• Call of Duty “has almost ruined a generation of shooter players,” says Tripwire Interactive
    258 replies, posted
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39910552]What did CoD do that counterstrike didn't?[/QUOTE] Catering to casuals.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39910552]What did CoD do that counterstrike didn't?[/QUOTE] Respawning
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39910611]cod1/cod2 actually had decent recoil and no killstreaks, and were pretty good competitive games[/QUOTE] Eh, not really. The shooting gameplay hasn't changed significantly since CoD1. There are some guns with noticeable kick, but the vast majority are easily controllable. I will say that CoD1 and 2 emphasized bolt actions a lot more as primary weapons that weren't sniper rifles, which were analogous to the railgun in Quake as a weapon that, while not outright superior to the automatics, was incredibly deadly in skilled hands. Other than that most of the weapons remained the same. If you took the starting guns in Black Ops 2 and compared them to the premade classes of CoD2 I wouldn't be surprised if they have almost exactly the same recoil patterns. Killstreaks in general I'd agree were a silly move. UAV's and artillery strikes kind of make sense; UAV's keep the gameplay moving, a significant problem in CoD2 where people camped a lot with bolt action weapons, and artillery strikes are useful against holed up defenders, but for the most part I feel they add far too much influence to a round for them to be worth it. Losing neck and neck objective matches because someone clicks their map and instantly kills you isn't fun for anyone.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;39908358]"It’s the gameplay mechanics that they become used to. The way that players instantly accelerate when they move, they don’t build up speed."[/QUOTE] For any casual, or ironically, hardcore competitive game; this is usually a must. Ease of movement along with a set movement speed in certain directions makes for a good foundation. RO2 is different because it's trying to be realistic. That's fine, I can dig that. But Call of Duty is not a 'realistic' shooter. It's a casual, campy (not in the sit-still sense) shooter with a modern/slight-future setting. I understand Call of Duty has brought a lot of things out that people hate. Some of those things precede it (hitmarkers) and other things were introduced. The real problem is the constant rehashing and it's large fan-base that treats it like the holy grail of all shooters. You won't be able to appeal to these people, I'm sorry Tripwire. I use to love you guys, but you haven't been giving me the best record with some of the stupid shit Yoshuri's pulled or the weapon DLCs for Killing Floor. Red Orchestra 2 also, while appealing to a niche market, could have done a lot to have made it a better game. Don't blame the scapegoat we all already know. The best way to build a good fan-base isn't to ever blame the other guys or whine. It's to continually and aggressively support your fans with constant updates, both for the game and with news; and to listen to all of their input. A large fan-base by luck or hitting a good market doesn't mean it's a good one (Minecraft, Call of Duty); a good one is one that understands the game for what it is and is constantly trying to support the developer or keep the game alive. (Dwarf Fortress, ARMA II, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.)
[QUOTE=The Baconator;39910882]Respawning[/QUOTE] there's a gamemode called search and destroy that's been around since cod1 and don't pretend that deathmatch isn't the most popular non-official gamemode in CS
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39910915]Eh, not really. The shooting gameplay hasn't changed significantly since CoD1. There are some guns with noticeable kick, but the vast majority are easily controllable. I will say that CoD1 and 2 emphasized bolt actions a lot more as primary weapons that weren't sniper rifles, which were analogous to the railgun in Quake as a weapon that, while not outright superior to the automatics, was incredibly deadly in skilled hands. Other than that most of the weapons remained the same. If you took the starting guns in Black Ops 2 and compared them to the premade classes of CoD2 I wouldn't be surprised if they have almost exactly the same recoil patterns. Killstreaks in general I'd agree were a silly move. UAV's and artillery strikes kind of make sense; UAV's keep the gameplay moving, a significant problem in CoD2 where people camped a lot with bolt action weapons, and artillery strikes are useful against holed up defenders, but for the most part I feel they add far too much influence to a round for them to be worth it. Losing neck and neck objective matches because someone clicks their map and instantly kills you isn't fun for anyone.[/QUOTE] well yes, I feel the balance between bolt-actions (unscoped) and automatics was rather important to the competitiveness of early cods, rather then all guns having low recoil spray. also, I'm pretty sure the recoil was slightly more.
keep in mind that the later CoDs were primarily console shooters, where recoil is harder to control than on PC
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39911102]keep in mind that the later CoDs were primarily console shooters, where recoil is harder to control than on PC[/QUOTE] cod2 was on console
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39911077]well yes, I feel the balance between bolt-actions (unscoped) and automatics was rather important to the competitiveness of early cods, rather then all guns having low recoil spray.[/QUOTE] Well it was changed because bolt action sniper rifles stopped being used as the standard firearm around the end of WW2. Though Blops 2 does have the Ballista, a bolt action that lets you remove the scope. Fun as hell too, wish they would do it for all sniper rifles. [QUOTE]also, I'm pretty sure the recoil was slightly more.[/QUOTE] Can't find decent CoD1 footage of automatics but here is some CoD2 [video] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlNPoREfU8[/url][/video] The STG44 used in the video is also one of the higher recoil automatics, just for comparisons sake. To call it "slightly more" is being generous.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39911209]Well it was changed because bolt action sniper rifles stopped being used as the standard firearm around the end of WW2. Though Blops 2 does have the Ballista, a bolt action that lets you remove the scope. Fun as hell too, wish they would do it for all sniper rifles. Can't find decent CoD1 footage of automatics but here is some CoD2 [video] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlNPoREfU8[/url][/video] The STG44 used in the video is also one of the higher recoil automatics, just for comparisons sake. To call it "slightly more" is being generous.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure he's compensating
He is right though. I've played from call of duty 2 onward online, and i noticed a HUGE difference from then and now. Back when CoD4 came out i could make a friend every game. I had so many hours invested into it, and had tons of fun. Over the years the community got more and more coarse. Then Griefing/ trolling became the hot shit and EVERYONE and their mom started doing it. I think a lot of it was that CoD4 came out in 2007. It's been 4 years now, and alll the little kiddies that got addicted to CoD4 [which was a huge online gaming success] at the age of say 13, are now 17 playing Black Ops 2, and being total shitdicks. That and the HUGE emphasis that the CoD games are putting on "competitive gaming" and "e-sports" bullshit mean every little 12 year old thinks he is going to be the next Fatality or Walshy. Everyone thinks they are going to get paid to play and be MLG. Then again i could just be pissed off since i dont use guns in game.
Demon Hunter shirt lol
In other words, Call of Duty didn't ruin it but people trying to cash in on the same ideas did.
There is something I think a lot of you are missing. No company/business can get stay stagnant, they need to constantly be making more money, and believe it or not niches don't grow very much they stay roughly the same damn size. A publishing company won't hand you a check unless you can promise proper 2x returns. So games like RO2 have to adapt or die. CoD is hated in the industry because it has become the standard, and produced the mainstream/casual crowd. When CoD came out with it's number of sales the industry fucking flipped. This was the dream that they were hoping for, that video gameing would truly become popular. And the way they managed to do that is to cut the complexity down as much as they possibly could. Watching that; biggest thing in the Industry now is to try and cut the complexity down as much as they possibly can to appeal to the non-hardcore gamer. The sad thing is no Publisher will hand you a check for a shooter unless you can promise to rival CoD. And that is fucking scary, we are looking at another Stagnated Genre, Like MMO's. As much as TW might be ignorant to try and rival cod but, they have to push more in that direction or else TW won't be able to sell anymore shooters. You can't survive as NICHE` in the industry anymore.
[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] No, he's talking about how CoD fans dislike other games because they don't behave like CoD. I know what he means too, CoD is very forgiving and there isn't much pressure; respawn times are very low and the TTK is really fast, plus the guns are far too accurate (or at least recoil is only an issue if you pretty much empty your clip), so skill isn't a major issue.
I don't like RO2's movement either, but I would never compare it to Call of Duty.
The joke's on TWI for trying to dip into the mainstream market, they should've just stuck with what they knew instead of implementing half-baked ideas like the completely unnecessary progression system and screwing up working ones like combined arms play. The more I think about it, the more I realize how shitty a sequel RO2 is. The setting was gimped, authenticity mostly discarded, the gunplay made overly forgiving and the combined arms play being so screwed up, it's borderline fascinating.
[QUOTE=XxNemisis116xX;39908973]The children of today will get nostalgic about CoD in the future years Just think about THAT bombshell for a while "awh guys, remember MW2, that game was my childhood!" Nothing says warm childhood memories like calling people a faggot over xbox live[/QUOTE] Mw2 will always have a place in my heart, as a game that was a lot of fun to me. Really, other than akimbo 1887's and the care package ninja glitch (which I used myself and was bloody fun for a while) it was a pretty cool game. Everything was nice imo. Maps were pretty good, none of that maze-like shit you see in Mw3, guns looked ok and sounded nice (again, unlike Mw3), it was a nice game overall for me. An evolution to Mw1 that unfortunately, fell fast due to being turned into a yearly release, aka "who cares about lifetime support, slap the same shit the consoles have and lets go" Then Mw3 came, which was more of the same shit, and somehow uglier. I don't think CoD is the one ruining the generation of shooter players. It's more the mentality of players. If we look at the other FPS successes, the games that succeeded them inside those franchises didn't change much from one another. What hurts is that people think CoD is "the God of FPS games" and hails it as a game that needs skill and all that crap, especially when they pull stupid stunts with aim-assist. If there was no aim-assist, nobody would even dare touch it.
[QUOTE=dass;39913783]Mw2 will always have a place in my heart, as a game that was a lot of fun to me. Really, other than akimbo 1887's and the care package ninja glitch (which I used myself and was bloody fun for a while) it was a pretty cool game. Everything was nice imo. Maps were pretty good, none of that maze-like shit you see in Mw3, guns looked ok and sounded nice (again, unlike Mw3), it was a nice game overall for me. An evolution to Mw1 that unfortunately, fell fast due to being turned into a yearly release, aka "who cares about lifetime support, slap the same shit the consoles have and lets go" Then Mw3 came, which was more of the same shit, and somehow uglier. I don't think CoD is the one ruining the generation of shooter players. It's more the mentality of players. If we look at the other FPS successes, the games that succeeded them inside those franchises didn't change much from one another. What hurts is that people think CoD is "the God of FPS games" and hails it as a game that needs skill and all that crap, especially when they pull stupid stunts with aim-assist. If there was no aim-assist, nobody would even dare touch it.[/QUOTE] MW2 was pretty buggy, a lot of sights were misaligned and stuff, sort of reeked of a quick release. Some attachments simply didn't work.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39910795]shooting through walls is present in 1.5, 1.6, source, and go as an intended feature[/QUOTE] To a lesser extent on the newer games. Up to CS 1.6 and CZ, the wall shooting mechanic was RIDICULOUS. I've seen pro games where entire teams were stopped by one guy emptying a full mag through 2 walls. Source and GO don't quite have the same. GO has a mix of both, but Source only allows through thin sheets of metal and some wood. In 1.6, you could shoot through like 1 meter thick rock walls, like the one facing the gutter in inferno after the banana part. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=trotskygrad;39913818]MW2 was pretty buggy, a lot of sights were misaligned and stuff, sort of reeked of a quick release. Some attachments simply didn't work.[/QUOTE] FAL's red dot and the Deagle's iron sights come to mind. Disaligned like hell. And the holo sight on the FAL gave it extra damage. Mw1 had something like that on the AK. The red dot sight would decrease its minimum damage. I still had loads of fun with both games. Everything was perfect, despite being somewhat broken.
[QUOTE=dass;39913882]To a lesser extent on the newer games. Up to CS 1.6 and CZ, the wall shooting mechanic was RIDICULOUS. I've seen pro games where entire teams were stopped by one guy emptying a full mag through 2 walls. Source and GO don't quite have the same. GO has a mix of both, but Source only allows through thin sheets of metal and some wood. In 1.6, you could shoot through like 1 meter thick rock walls, like the one facing the gutter in inferno after the banana part.[/QUOTE] nah, you could shoot through regular walls too in source, just not far. I like GO's walling the best though. 1.6 is ridiculous, your bullets are like bunker busting bombs. I will never forgive IW for making the MG4 almost useless though
[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] It's definitely responsive and simple to pick up and play, but that's one of the reasons why people dislike it. I easily become bored by the lack of depth in it (or any FPS that follows a similar formula). Perhaps FPS isn't the genre for me anymore.
It's nice to see that they are trying for some sort of relevance in the FPS world But here's the problem Almost no one played RO for the infantry combat, the people who played RO and who are STILL playing Ostfront and Darkest Hour are in it for the TANKS, and they more or less threw that out the window with RO2, which is why the game is more or less completely dead, because they focused on the facet of the game almost no one in the existing RO playerbase actually liked and it's not appealing to the casual Call of Duty playerbase [I][B]because they already have Call of Duty[/B][/I] Shockingly, people who buy this one thing like this specific one thing will be content with this one thing and will likely not by things that are [I]LIKE[/I] this thing if they already have that one thing.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39913928] I like GO's walling the best though. 1.6 is ridiculous, your bullets are like bunker busting bombs. [/QUOTE] The memories of throwing that one HE grenade on assault into the upper corner that would kill the dudes on the roof. Great times.
[QUOTE=goon165;39913985]It's nice to see that they are trying for some sort of relevance in the FPS world But here's the problem Almost no one played RO for the infantry combat, the people who played RO and who are STILL playing Ostfront and Darkest Hour are in it for the TANKS, and they more or less threw that out the window with RO2, which is why the game is more or less completely dead, because they focused on the facet of the game almost no one in the existing RO playerbase actually liked and it's not appealing to the casual Call of Duty playerbase [I][B]because they already have Call of Duty[/B][/I] Shockingly, people who buy this one thing like this specific one thing will be content with this one thing and will likely not by things that are [I]LIKE[/I] this thing if they already have that one thing.[/QUOTE] while tanking is a major part of RO, infantry combat is definitely almost as big. 24/7 danzig server is still up, and a lot of DH infantry only or combined arms maps are popular
[QUOTE=goon165;39913985]It's nice to see that they are trying for some sort of relevance in the FPS world But here's the problem Almost no one played RO for the infantry combat, the people who played RO and who are STILL playing Ostfront and Darkest Hour are in it for the TANKS, and they more or less threw that out the window with RO2, which is why the game is more or less completely dead, because they focused on the facet of the game almost no one in the existing RO playerbase actually liked and it's not appealing to the casual Call of Duty playerbase [I][B]because they already have Call of Duty[/B][/I] Shockingly, people who buy this one thing like this specific one thing will be content with this one thing and will likely not by things that are [I]LIKE[/I] this thing if they already have that one thing.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? Infantry combat is the best part of the game, tanks are really neat but it's mostly hit or miss. You just need a good organized server.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;39914049]while tanking is a major part of RO, people still play it for infantry combat. 24/7 danzig server is still up, and a lot of DH infantry only or combined arms maps are popular[/QUOTE] There is literally one goddamn server in DH that does infantry only, at absolute best you have combined arms maps yeah, but the overwhelming majority of regular players are on the Tank Servers who are running those maps. RO2 is dead because they went IN THE COMPLETE opposite direction from what everyone wanted, "Infantry only 24/7: With one Tank on Occasion" Hell they even tossed out adding additional tanks in later updates, Remember how they said they'd add in the PzII and T-26 a month or so after launch? yeah we still don't have those and everyone is still playing RO and DH. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=junker|154;39914155]What the hell are you talking about? Infantry combat is the best part of the game, tanks are really neat but it's mostly hit or miss. You just need a good organized server.[/QUOTE] Are you playing the same game?
Red Orchestra always was and has always tried to be a WWII realism game. Guess what, nobody fucking cares. The only people who have fun with that are aspies who get off on seeing the gun on screen do exactly what a real gun is supposed to do at all times, with realistic player momentum and realistic bullet drop and realistic realism. Comes free with realistic snores as you realistically fall asleep in your chair waiting for something fun to happen. I get it, it appeals to those ridiculous combat-obsessed people who stay shut into their rooms with their computers long enough to where playing a game like that actually sounds like a good idea to them. In the same way that realistic flight simulators appeal to people like me who like to fly aircraft. However, this is why Call of Duty and Kerbal Space Program exist. Those games are actually fun. You see, people who play CoD never wanted to realistically simulate every fucking muscle and tendon of a russian soldier in WWII, they wanted to play a game, and that's what CoD offers them. And for people who aren't like me, who can't get into X-Plane because they don't give a shit about an accurate simulation of aerodynamics, there's Kerbal Space Program, a fun game where you can build and fly stuff. Basically this guy is talking out of his ass because he's complaining that people who never ever wanted to play a game even remotely like his game critique the elements of it that they never wanted in a game. Unfortunately, your game only appeals to a very small collection of assholes who genuinely want to jack off to realistically simulated video game gun action. Him complaining that the majority of people don't want to play his ultra realistic simulation game is like the X-Plane team complaining about the popularity of Kerbal Space Program. It's ridiculous because it appeals to an entirely different audience who want an entirely different gaming experience.
[QUOTE=J Paul;39914257]Red Orchestra always was and has always tried to be a WWII realism game. Guess what, nobody fucking cares. The only people who have fun with that are aspies who get off on seeing the gun on screen do exactly what a real gun is supposed to do at all times, with realistic player momentum and realistic bullet drop and realistic realism. Comes free with realistic snores as you realistically fall asleep in your chair waiting for something fun to happen.[/QUOTE] "I don't enjoy the same thing as other people, fucking aspies." [QUOTE=J Paul;39914257] However, this is why Call of Duty and Kerbal Space Program exist. Those games are actually fun. You see, people who play CoD never wanted to realistically simulate every fucking muscle and tendon of a russian soldier in WWII, they wanted to play a game, and that's what CoD offers them. And for people who aren't like me, who can't get into X-Plane because they don't give a shit about an accurate simulation of aerodynamics, there's Kerbal Space Program, a fun game where you can build and fly stuff.[/QUOTE] It's funny, I enjoy realistic games and just because you don't means they aren't fun? [QUOTE=J Paul;39914257] Unfortunately, your game only appeals to a very small collection of assholes who genuinely want to jack off to realistically simulated video game gun action.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know right? Let me just start up RO1, I need to jack off anyway.
What do they mean almost
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.