just a huge game of hide and seek, it's futile to bother trading shots (especially due to lag compensation) with the drop on you it's over, not effort at all for them to get the kill. After all, they have a weapon that fires up to 15 rounds per second, and does 1200hp damage from fully loaded gun against foes with only 100hp. You don't need to be precise, you don't need to go for headshots that are almost always worthless (mere 40% more, sometimes only 10% more damage).

You don't need to memorize camping locations, what weapons to spam, or sigh with irritation because 99% of the game is fucking redundant because one particular thing absolutly dominates the entire game.

...

That's COD.

Cod has even greater problem with campers, not least you even have robot campers with landmines like claymores and bouncing Betties. So damn ofen you will have to progress through an area where the camper could be on either side of you. It's totally random look left or right, if he's on the side you look you live, if not you die. And you cannot flash every corner.

And COD is the game with one weapon to dominate them all: the automatic weapon.

Don't tell me the inane details of how this Subgun is different from that assault rifle. They all do near the same damage and from the same fire rate they are used in the same way, just run the reticule over them while pinning the trigger. Aim assist will sick to them just long enough for the few hitscan bullets to hit. Easy. Here's +100 points.

Just because people don't share your taste in games doesn't make them inferior.

Yes, very true. It's the other way around.

It's because COD is so inferior that they don't have a taste for it.

people don't take the time to wade through miles of frustrating bullshit people don't take the time to wade through miles of frustrating bullshit to become even mildly proficient at your game, they aren't spoiled.

That's the definition of casual gaming, they don't want any kind of challenge, they don't want any kind of possibility that they can't immediately start getting kills for bullshit. With no effort.

There are bot modes. There are training ground. You could just man up to a challenge and not get put off.

No, they really are spoiled. They want to be able to beat veteran gamers first time. This is slot machine gameplay, it's just random uncontrollable encounters with such powerful weapons that why be precise and accurate?

deathbydeath:

CardinalPiggles:
It's because it does well what 'most' fps players clamour for; fast paced and responsive gunplay that makes you feel like a badass. It's done what Doom and Quake did back in the day.

No, Doom and Quake were about 'dogfighting', really fast movement, and positioning on the map. Cawadooty is about centering your targeting reticle around a person with red text over their heads and then pushing a button. Maybe grenades and killstreaks if you're really good at that.

Take this Q3 video for instance:

And compare it to this BLOPS 2 video:

(To be fair, I haven't watched all of the BLOPS 2 one because my audio is dead right now, so I just picked it out at semi-random)

My point: Call of Duty, as a trend/phenomenon/whatever, has both done miracles and fuck over the multiplayer FPS market (at least on consoles). I admit, it is a wonderful introduction to that genre of gaming, but because of dog piling and annual releases it has stunted the expectations of MPFPS players, as they haven't been given a chance to "grow out" of it and move in to other games requiring more skill and dedication on the player's part.

I know it wasn't on purpose, but you just picked the most bullshit comparison video for CoD that you possibly could have picked. You chose the Search and Destroy gametype, the game that has only one life each round, leading it to be a very campy gametype.

Let's put it this way. The games aren't comparable to each other. At all. They're both from extremely different generations of gaming, that cater to many different types of gamers. Not to say someone can't enjoy both.

OT: The FPS genre is one of the biggest genres out there, with hundreds of unique subgenres involved in it, despite what most people on the Escapist would have you believe. This developer just didn't make a particularly memorable game. He even says himself that he wanted to cater to the Call of Duty crowd. The complaints with people saying "it doesn't feel like Call of Duty"?

Fucking good. Continue doing what you are doing. I'm a CoD player myself, and I'm completely okay with that. Screw trying to develop a game that caters to that line of thinking. Honestly, who the fuck are you getting to test your game? Why are you bringing in players that apparently only play CoD to come play this game?

You made a PC only title, yet somehow you're finding that you have problems with CoD players. That right there tells me that you are doing something wrong.

Ultratwinkie:
COD is people running around. No thought. There was even a video of a pro Counter Strike player owning an entire server on his first try.

That sounds VERY entertaining, You have a link?

ThatDarnCoyote:

Andy of Comix Inc:
The maps are too small to provide any real tactical opportunity and it usually boils down to whoever is seen first gets killed first. Games with larger health bars provide a degree of tactical gunfighting... games like CS:GO where perma-death is switched on every round encourage more careful, meditative play...

Call of Duty is a popcorn shooter, a game where you can switch it on and get points and unlock weapons and level up. Which is fine! That's cool! Nothing against that! But to say CoD has depth is blatantly untrue.

And that's my point: depth in CoD - which you fairly identify as a popcorn game - comes from this variety in game types and play styles. To the point that Battlefield, CoD's primary competitor, whose players like to think of it as the anti-CoD, put out their Close Quarters expansion which copies a lot of CoD's game types. People think CoD is all about Core TDM kiddies because that's what's on YouTube, but the actual game is more than that.

I wouldn't call it "depth". I'd call it "variety." And I don't want to sound like I hate CoD, by the way. I think I'd disagree that it has any kind of legitimate "skill" is involved (games like Quake III, conversely, have a deftness that could be matched by 2D fighters), but that doesn't mean I don't believe you can be skillful at it, or that it's easy... I just don't believe there's truly anything in CoD - even considering the "hardcore" modes - that I'd call genuinely competitive. Which isn't a slight against it, I just don't think it's properly built that way.

And definitely, Call of Duty is not at a lack of variety. Single-player, co-op, competitive multi-player, more game modes than you can shake a stick at, zombies mode, zombies mode with co-op, zombies mode with competitive multi-player... oh. Oh lord, no, it's a pretty complete package year in, year out, which is definitely impressive.

Treblaine:

Yeah... COD is not about "flinch" as in needing to have good aim, it's not about skill, it's about random encounters, whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill. It's slot machine taking turns killing each other, you only have the illusion of control offer your destiny, like maybe if you pull on the One-armed-bandit just right you can get the result you want. You can camp, you can rush, but really it hardly matters what weapon or perks you have, it's ultimately just a huge hide and seek contest.

Exactly. Which is why the good players would tell you it's about map control. The person who's going to win the fights is generally whoever sees who first, so the smarter players take advantage of that. They position themselves in the right place.

People can play COD drunk, high

No you can't. I've tried both. It's quite simply to fast-paced. No drug addled mind is able to keep up with it. You're less likely to care that you can't keep up with it, but still. It's too fast paced.

Now I'll admit, Red Orchestra is kind of throwing the typical COD player way in at the deep end... but the problem is a serious disconnect between what COD players claim to want and what they actually want.

And that's literally all this is. What's even more pathetic about this is that this guy is a talking about how hard it is to cater to the CoD crowd on a PC only title. CoD is not that big on the PC. It's not "small" by any means, but the average PC CoD player is probably going to also have another PC title under their belt, Such as TF2 or Trbes, or something along those lines. So yeah, that's exactly what this guy is doing. He just simply doesn't even know who his target audience is.

There is this huge problem with a generation engineered to play multiplayer without any kind of deep strategy... they fall for BS distinctions between the weapons that are near identical.

Where do you go from there? People get their "kills" without trying.

I think the problem is less with people who like Call of Duty, and more with your typical mindset of "CoD players are what's wrong with everything", sort of what this Developer is trying to say.

I was/am a CoD player, yet I've gone onto vastly different types of games. So have many of my video game playing friends. It's just a stupid argument, not much more you can really say.

Diablo1099:

Ultratwinkie:
COD is people running around. No thought. There was even a video of a pro Counter Strike player owning an entire server on his first try.

That sounds VERY entertaining, You have a link?

I think its this:

CS player played on a a friend's account and recorded his result:

He challenged COD player to do what they do in COD in Counter Strike and pot the results.

Treblaine:

DSK-:
He's right. COD multiplayer is basically a fisherprice my first FPS game. When I played Modern Warfare 2 a great deal, the community were bitching over how 'overpowered' the air killstreaks were - yet you could select a series of perks that would completely nullify all of them with the exception of bombing runs and the initial harrier airstrike. I found it most amusing that they lambasted the game instead of looking into the mechanics of the game they were playing and work the problem.

But everyone... EVERYONE, went for Stopping power.

Because they didn't trust their own damn aim, even though stock weapons fired really REALLY fast (15 rounds per second) with a 4 hit kill, 4 hits with a hitscan-minigun wasn't easy enough. It had to be 3 shot kill, 2 hit kill if either of the rounds hits the head.

And of course with Stopping power removed in the next game, everyone used the very perk you described that makes immune from both kill-streaks and makes you hard to see on account of player models usually wearing camouflage... this makes the nametags a practical necessity.

This is the problem, COD wants it both ways. It want the superficiality of real war, but even that runs things as simple camouflage is so effective that is favours the camper incredibly. This is why wars sucks, war is getting killed by someone you never even saw nor had a chance to react to. The nametag that has no real community purpose, there is no way people stop to read the name of the person they are shooting, it's just a big giant red bullseye.

Most shooters before this if they didn't want "The suck" of war, didn't try to copy real war, they make their shooters sci-fi/fantasy based like Quake, Unreal or TF2.

But COD gives the pretence of being a serious hardcore game. It sure seems hardcore with the super-serial voice acting, dramatic 24-style music score, and all the military surplus you could shake a stick at.

Yet youtube commentators will complain bitterly that the enemy uses a perk where they are not displayed on a minimap nor highlighted with a bullseye... it's considered unfair. Well, that's war. That's what all these fancy Tactical gear is about, in the end some insurgent can squat in a corner and blast you as you walk by. If you don't like that, then you shouldn't like all this tactical modern-war crap.

Does that make you a pacifist? No. That makes you a realist to know war is hideously unfair.

Glad to see someone else on the same wavelength :)

The thing that made me laugh in MW2 was that I had a single setup solely for Wasteland; Sleight of Hand, Ghost Pro and Ninja Pro. I'd use a silenced M21 and would "camp" in high-density fauna areas and use the camouflage I had to my advantage. I'd move on if we captured a control point/a point needed defending or I wanted to relocate. I'd use team-based killstreaks so I wouldn't be whoring. Once I mastered it, it was a lot of fun.

As for the rest of my setups, almost all of them had silenced weapons. In COD the radar minimap is a valuable resource; so if you just do whatever you can to negate the opponents' dependence on it (ie don't show up on it) then you're ahead of the game. It does work the other way around of course, but clever use of the radar minimap and sounding (or "sound whoring" as people like to call it these days - which apparently is cheap rofl) allows you to easily see through it.

In regards to youtube COD commentators; I have to say I've seen a few COD commentaries in my time, mostly console players, and honestly I've never been overly impressed in regards to their frag skill. I'm not saying they aren't good - in fact I'd simply say it's down to the platform and control scheme (analogue sticks are pretty terrible for precise movement).
In many one on one situations console COD players will fire full auto in an arc and hope to hit and kill the opponent.

I will admit that COD is hellafun to play with in a party online, but I do feel it has streamlined FPS games a bit too much. But like I said, it's basically a game fit for the control scheme of the console masses so I can't really fault them for that.

JoesshittyOs:
I know it wasn't on purpose, but you just picked the most bullshit comparison video for CoD that you possibly could have picked. You chose the Search and Destroy gametype, the game that has only one life each round, leading it to be a very campy gametype.

Let's put it this way. The games aren't comparable to each other. At all. They're both from extremely different generations of gaming, that cater to many different types of gamers. Not to say someone can't enjoy both.
~~~
You made a PC only title, yet somehow you're finding that you have problems with CoD players. That right there tells me that you are doing something wrong.

I was just proving him wrong about Cawadooty being fast paced/actiony/like Quake and Doom.

Also about that last one, the latest installment of Cod always hits the top of Steam and stays there for a while after release. It just has competition from other sources.

JoesshittyOs:

Treblaine:

Yeah... COD is not about "flinch" as in needing to have good aim, it's not about skill, it's about random encounters, whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill. It's slot machine taking turns killing each other, you only have the illusion of control offer your destiny, like maybe if you pull on the One-armed-bandit just right you can get the result you want. You can camp, you can rush, but really it hardly matters what weapon or perks you have, it's ultimately just a huge hide and seek contest.

Exactly. Which is why the good players would tell you it's about map control. The person who's going to win the fights is generally whoever sees who first, so the smarter players take advantage of that. They position themselves in the right place.

That should be a part of the gameplay... not ALL that matters.

It's just too easy to camp and head-glitch, it saps any kind of momentum.

Quake and TF2, they are even more about map control but that alone isn't enough. You can't simply spray over them with full auto fire. There is a challenge to getting kills and you can have countermeasures even when the enemy sees you first.

People can play COD drunk, high

No you can't. I've tried both. It's quite simply to fast-paced. No drug addled mind is able to keep up with it. You're less likely to care that you can't keep up with it, but still. It's too fast paced.

My point is reaction times and player's aiming ability don't matter so much, if someone comes around a corner and their crosshairs aren't almost exactly on top then you don't need amazing concentration skill or reaction times to kill them before even the best player can respond.

The maps are hardly exquisitely designed, it's way to easy to know a few positions and lock a game down into a shooting gallery.

And that's literally all this is. What's even more pathetic about this is that this guy is a talking about how hard it is to cater to the CoD crowd on a PC only title. CoD is not that big on the PC. It's not "small" by any means, but the average PC CoD player is probably going to also have another PC title under their belt, Such as TF2 or Trbes, or something along those lines. So yeah, that's exactly what this guy is doing. He just simply doesn't even know who his target audience is.

PC gamers aren't some separate breed... stop talking about us like it's males vs female as if any transition is highly unusual and requires surgery in Brazil.

We are all gamers, and a huge proportion of gamers are unreasonably hooked on COD and on consoles and won't consider anything else.

There is this huge problem with a generation engineered to play multiplayer without any kind of deep strategy... they fall for BS distinctions between the weapons that are near identical.

Where do you go from there? People get their "kills" without trying.

I think the problem is less with people who like Call of Duty, and more with your typical mindset of "CoD players are what's wrong with everything", sort of what this Developer is trying to say.

I was/am a CoD player, yet I've gone onto vastly different types of games. So have many of my video game playing friends. It's just a stupid argument, not much more you can really say.

I of course don't blame the players, they are the victims.

I blame the developers. The publishers. They unleashed this BS and pushed it.

I have nothing but sympathy for people who hold COD multiplayer in such high regard to the point of excluding anything else, I look on them like gambling addicts. Of course they could help if they opened up their minds a bit but I'm asking more than most can do. I do get frustrated with them but I don't see them as the problem.

You are by far the exception. The established rule is those spoiled with the COD slot-machine formula always stick around.

Ultratwinkie:
I think its this:

CS player played on a a friend's account and recorded his result:

He challenged COD player to do what they do in COD in Counter Strike and pot the results.

Oh yeah, I checked out that one after I read your post.

I'm not an expert, but I've never seem someone do so well without using the ironsights in COD before.
Had he started running Kill Streaks, There would be little that the other team could do to stop him.

That being said, I don't know if I'd call his gameplay "Owning the entire server", but I think that's just lack of Kill Streaks he was actually using talking.
Was kinda hoping for less trash talk of the COD Scene though, don't get me wrong, I'm more of a FGC guy then a COD guy, but he was clearly trying to start a flame war.

Diablo1099:

Ultratwinkie:
I think its this:

CS player played on a a friend's account and recorded his result:

He challenged COD player to do what they do in COD in Counter Strike and pot the results.

Oh yeah, I checked out that one after I read your post.

I'm not an expert, but I've never seem someone do so well without using the ironsights in COD before.
Had he started running Kill Streaks, There would be little that the other team could do to stop him.

That being said, I don't know if I'd call his gameplay "Owning the entire server", but I think that's just lack of Kill Streaks he was actually using talking.
Was kinda hoping for less trash talk of the COD Scene though, don't get me wrong, I'm more of a FGC guy then a COD guy, but he was clearly trying to start a flame war.

Well the war was already started when his tutorial on competitive gaming got trolls from COD saying "COD has way more skill than this."

So he came out to prove them wrong.

And how is that any different to how ten years ago every game had to be like Counterstrike? The shoe is now merely on the other foot.

Red Orchestra is an interesting concept, but if you deliberately craft a game with a steep learning curve you only get so much sympathy when no one wants to dedicate 20 hours a week to become competent enough to enjoy themselves. To me it seems like whining that you can no longer sell film cameras because most people don't want to have to wait a week to see how their photos turned out.

Ultratwinkie:
Well the war was already started when his tutorial on competitive gaming got trolls from COD saying "COD has way more skill than this."

So he came out to prove them wrong.

Welp, either way, that's some pretty good gameplay if this really was his first or second time.
Also checked out some of his CS stuff, I thought I was watching an aimbot at times!

These CS guys are no joke!

DSK-:

Glad to see someone else on the same wavelength :)

The thing that made me laugh in MW2 was that I had a single setup solely for Wasteland; Sleight of Hand, Ghost Pro and Ninja Pro. I'd use a silenced M21 and would "camp" in high-density fauna areas and use the camouflage I had to my advantage. I'd move on if we captured a control point/a point needed defending or I wanted to relocate. I'd use team-based killstreaks so I wouldn't be whoring. Once I mastered it, it was a lot of fun.

As for the rest of my setups, almost all of them had silenced weapons. In COD the radar minimap is a valuable resource; so if you just do whatever you can to negate the opponents' dependence on it (ie don't show up on it) then you're ahead of the game. It does work the other way around of course, but clever use of the radar minimap and sounding (or "sound whoring" as people like to call it these days - which apparently is cheap rofl) allows you to easily see through it.

In regards to youtube COD commentators; I have to say I've seen a few COD commentaries in my time, mostly console players, and honestly I've never been overly impressed in regards to their frag skill. I'm not saying they aren't good - in fact I'd simply say it's down to the platform and control scheme (analogue sticks are pretty terrible for precise movement).
In many one on one situations console COD players will fire full auto in an arc and hope to hit and kill the opponent.

I will admit that COD is hellafun to play with in a party online, but I do feel it has streamlined FPS games a bit too much. But like I said, it's basically a game fit for the control scheme of the console masses so I can't really fault them for that.

When it got to that point I wondered

"Why am I even playing a game with a mini-map, bullseye nametags and silenced weapons?"

I realise how good such a setup is and I feel bad that others aren't using it. And I don't want to play the game any more.

Sound-whoring actually takes some skill, you need to really hone your ability to pick out audio cues and apply them to the environment. It's about trusting your instincts on what you half heard. Rather than just:

"HEY RETARD! THE ENEMY IS RIGHT FRIGGING HERE ON THE MAP! GO KILL EM!"

The problem is the Radar and nametags are a crutch in COD, trying to make modern warfare - which is inherently unfair and not fun - into a fun game. Probably to play into the bullshit myths we have about warfare today. The reality is war today is not a mano-e-mano showdown. It's each side taking turn to kill each other unexpectedly, which doesn't make for a good first person shooter. Taking turns to shoot each other like fish in a barrel. Very little is down to the individual. With integrated urban warfare the fighter loses individuality and are totally dependant on their commander's decisions and directions.

The concept of Warfare in the Modern era, I think is way WAY more suited to a tactical control simulator. Like where you have to plan a raid on Usama Bin Laden's compound, or a snatch and grab. You have to plan it, you have mockups and you have to coordinate the assault. The guys on the ground are like autonomatons, they are highly trained at moving and shooting with minimum delay but they depend on the voice in their ear to coordinate what is going on. It's dealing with things like friendly fire, warning each unit not to fire at subjects emerging at point X as they are friendly.

I've been modding games to make em better and my conclusion is that trying to realistically have modern weapons in games will inherently unbalance games as these weapons were DESIGNED to unbalance war! Back when weapons were crap, single-action revolvers and lever action rifles, you really had to work for kills, it was a real match of skill, you could fight your way out from someone who got the drop on you.

COD on consoles I never found you really needed the accuracy of a mouse, not because console is good but because COD is so bad with it's training wheels. Such strong aim assist when aiming down sights, and the weapons are so deadly you don't have to hold the aim on target you can sweep it over them like a brush. Again, the typical DPS to player health ratio is so high with continuous-fire hitscan weapons that it's simply about seeing the other guy first. The time to kill is milliseconds, it's so quick and the lag compensation can be so bad that they are dead before they can possibly react to the first hit.

I will admit that COD is hellafun to play with in a party online

Most things are fun to do with your friends. I'm quite sure I might enjoy Wii Sports Resort playing it with my mates.

And arguably you can have way more fun in a more team focused game like TF2, it certainly makes it easier to fight together rather than simply spawn randomly all over the map and have little interaction at all, you might as well jsut be having a sky phonecall.

I feel like this argument is comparable to a dev of one of those hyper-realistic flight sims where you have to know what every single button in the cockpit does, calling out Hawx for making flight games too casual. The games appeal to a completely different audience. Does he really think that the vast majority of CoD players would play games like red orchestra if CoD didn't exist? Because if he does, he is wrong. The vast majority of CoD players are casuals who play CoD because it's easy to get into, fun to play and doesn't take any real time investment. You can sit down for 15 minutes, play a couple of games and then go again. If they weren't playing CoD, they would be playing Fifa or something similar, not Red Orchestra.

Treblaine:

DSK-:

Glad to see someone else on the same wavelength :)

The thing that made me laugh in MW2 was that I had a single setup solely for Wasteland; Sleight of Hand, Ghost Pro and Ninja Pro. I'd use a silenced M21 and would "camp" in high-density fauna areas and use the camouflage I had to my advantage. I'd move on if we captured a control point/a point needed defending or I wanted to relocate. I'd use team-based killstreaks so I wouldn't be whoring. Once I mastered it, it was a lot of fun.

As for the rest of my setups, almost all of them had silenced weapons. In COD the radar minimap is a valuable resource; so if you just do whatever you can to negate the opponents' dependence on it (ie don't show up on it) then you're ahead of the game. It does work the other way around of course, but clever use of the radar minimap and sounding (or "sound whoring" as people like to call it these days - which apparently is cheap rofl) allows you to easily see through it.

In regards to youtube COD commentators; I have to say I've seen a few COD commentaries in my time, mostly console players, and honestly I've never been overly impressed in regards to their frag skill. I'm not saying they aren't good - in fact I'd simply say it's down to the platform and control scheme (analogue sticks are pretty terrible for precise movement).
In many one on one situations console COD players will fire full auto in an arc and hope to hit and kill the opponent.

I will admit that COD is hellafun to play with in a party online, but I do feel it has streamlined FPS games a bit too much. But like I said, it's basically a game fit for the control scheme of the console masses so I can't really fault them for that.

When it got to that point I wondered

"Why am I even playing a game with a mini-map, bullseye nametags and silenced weapons?"

I realise how good such a setup is and I feel bad that others aren't using it. And I don't want to play the game any more.

Sound-whoring actually takes some skill, you need to really hone your ability to pick out audio cues and apply them to the environment. It's about trusting your instincts on what you half heard. Rather than just:

"HEY RETARD! THE ENEMY IS RIGHT FRIGGING HERE ON THE MAP! GO KILL EM!"

The problem is the Radar and nametags are a crutch in COD, trying to make modern warfare - which is inherently unfair and not fun - into a fun game. Probably to play into the bullshit myths we have about warfare today. The reality is war today is not a mano-e-mano showdown. It's each side taking turn to kill each other unexpectedly, which doesn't make for a good first person shooter. Taking turns to shoot each other like fish in a barrel. Very little is down to the individual. With integrated urban warfare the fighter loses individuality and are totally dependant on their commander's decisions and directions.

The concept of Warfare in the Modern era, I think is way WAY more suited to a tactical control simulator. Like where you have to plan a raid on Usama Bin Laden's compound, or a snatch and grab. You have to plan it, you have mockups and you have to coordinate the assault. The guys on the ground are like autonomatons, they are highly trained at moving and shooting with minimum delay but they depend on the voice in their ear to coordinate what is going on. It's dealing with things like friendly fire, warning each unit not to fire at subjects emerging at point X as they are friendly.

I've been modding games to make em better and my conclusion is that trying to realistically have modern weapons in games will inherently unbalance games as these weapons were DESIGNED to unbalance war! Back when weapons were crap, single-action revolvers and lever action rifles, you really had to work for kills, it was a real match of skill, you could fight your way out from someone who got the drop on you.

COD on consoles I never found you really needed the accuracy of a mouse, not because console is good but because COD is so bad with it's training wheels. Such strong aim assist when aiming down sights, and the weapons are so deadly you don't have to hold the aim on target you can sweep it over them like a brush. Again, the typical DPS to player health ratio is so high with continuous-fire hitscan weapons that it's simply about seeing the other guy first. The time to kill is milliseconds, it's so quick and the lag compensation can be so bad that they are dead before they can possibly react to the first hit.

I will admit that COD is hellafun to play with in a party online

Most things are fun to do with your friends. I'm quite sure I might enjoy Wii Sports Resort playing it with my mates.

And arguably you can have way more fun in a more team focused game like TF2, it certainly makes it easier to fight together rather than simply spawn randomly all over the map and have little interaction at all, you might as well jsut be having a sky phonecall.

I want to have your babies, Sir :D

I love RO and it's what got me to enjoy WWIIO.

It takes patience, but also teamwork or else it becomes a skirmish and I think that's what people hate the most.

I think the funny thing about RO and other FPS' is that when you're praised for your high kill count in RO, it actually is a compliment and means something where most others, especially those of the CoD vein, have no worth tied to kills.

Red Orchestra is an interesting concept, but if you deliberately craft a game with a steep learning curve you only get so much sympathy when no one wants to dedicate 20 hours a week to become competent enough to enjoy themselves.

You don't need that many hours a week to be good at it, you just have to be patient. I haven't played it in ages and had little little experience with the first title before I began playing with friends.

The amusing thing was that while I did well, I never felt like it, because of my reaction to firing which I felt froze me too much mentally.

Maybe I'm just in an easy position because I don't care about kills/deaths and love to be support. In RO I love to be there plinking off riflemen as guys rush in to points and the same held in WWIIO where helping capture positions, defend them and suppress the enemy to allow my team to move in close more than made up for the huge time sink that often goes into actually getting to a battle much less taking part in one.

beastro:

Red Orchestra is an interesting concept, but if you deliberately craft a game with a steep learning curve you only get so much sympathy when no one wants to dedicate 20 hours a week to become competent enough to enjoy themselves.

You don't need that many hours a week to be good at it, you just have to be patient. I haven't played it in ages and had little little experience with the first title before I began playing with friends.

The amusing thing was that while I did well, I never felt like it, because of my reaction to firing which I felt froze me too much mentally.

Maybe I'm just in an easy position because I don't care about kills/deaths and love to be support. In RO I love to be there plinking off riflemen as guys rush in to points and the same held in WWIIO where helping capture positions, defend them and suppress the enemy to allow my team to move in close more than made up for the huge time sink that often goes into actually getting to a battle much less taking part in one.

I agree, but then playing with friends is always more fun no matter your skill level. If you can't get friends together to play a game, you're stuck with a bunch of 'lone wolf' types who will make all the support you give redundant because they only care about their K/D ratio. In that kind of environment, the only joy most people will get out of the game is creeping up the leaderboards: hence the need to invest some time to get really good at it.

The best FPS games I've ever played were team-based games where I could play with my friends. Playing those same games on random servers was an utterly joyless experience.

Treblaine:
Snipped

I'm not going to take the time to respond to each element of your response in turn, that would be far to time consuming.

Suffice to say, elements of it are so pretentious I quite literally burst out laughing. Part of it is on me though because after rereading my post, I realize that my post didn't really bring my overall point across. This guy tried to make a game mode that would directly appeal to CoD's demographic, when he failed to make it appealing enough to them, he blamed CoD. The reason I criticize him is because he was obviously trying to appeal to casual gamers with a game built for hardcore gamers. Naturally there are people who like his game (I actually quite enjoy killing floor) but if you want to broaden your audience you have to make concessions for people who won't make concessions for you. It's worth remembering that CoD has a large amount of players who only play CoD, much like Madden or FIFA. Trying to appeal to them will be difficult, because CoD is their only frame of reference. The funniest thing is that when people do try, CoD players don't even look at it. Everyone who doesn't like CoD anyway are the only one's who care, and they only get pissed. It's quite amusing.

Concerning camping and other specific things you mentioned, camping was more of a problem in CS than in CoD from my expirience. When you can't respawn camping becomes order of the day. I hear this is also a problem in RO but I haven't played it so I'm not in a place to pass judgement. Saying that it plateaus quickly is also a lie, I can say that from experience. I started in CoD4, my K/D and W/L have risen through each installment as well as over time within the same game. Many people who dismiss CoD aren't willing to put the time into it to see what it has to offer. The difference is: in CoD you can get lucky and have a good match when you're new. In say CS: Source, you get shat upon nonstop by people who have been playing for so long that you could never really hope to compete with them. People really need to watch the Extra Credits about multiplayer balance, it illustrates my point perfectly. On a side note, the Quake gameplay above really doesn't seem to contain much in the way of skill. It's a montage of OHKs and bunny hopping. I fail to see the skill inherant in that.

That's the problem, if you walk into someone's firing line before them there is virtually no counter.

This is what made me laugh. Let me rephrase this for you. "I walked into someone's stream of bullets, so I died." I have no idea what to say. This left me speechless.

There are training ground.

Also I'm no grammar Nazi but you may want to check yourself before you claim to have superior taste.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, if you want to learn the actual differences between the weapons in CoD I recommend XboxAhoy's weapon guides. His voice is also verbal chocolate, so there's that.

Shamanic Rhythm:
The best FPS games I've ever played were team-based games where I could play with my friends. Playing those same games on random servers was an utterly joyless experience.

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that I enjoy such games, especially WWIIO, solo.

I guess it's the perk of being a support personality. I certainly know that if I was more the kind of person that would be storming and clearing buildings and capturing points it wouldn't nearly be as fun.

teebeeohh:

my point was that just because you shoot guns in the first person perspective the game is not a shooter.

That's subjective. because you can definitely play it as a shooter.

teebeeohh:

The weapon handling in fallout is also dependent on not just your ability to click at the right spot on the enemy but also on your characters ability to shoot. Reflexes are really not that important in fallout since the AI usually walk straight towards you and if they don't you can stop time in order to spot them. having the better gun and perks is much more important than being able to shoot better.

Yes, but not everyone considers shooters to be purely reflexive.

teebeeohh:

I also find the fact that you use the word "mission" in fallout weird since it doesn't really fit, a mission is when you are a soldier and your CO gives you order, when you are just wandering around and people dump all their problem onto you to solve it's called a quest because you clearly are the protagonist in an RPG.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Meriam-Webster:
mission: 4a : a specific task with which a person or a group is charged

Yes, "mission" or "objective" is used much more in reference to FPS games, but usage of it to refer to "quests" or "tasks" is not wrong, because it does fit.

teebeeohh:

also yes, every change from the old fallout to the new can be traced directly to the change of perspective.

I disagree, real-time vs turn-based is a huge difference in how you approach games.

I'd say TF2 has done more to ruin FPS games on PC than CoD has. Simply because of the matter that if you now put out a team based shooter on Steam, or even on PC in general, people will turn around and go "But yes, how does it compare to TF2?", and since a few years you can add on to that "TF2, a completely free game". So it's become incredibly hard to sell team based multiplayer shooters on Steam because, well, there's this behemoth of quality that is TF2, which is now free for everyone. One example is Gotham City Impostors, which was a pretty fun casual shooter once it got past its launch issues, but it didn't do well for long simply because, well, it wasn't TF2. And the devs had the gall to ask money for it when TF2's free. Eventually it did go F2P but a lack of frequent updates meant the boost in population was short lived indeed.

Which also contributes to the fact that TF2 remains the second most played game on Steam more than five years after its release, Valve just keeps adding stuff to it. Which means it remains a stiff competitor if you're wanting to put out a game that is about two teams shooting each other that doesn't offer vastly different, like asymmetrical gameplay like Natural Selection II and Primal Carnage, which is Humans vs. Aliens and Humans vs. Dinosaurs respectively.

So basically, if you want to put out a shooter on PCs and you're not CoD, Battlefield or TF2, you'd best have something amazing and/or unique up your sleeve if you want to last.

That said, I thought RO2 did pretty well in its niche, I certainly have no problem finding a server on the rare occasion I decide to boot it up again. Sure it's nowhere near as big as TF2 or CoD are, but it's doing alright.

I fail to see the issue.

Red Orchestra 2 is, to be completely honest, just as generic as the next FPS. It's just a CoD clone with no regenerating health, simulated ballistics and a bullshit "suppression" meter that makes your screen go gray if too many bullets whizz by you. The only thing that makes Red Orchestra 2 stand out is the fact that it takes place in the Russian-German theater instead of the usual Normandy Landings or Africa operations, and piloting a tank requires like 4 players working in tandem.

Treblaine:

Lucky Godzilla:

So what you are saying is the only way a competitive FPS can be good is if it is a hardcore skill based shooter. Did you ever pause to think the reason why CoD got so mainstream was because that's precisely what it is not? What Call of Duty has done an amazing job with is creating a game where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment. THe game offers enough depth in the unlock and metagame as well as shockingly, reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map. But at the same time your random joe can pop the disc in, play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.

You know what I said.

Yes, I know that's why COD became a success, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Slot machines making loads of money doesn't mean slot machines make for better games than chess.

I am saying if you had any idea what the alternatives were and were open to trying them you wouldn't tolerate COD. It is terrible, but what have you got to compare it to?

Well, considering that you have started out your argument by making a massive assumption about my gaming preferences, I can already tell this is going to be a absolutely wonderful discussion.
ugh

Besides, good and bad are fundamentally flawed. You treat your own OPINION as if it is the definitive unshakable measure of value that all of us should judge games on. Shockingly opinions differ, what you despise someone else will adore.

Besides, I find your comparison of a game of chance and a game of strategy slightly absurd. Both slot machines and chess succeed in what they set out to be. They know what they are, and drawing a comparison between the two is a tad absurd considering they appeal to entirely different kinds of people.

where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment.

By what definition of "hardcore"?!?!

Competitive gamers are utterly derisive of COD. Hardcore for COD is not hardcore in any kind of broader terms.

And "What Call of Duty has done an amazing job of" is deluding casual that they are hardcore because they can game the system slightly in their favour by cheap and cowardly attitude in games, or just getting a string of luck scanning in the direction they pop out from. It's not about skill, it's about exploiting the inherent unfairness.

I wasn't aware that all hardcore gamers play competitively. True all competitive players are hardcore gamers, but not all hardcore gamers are competitive. Besides considering the rather healthy competitive circuit that has formed around the cod games, I'd say not all competitive players are derisive of it.

O.K now let's look at how you define "the inherent unfairness" that is truly unique to cod, and how.
- "whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill."
Oh so whoever sees the other first will with all likelihood gets the kill, as is the case with roughly 90% of FPSgames.
You must be joking.

And that's about it really, so according to you and fast TTK game is inherently bad because people can get the drop on one another.

The game offers enough depth in the unlock

Depth? Meaningless depth. The unlock weapons that are almost totally indistinct. From sub machine-guns to machine pistol to assault rifles to light machine guns, they are all high damage, high rate of fire weapons. It's just several dozen reskins of a Quake Lightning-Gun with quad-damage.

Very few weapons break the mould significantly without being nerfed with the clear intention of saying they shouldn't be used other than generic full auto weapon.

The perks are nerfed and have to be because they can be used in so many unbalancing combinations. The "Create a class" system is inherently flawed by how it allows so many positives without negatives. Games serious about balancing have set classes. It's all good on the surface but any hardcore gamer very quickly sees the flaws. The perks don't change gameplay much.

And that's the problem, YOU the player, your skill, that is not progressing. Your weapons and accessories and perks are upgraded in almost entirely superficial or trivial way. It can't escape from how the weapons all fire so fast and are so powerful they are almost identical.

The depth should be in the gameplay, using the weapons and items in more and more advanced ways with new weapons being used in different ways, often to enhance your area of expertise.

Christ where do I begin with this one?

O.K the fact that you lumped CoD LMG's and SMG's into the exact same pool is more telling than anything. Here's a challenge, go try rusing with an LMG. Now try rushing with an LMG. Now go lock down a sightline with an LMG, now go lock down a sight-line with an SMG. They lack of depth you observe is because you have absolutely refused to apply the weapons given to you in their intended role,and treated them all as the same gun. Your claim that all the weapons are reskins of one another is frankly absurd and more indicative of your ignorance on the matter than your knowledge.

Now perks, you bitch that perks are positive, with absolutely no negatives that inherently unbalance them. Almost as if they are a perk are something.

Snark aside, you failed to once again grasp the core philosophy behind balance. What balances the perks is not inherent negatives, but other perks. Ghost, blind eye, cold blooded, juggernaut, tac mask, flack jacket, hard wired, and engineer. THESE are what balance perks in entirely negating the benefits awarded by select attachments and perks that do buff your proficiency. You the player must make the choice between added benefits or added protection. The negatives you claim are lacking have been built within the system since the start, but once again, YOU failed to see them blaming YOUR own ignorance as a fault of the game.

reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map.

You think COD is the only game that does this? For such a slow and simple game it's not that is has a shallow learning curve, it plateaus almost instantly. It's just about edging out and spraying on people. It's too random, look left and they are on the right, you're dead.

I'd like to ask that same exact question of you. Are you really so naive to believe that CoD is the only game that does this? Or that the reason you were sprayed down may have been because the opposing player was more aware of the most congested lanes on the map, and used this knowledge to position himself in the best position to reap kills off those too stupid to try another route.

play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.

This is part of the problem, this is the worst kind of reward to give in the game, it's kind of the dumb thing to ask for but that you shouldn't really take, like eating the ice-cream dessert before the main course.

Killstreaks reward the player with kills that don't play into the inherent gameplay of one-on-one combat.

It's a pavlov association trick. They get a number every time they get a kill, then you can just give them a number and they don't even see the kill and they get the appreciation. Either it's automatic where they don't see it or they are hugely detatched firing from some orbiting aircraft at Red-squares.

The original reward for killstreaks was announcer accolades. The likes of Unreal you couldn't just get a lot of kills, you had to get them in rapid succession. And you got your name revered on the whole server.

Now what's on balance better? Screwing up other's day with having them killed by super-bots, or awarding them with badass accolades?

I mean why are you stopping to use an ipad in a first person shooter?!?!

COD is casual... it's so casual. You can't care about the game it's just about getting random kills and to hell with balance. Hardcore games don't have things like killstreak that fly in a chopper gunner for getting a few kills in a row.

Geez, I've sen my fair share of pretentious pricks in my day, but you're on a whole other level.

Don't like killstreaks? So put on blind eye or cold blooded. Whip out your stinger, you'll have the damn streak in flames in a matter of seconds. There's your goddamn balance, you are entirely immune to A.I killstreaks, you are invisible to manned gunners, and you can kill it with minimum effort. If you allow killstreaks to plough your team into the ground, that's not a failure of the game. CoD gives you ample effective tools to effectively and quickly counter killstreaks. It is YOUR fault for not using the tools given to you.

You know nothing of what you are talking about it, yet expect everyone to mindlessly parrot your ignorant statements because you are obviously right. I mean can you get any more pretentious!?

I wasted far too much of my time arguing with you.

Lucky Godzilla:

Geez, I've sen my fair share of pretentious pricks in my day, but you're on a whole other level.

Don't like killstreaks? So put on blind eye or cold blooded. Whip out your stinger, you'll have the damn streak in flames in a matter of seconds. There's your goddamn balance, you are entirely immune to A.I killstreaks, you are invisible to manned gunners, and you can kill it with minimum effort. If you allow killstreaks to plough your team into the ground, that's not a failure of the game. CoD gives you ample effective tools to effectively and quickly counter killstreaks. It is YOUR fault for not using the tools given to you.

You know nothing of what you are talking about it, yet expect everyone to mindlessly parrot your ignorant statements because you are obviously right. I mean can you get any more pretentious!?

I wasted far too much of my time arguing with you.

There isn't much of a point to argue with him. He went through an entire thread once trying to argue that anyone who chooses consoles over PC are dumb and couldn't even comprehend why someone would play consoles. It was quite pretentious.

Vault101:

teebeeohh:
did he just call fallout a shooter? because of he did he really should turn in his hardcore member card.

I noticed that too.....kind of made me wince

Excuse my ignorance but, Why did it make you wince?

RO2's arcade-style unlock system & faster-paced gameplay (compared to RO1) were purposely designed to attract COD-players. Gibson is just bitter about having the CODers reject his game for being too difficult for their tastes (the horribly buggy launch didn't help either). Ultimately, these design choices did nothing but negatively impact player behaviour, damage the game's historical authenticity, and alienate the core RO fanbase.

Alternatively, Gibson may be trying to drum up some controversy/attention in preparation for the soon-to-be released Rising Storm expansion.

At present, the RO2 community is dying a slow death. Good servers are getting increasingly hard to find as each month passes. It is a real shame because if you strip away all the arcadey crap that was added, RO2 is really one of the best FPS games released in quite a while. The game is unforgiving, but this enhances the experience by adding tension and a sense of real power to the weapons.

Admittedly, RO2 is not very fun at first if you are coming from games like COD or BF. However, if you climb the learning curve, RO2 will become one of the most satisfying FPS expereinces to be had. Where before you may have blindly run out into the open only to have your head blown off by some unseen enemy, you later begin to understand where the more dangerous areas on the map are and just how to counter these strongpoints. Running out in the open become calculated gambles, with the use of smoke and suppressing fire acting as modifiers to this risk. You begin to see the utility of properly dialing in your sights, the absolute need to coordinate attacks on objectives, as well as understand that firefights are conducted most often at ranges between 100-250 metres (ranges typically reserved for snipers in COD or BF, you learn to spot enemies in the distance). There is lots of CQC action as well, but it is done in areas where it makes sense to have close range engagments (ie. tunnels, buildings, trenches, bunkers, etc).

That said, if you do put some time into RO2, it can be very jarring to return to the likes of COD or BF. Shooting some SOB with a 7.62 NATO round center mass only to have him turn round and kill you with a grenade launcher becomes far more difficult to tolerate after you have experienced the awesomeness of taking out an enemy with a single well placed (but very lucky) pistol round.

MopBox:

Excuse my ignorance but, Why did it make you wince?

calling Fallout 3 or NV a shooter...or implying it to be just another FPS just seems wrong

ImmortalDrifter:

Treblaine:
Snipped

I'm not going to take the time to respond to each element of your response in turn, that would be far to time consuming.

Suffice to say, elements of it are so pretentious I quite literally burst out laughing. Part of it is on me though because after rereading my post, I realize that my post didn't really bring my overall point across. This guy tried to make a game mode that would directly appeal to CoD's demographic, when he failed to make it appealing enough to them, he blamed CoD. The reason I criticize him is because he was obviously trying to appeal to casual gamers with a game built for hardcore gamers. Naturally there are people who like his game (I actually quite enjoy killing floor) but if you want to broaden your audience you have to make concessions for people who won't make concessions for you. It's worth remembering that CoD has a large amount of players who only play CoD, much like Madden or FIFA. Trying to appeal to them will be difficult, because CoD is their only frame of reference. The funniest thing is that when people do try, CoD players don't even look at it. Everyone who doesn't like CoD anyway are the only one's who care, and they only get pissed. It's quite amusing.

If millions of people are hooked on slot machines... that doesn't mean that's an ideal of gaming.

I think he's saying he realises what I appealing to them is something so bad he refuses to make it... not that he can't.

Concerning camping and other specific things you mentioned, camping was more of a problem in CS than in CoD from my expirience. When you can't respawn camping becomes order of the day. I hear this is also a problem in RO but I haven't played it so I'm not in a place to pass judgement. Saying that it plateaus quickly is also a lie, I can say that from experience. I started in CoD4, my K/D and W/L have risen through each installment as well as over time within the same game. Many people who dismiss CoD aren't willing to put the time into it to see what it has to offer. The difference is: in CoD you can get lucky and have a good match when you're new. In say CS: Source, you get shat upon nonstop by people who have been playing for so long that you could never really hope to compete with them. People really need to watch the Extra Credits about multiplayer balance, it illustrates my point perfectly. On a side note, the Quake gameplay above really doesn't seem to contain much in the way of skill. It's a montage of OHKs and bunny hopping. I fail to see the skill inherant in that.

Well as has been said, Counterstrike isn't the only PC game and COD has no-respawn modes like Search & Destroy.

The essential problem of how the game is played remains, the fundamentals of gameplay.

Even if skill level plateaus, that doesn't mean you can't get an advantage.

The problem with measuring by K/D is it's a zero-sum measure, someone's K/D can only go up if someone elses goes down, the avarage K/D... is 1. It has to be.

I'm not talking about CS, I'm talking about the likes of Team Fortress 2. And the problem with COD is the randomness of the encounters you say how much it's about getting lucky, that's the thing, skill is less relevant, it's like a slot machine. It's random chance of running around who will run into the other and get an easy kill.

I've tested this, just pin both triggers for Aim-Down-Sight and Shoot, and sweep the thumbstick in the general direction of they are and there is no way you can't get the kill. And poorly-coordination, almost random spawning and poor connection/lag-compensation mean it's just so random who sees who first.

You can hedge the odds in your favour with camping of various sorts. That's what rises K/D, not the skill, the cautious attitude.

That's the problem, if you walk into someone's firing line before them there is virtually no counter.

This is what made me laugh. Let me rephrase this for you. "I walked into someone's stream of bullets, so I died." I have no idea what to say. This left me speechless.

Yes. That may be realistic but... the real world sucks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Real war is unfair. We shouldn't try to contort it into "fun" while trying to remaining realistic.

And don't rephrase my sentences out of context that clearly changes their meaning. My point is for a game like TF2, if you walk around a corner someone is looking at, you stand a chance to fight and there are stages of maneuver, counter and so on.

There are training ground.

Also I'm no grammar Nazi but you may want to check yourself before you claim to have superior taste.

No, you ARE being a grammar Nazi over what is such a trivial typo. I missed the S. But you had to bring this up as relevant to the discussion. That's desperate. Even if this was from my bad grammar (you you really think I though that should be spelled that "Are" rather than "is a" rather than a minor typo of a single letter) what does writing ability have to do with taste in games? Nothing.

Jack Thompson doesn't have better taste in games because he never makes a typo.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, if you want to learn the actual differences between the weapons in CoD I recommend XboxAhoy's weapon guides. His voice is also verbal chocolate, so there's that.

I know the differences, I have been subscribed to him for years and a regular lurker on Denkirson forums. The problem is to spite how much he makes a big deal of the differences, the differences are not significant.

Treblaine:
snip

We get it, you hate consoles or anything to do with them. Now can you get off of your high horse and for once open up to the idea that not everyone is you and that people like other things? That just because you hate something doesn't make it bad. You seem to have a superiority complex.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here