• Call of Duty “has almost ruined a generation of shooter players,” says Tripwire Interactive
    258 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cccritical;39908414] are you blaming call of duty for people not playing the objective in other games? based on what? I could just as easily blame counter-strike, it's been around for far longer and has had many more players, and I bet I could count the number of hostages ever rescued on one hand[/QUOTE] Even in pub play, bombing and hostage-rescuing still remains key. Sure, it's not the primary focus, but the objective doesn't simply rest on the side. It still factors into the overall strategy. I can't count how many times someone has placed the bomb late in the game just to force CTs into a Terrorist stronghold. Or how Terrorists have lured CTs into potshots by camping around the hostages. Meanwhile, CoD doesn't work that way. You can still have a blast without planting the bomb in Demolition. Unless you're playing S&D (albeit VERY loosely), the KD is primary and the objective is secondary.
merge
[QUOTE=Reimu;39908416]I can. In RO2, your movement is simulated based on how much weight you're carrying. So, as if you were about to take a step in real life, you slowly accelerate to a full jog as your knees enter full motion. While in CoD, you pretty much accelerate to full speed as soon as you start moving. Combined with how sprinting works in RO2 - you basically use short bursts of air, then lose your stamina and enter a sluggish jog - it can be a little daunting to the average CoD player. While some of TWI's management can be extremely whiny (Ramm is notorious for dissing on paying customers), he is right to an extent. If a game succeeds in the market, it's going to pull the market with it. That's just how the trend works. CoD and RO2 are polar opposites of one another, and CoD creates an FPS atmosphere where skill is overshadowed by quick gratification. It's no wonder that CoD players always jump for spray'n'pray weapons and gimmicks - the game is geared around getting as many rewards as possible in the shortest amount of time. Games like RO2 don't work that way. It's developed under a market that inherently doesn't value patience. So how can it survive?[/QUOTE] nobody is saying that Call of Duty has the exact same skill and patience requirement as Red orchestra 2, just that it's incredibly unprofessional to come out and slander a huge part of your potential playerbase because of the video games they play, let alone the developers that make the games. not that it probably affects those guys anyway. I'm sure Treyarch's level designer would rather stay there than work at Tripwire, especially if it meant being around a crybaby like their president. "I watch them play and they just aren't very good" what a joke.
I have no problem with CoD's way on how to make a shooter, I have a problem with the lack of change of content between games.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908419]that's weird as fuck though. like, they're people who wouldn't play the more complex games anyway. they only play CoD and games like it because those are the games that happen to appeal to them. if CoD didn't exist then they wouldn't play shooters in the first place. fuck business[/QUOTE] Yeah, I can't help but agree. If you're creating a niche game don't expect it to attract a wide audience. It just won't happen.
[QUOTE=Reimu;39908416]I can. In RO2, your movement is simulated based on how much weight you're carrying. So, as if you were about to take a step in real life, you slowly accelerate to a full jog as your knees enter full motion. While in CoD, you pretty much accelerate to full speed as soon as you start moving. Combined with how sprinting works in RO2 - you basically use short bursts of air, then lose your stamina and enter a sluggish jog - it can be a little daunting to the average CoD player.[/QUOTE] that's pretty cool but idk why he's singling out CoD as the game that ruined FPS movement for everyone. i mean shit aren't they still using movement code from quake 3?
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908447]that's pretty cool but idk why he's singling out CoD as the game that ruined FPS movement for everyone. i mean shit aren't they still using movement code from quake 3?[/QUOTE] Yes :v
[QUOTE=Reimu;39908434]Even in pub play, bombing and hostage-rescuing still remains key. Sure, it's not the primary focus, but the objective doesn't simply rest on the side. It still factors into the overall strategy. I can't count how many times someone has placed the bomb late in the game just to force CTs into a Terrorist stronghold. Or how Terrorists have lured CTs into potshots by camping around the hostages. Meanwhile, CoD doesn't work that way. You can still have a blast without planting the bomb in Demolition. Unless you're playing S&D (albeit VERY loosely), the KD is primary and the objective is secondary.[/QUOTE] i don't know what magical counter strike servers you've found but the ones i've played on over the years are complete deathmatches 90% of the time
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908447]that's pretty cool but idk why he's singling out CoD as the game that ruined FPS movement for everyone. i mean shit aren't they still using movement code from quake 3?[/QUOTE] Yeah. It's one of those cases were if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;39908466]Yeah. It's one of those cases were if it ain't broke, don't fix it.[/QUOTE] I think even ardent haters of CoD could atleast admit that the movement and shooting feels responsive, which further shows just how out of touch the Tripwire dude is.
Too bad RO2 is buggy as hell.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908338]CoD's movement mechanics are about as accessible as quake's or doom's or half life's or unreal tournament's so uh???[/QUOTE] Well, not quake. Quakes movement is a whole layer of skill you have to build in order to be at least decent. Anyways i don't think cod has ruined players, it just brought the mainstream masses into gaming due to streamlining and appealing to tje popular demographic out the asshole. It never ruined people who were into fps games in their prime, its just that rhe majority crowd of gamers pretty much don't realize and dont give a shit if cod is a terrible game that is extremely easy compared to older fps games with much higher development standards and higher skill expectancy towatds players.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39908481]I think even ardent haters of CoD could atleast admit that the movement and shooting feels responsive, which further shows just how out of touch the Tripwire dude is.[/QUOTE] CoD is responsive as fuck. that's why it's so gratifying to play. there's no wrestling with the control scheme.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39908438]nobody is saying that Call of Duty has the exact same skill and patience requirement as Red orchestra 2, just that it's incredibly unprofessional to come out and slander a huge part of your potential playerbase because of the video games they play, let alone the developers that make the games. not that it probably affects those guys anyway. I'm sure Treyarch's level designer would rather stay there than work at Tripwire, especially if it meant being around a crybaby like their president. "I watch them play and they just aren't very good" what a joke.[/QUOTE] He's not slandering his playerbase. He's analyzing a trend within the industry. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when every other hardcore player says the same thing EVERY day. And he's not literally saying "these players are not good" - he's saying the CoD system creates a precedent where gamers feel discouraged the moment they walk into a challenging situation. They blame it immediately on the devs, they say "fuck this, I'm going back to CoD." In the article he's owning up to this too. It's sometimes the dev's fault. But the CoD system is so rewarding, and so self-gratifying, it turns away gamers from playing games that don't encourage patience. No where is he saying "lol these players inherently suck, they'll never be as good as me." What he's saying is, "my game is less accessible because the business model encourages an ultra-accessible playthrough." He's critiquing the system, a system where practice is sacrificed for a flat skill curve. He's targeting the system, not the symptoms.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';39908496]Well, not quake. Quakes movement is a whole layer of skill you jave to build in order to be at least decent.[/QUOTE] in high level play yeah but any shmuck can hop on and instantly feel good with the controls and get some kills with a railgun or whatever
This day and age, I hate how everybody referenced COD as the ONLY FPS shooter ever. CS 1.6 is so old yet the mechanics of most FPS are borrowed from that mod. Before Counterstrike even there was Quake. So lame the casuals of today. "Ever played Counterstrike?" "No, what is it?" "Let me show you." "Oh dude! That's like that game that copied Call of Duty right?"
Someone on their forum summed it up pretty well. [quote]Is this supposed to be irony? You guys basically took the CoD formula and applied it to Red Orchestra. Ruining a unique game and community in the progress. Now you're saying "CoD has ruined a generation" ? Is this a joke? I can't believe how two-faced TWI has become. Not counting that this is just a cheap advertisement attempt for Rising Storm, trying to get attention by throwing mud at mainstream games. [/quote] Like fuck I WANT to like Tripwire, I WANT to like RO2, I fucking loved RO1 to death but god damnit you guys won't let me like you.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908463]i don't know what magical counter strike servers you've found but the ones i've played on over the years are complete deathmatches 90% of the time[/QUOTE] the objective almost always comes into play if no one dies right away. it's true that pub players don't focus solely on the objective and players are usually focusing on an all-out deathmatch. But they do subconsciously use the objective to their advantage, especially when it comes to bombing runs. Hell, most of the time wherever the bomber goes, the rest of the players follow. It doesn't take a precedent, but the system encourages it to an extent.
[QUOTE=Reimu;39908503]He's not slandering his playerbase. He's analyzing a trend within the industry. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when every other hardcore player says the same thing EVERY day. And he's not literally saying "these players are not good" - he's saying the CoD system creates a precedent where gamers feel discouraged the moment they walk into a challenging situation. They blame it immediately on the devs, they say "fuck this, I'm going back to CoD." In the article he's owning up to this too. It's sometimes the dev's fault. But the CoD system is so rewarding, and so self-gratifying, it turns away gamers from playing games that don't encourage patience. No where is he saying "lol these players inherently suck, they'll never be as good as me." What he's saying is, "my game is less accessible because the business model encourages an ultra-accessible playthrough." He's critiquing the system, a system where practice is sacrificed for a flat skill curve. He's targeting the system, not the symptoms.[/QUOTE] the CoD base will never play a game like RO2 unless there's a huge accessible gimmick to it (someone mentioned DayZ earlier in this thread) if your game is niche then your game is niche. if you try to go both directions you're gonna alienate everyone. seems like that's what happened here
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908498]CoD is responsive as fuck. that's why it's so gratifying to play. there's no wrestling with the control scheme.[/QUOTE] This is not a good enough excuse. Every fps should have good controls. Controls are decent enough but i dont think this elevates it much.
[QUOTE=Reimu;39908522]the objective almost always comes into play if no one dies right away. it's true that pub players don't focus solely on the objective and players are usually focusing on an all-out deathmatch. But they do subconsciously use the objective to their advantage, especially when it comes to bombing runs. Hell, most of the time wherever the bomber goes, the rest of the players follow. It doesn't take a precedent, but the system encourages it to an extent.[/QUOTE] well to be fair for CS, since you don't respawn, killing people is an alternative objective to win
[QUOTE=BenJammin';39908543]This is not a good enough excuse. Every fps should have good controls. Controls are decent enough but i dont think this elevates it much.[/QUOTE] excuse for what
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908526]the CoD base will never play a game like RO2 unless there's a huge accessible gimmick to it (someone mentioned DayZ earlier in this thread) if your game is niche then your game is niche. if you try to go both directions you're gonna alienate everyone. seems like that's what happened here[/QUOTE] That's the problem though. RO2 is niche in the current gaming industry, because of games that focus on gratification over skill. RO2 can't win because, even in Action mode, because the focus is never going to be gratification. It's going to be delayed gratification and a gradual skill curve. It's inherently flawed in the current industry. I personally hated Action mode, I thought it was a dumb idea trying to cater to too many demographics. But, there's a reason why games like Battlefield and Star Wars: First Assault (aka pre-Battlefront III) are moving towards a rapid-gratification system. It's because that's the business model, and AAA industries have to either sink or swim.
Personally I just hate the sluggishness of the movement in modern FPS games. Whatever happened to instant acceleration and bunnyhopping. Nowadays you just need fancy parkour vaulting over the knee-high obstacles.
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39908519][QUOTE]Not counting that this is just a cheap advertisement attempt for Rising Storm, trying to get attention by throwing mud at mainstream games.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] I didn't want to come across so cynical about a developer I actually like but I really wouldn't be surprised if this is red meat for the PC hardcores to drum up support for Rising Storm. It's the first thing I thought when I read the title. [QUOTE=Reimu;39908503]He's not slandering his playerbase. He's analyzing a trend within the industry. I don't see anything wrong with it, especially when every other hardcore player says the same thing EVERY day. And he's not literally saying "these players are not good" - he's saying the CoD system creates a precedent where gamers feel discouraged the moment they walk into a challenging situation. They blame it immediately on the devs, they say "fuck this, I'm going back to CoD." In the article he's owning up to this too. It's sometimes the dev's fault. But the CoD system is so rewarding, and so self-gratifying, it turns away gamers from playing games that don't encourage patience. No where is he saying "lol these players inherently suck, they'll never be as good as me." What he's saying is, "my game is less accessible because the business model encourages an ultra-accessible playthrough." He's critiquing the system, a system where practice is sacrificed for a flat skill curve. He's targeting the system, not the symptoms.[/QUOTE] "It's hard for us to compete with Call of Duty because our game appeals to a more niche audience" is one thing "Call of Duty has ruined a generation of shooter players and is the reason our game couldn't succeed" is entirely different and maybe I'm just reading too far into it but the anecdote about him and his friend being good players in the good ol' Quake and Unreal days comes across as patronizing.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908526]the CoD base will never play a game like RO2 unless there's a huge accessible gimmick to it (someone mentioned DayZ earlier in this thread) if your game is niche then your game is niche. if you try to go both directions you're gonna alienate everyone. seems like that's what happened here[/QUOTE] This is why ro1 is better than ro2 for me. They lost the feel of the game because they wanted to try and appeal to people outside of the niche.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39908548]well to be fair for CS, since you don't respawn, killing people is an alternative objective to win[/QUOTE] True. And it's arguably probably the easiest too. Although I think it's interesting how players also take the objective seriously when you fuck it up. Not so much the case in CoD, where no one will breathe down your neck if you don't defuse the bomb in time.
Yeah I feel like RO2 was dumbed down, but not too much but enough to alienate a lot of fans. Luckily the SDK is fixing a lot of those problems.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39908566] "It's hard for us to compete with Call of Duty because our game appeals to a more niche audience" is one thing "Call of Duty has ruined a generation of shooter players and is the reason our game couldn't succeed" is entirely different and maybe I'm just reading too far into it but the anecdote about him and his friend being good players in the good ol' Quake and Unreal days comes across as patronizing.[/QUOTE] It seems like he's simultaneously saying both. The former as a businessman, the later as an old school player. I mean, wouldn't you be pulling your hair out if your attempts at branching out your game always ended in "this game isn't CoD so I can't get into it"? That's like saying "your novel isn't Stephen King so I can't read it." You might as well kick me in the balls too.
no because it's the same as saying "Your game isn't accessible enough for me" If I was making a WW2 historical realism FPS I wouldn't even being worrying about getting the CoD crowd on board.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.