• Call of Duty “has almost ruined a generation of shooter players,” says Tripwire Interactive
    258 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;39916822]call of duty popularized the concept of a game that is so simple and free of any depth that it requires zero brain activity to play. it also made many developers realize that production values mean absolutely nothing in the current industry. look at ubisoft, they release things like far cry 3 and Assassin's creed 3 that are absolutely horrendous but include a couple tacked on gimmicks and they drastically outsell their highly superior predecessors.[/QUOTE] Far Cry 3 is absolutely horrendous? Far Cry 2 was highly superior? Where am I, who are you, what is going on?
far cry 3 was a goldmine of a game it had problems but my god it was just so good compared to almost any other 3rd sequel
According to this developer, Unreal Tournament is a no-skill easy game for noobs because it has lots of randomness and a very tight, fluid control scheme. The same goes for Unreal, Quake, and Doom. And that's horseshit, just because guns don't have absurd recoil in CoD doesn't make it easy. Just because it doesn't feel like wading through muck to move doesn't make it easy either. Even the dumbest of the modern Call of Duty games, with their interaction of weapons, perks, and unlocks, are an order of magnitude more complex (not complicated, complex) than something like Unreal Tournament where you have ten guns and everyone's the same. That doesn't make it bad, it makes it [I]different[/I]. Unreal Tournament had no recoil whatsoever, extremely fluid movement, weak weapon, almost instant respawn time, but you'd be totally wrong to say that it ruined gaming. Meanwhile in Red Orchestra 2, even the greenest of green players can aim at a 'pro' with a 100% laser-accurate bolt-action rifle and one-shot-kill him from across the map. And that makes it require more skill? Seriously? The entire article boils down to 'CoD is bad because reasons', and those reasons are arbitrary aspects of the games that have no bearing on whether it's a skillful game. This is just one developer with his own opinion, and in this case his opinion is dumb.
I like CoD because I can just pick it up, play for a bit, and get off. If I have friends over, we could do a quick match or two and go on to something else. It's the casual aspect I like about the game. However, when you start playing it "MLG" style, being serious about the game, that's when it starts ruining the outlook of "hardcore" FPS's like ARMA. It really depends on how much of a gamer you are. Personally, I maybe play video games once every 3 days.
[QUOTE=werrek;39923950]I like CoD because I can just pick it up, play for a bit, and get off. If I have friends over, we could do a quick match or two and go on to something else. It's the casual aspect I like about the game. However, when you start playing it "MLG" style, being serious about the game, that's when it starts ruining the outlook of "hardcore" FPS's like ARMA. It really depends on how much of a gamer you are. Personally, I maybe play video games once every 3 days.[/QUOTE] Probably because Call of Duty's mechanics are entirely shallow, there's nothing deep about them, and it's not made for competitive play, and that is exactly why it saw so much use in MLG- MLG isn't competitive, it's just kids having fun.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;39924067]Probably because Call of Duty's mechanics are entirely shallow, there's nothing deep about them, and it's not made for competitive play, and that is exactly why it saw so much use in MLG- MLG isn't competitive, it's just kids having fun.[/QUOTE] I remember quite a few Quake 3 competitions back in the day, and that game's a lot simpler than any CoD game. Where does this notion that simple = easy or simple = no competition come from? Go and chess are both extremely simple board games to learn, but clearly they're not no-skill or no competition games.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39924102]I remember quite a few Quake 3 competitions back in the day, and that game's a lot simpler than any CoD game. Where does this notion that simple = easy or simple = no competition come from? Go and chess are both extremely simple board games to learn, but clearly they're not no-skill or no competition games.[/QUOTE] Except CoD has been doing the exact same thing for almost a decade with little improvements here and there for $60 each year and another $60 in map maps that almost everyone buys.
The people the games are aimed for are people who casually play games for fun, and COD suits this is the snappy good movement and controls that make a game simple to play. RO seems to be aimed more at people who define immersive fun games as "realistic" with the movement system in RO. This doesn't comply with the simple and fun gameplay that makes a game a game that people would enjoy playing. I don't think people would find running and then breaking as well as other mechanics to make the game more "realistic" very fun at all, and if anything, a bad thing.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39924102]I remember quite a few Quake 3 competitions back in the day, and that game's a lot simpler than any CoD game. Where does this notion that simple = easy or simple = no competition come from? Go and chess are both extremely simple board games to learn, but clearly they're not no-skill or no competition games.[/QUOTE] This isn't what he means at all. It really isn't and i'd think that was apparent. A game being simple has nothing to do with it's skill ceiling or average skill gap between players. His point is that CoD as a game has a method of skill minimization that causes the skill gaps between players to be smaller and the overall skill ceiling to be low. You don't have to learn many tricks or do much of anything to get good and get instant gratification at CoD. A game like Quake or Doom or UTK, they all have a high skill ceiling even if they are simple. Simple has nothing to do with skill gaps or ceilings and he's more complaining that because players aren't used to struggling a bit to play better, to close that skill gap, that CoDs to blame for this trend. [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;39924102]I remember quite a few Quake 3 competitions back in the day, and that game's a lot simpler than any CoD game. Where does this notion that simple = easy or simple = no competition come from? Go and chess are both extremely simple board games to learn, but clearly they're not no-skill or no competition games.[/QUOTE] Where did the notion get thrown out that a games simplicity has anything to do with it's potential skill ceilings
CoD can actually have a reasonably high skill ceiling if you remove the extraneous bullshit. Good players on CoD4 promod were insanely good. [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] judging a games skill curve off of pub play is unfair. CS is one of the highest-level competitive shooters ever but pub play looks terrible. Obviously CoD isn't impressive when it's 12 players thrown into matchmaking.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39924927]CoD can actually have a reasonably high skill ceiling if you remove the extraneous bullshit. Good players on CoD4 promod were insanely good. [editline]15th March 2013[/editline] judging a games skill curve off of pub play is unfair. CS is one of the highest-level competitive shooters ever but pub play looks terrible. Obviously CoD isn't impressive when it's 12 players thrown into matchmaking.[/QUOTE] perhaps but i think if you're going to compare skill groups you have to range it through out most of the skill ranges. I'm also not aware enough of CoD to know for sure if there's a higher skill ceiling than I've experienced.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39924902]This isn't what he means at all. It really isn't and i'd think that was apparent. A game being simple has nothing to do with it's skill ceiling or average skill gap between players. His point is that CoD as a game has a method of skill minimization that causes the skill gaps between players to be smaller and the overall skill ceiling to be low. You don't have to learn many tricks or do much of anything to get good and get instant gratification at CoD. A game like Quake or Doom or UTK, they all have a high skill ceiling even if they are simple. Simple has nothing to do with skill gaps or ceilings and he's more complaining that because players aren't used to struggling a bit to play better, to close that skill gap, that CoDs to blame for this trend.[/QUOTE] Everyone keeps saying CoD has a low skill ceiling and helps bad players without giving any credible arguments for [i]why[/i] that don't equally apply to other games. It has inaccurate guns and low recoil? So does Unreal. Fast-paced, fluid movement? Same for Quake. If anything, CoD has a number of mechanics that add additional complexity over some older shooters. You never crouched or went prone in Unreal Tournament, you didn't have to worry about what perks someone has in Doom, and you'd never be playing a round of Quake III and have to be concerned about the player who's doing best becoming more powerful by going on a long killing spree. Does it make CoD tactical or ~deep~? No, not really. But it adds more that a player has to learn, that an experienced player can use and exploit to his advantage. There's more to the game than just double jumping and railgunning. All this talk about 'skill ceilings' and 'skill gaps' sounds like a lot of meaningless fluff to try to justify simply not liking CoD.
CoD is a cancer. After reading this article I just snapped my PS3 copies of every CoD game I owned.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39924968]Everyone keeps saying CoD has a low skill ceiling and helps bad players without giving any credible arguments for [i]why[/i] that don't equally apply to other games. It has inaccurate guns and low recoil? So does Unreal. Fast-paced, fluid movement? Same for Quake. If anything, CoD has a number of mechanics that add additional complexity over some older shooters. You never crouched or went prone in Unreal Tournament, you didn't have to worry about what perks someone has in Doom, and you'd never be playing a round of Quake III and have to be concerned about the player who's doing best becoming more powerful by going on a long killing spree. Does it make CoD tactical or ~deep~? No, not really. But it adds more that a player has to learn, that an experienced player can use and exploit to his advantage. There's more to the game than just double jumping and railgunning. All this talk about 'skill ceilings' and 'skill gaps' sounds like a lot of meaningless fluff to try to justify simply not liking CoD.[/QUOTE] It has high default auto aim on consoles, and on PC has a higher bullet magneticism than a normal shooter it has a wide array of identical weapons that behave very similiarly to each other it utilizes a lot of 1hit kill weapons(knife, melee, throwing weapons) It encourages a mindset(outside of a few game modes) to run around like a headless chicken shooting the first person you see it rewards the winning player and pushes them further to victory "Skill ceilings and skill gaps" isn't fluff when it applies to other competitive games and it is not fluff when applied to a call of duty game. I have nothing against CoD. I have probably about 15 or 16 days played in actual game time on it across various different versions of it. I don't dislike it. I just don't think for online shooters, it's done a good job creating a skill based gameplay.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;39924975]CoD is a cancer. After reading this article I just snapped my PS3 copies of every CoD game I owned.[/QUOTE] I am going to mail them to Infinity Ward with a picture of my shit.
[QUOTE=xianlee;39910239]And MOBA's, the amount of kids or 'adults' that flame / rage at you for 'kill stealing xD' makes me mad, why are kills even important? as long as we fucking win the game I don't care. My last game of LoL I had something like 5 kills, 5 deaths and 26 assists as Ashé.. I couldn't give a fuck what people think, we won the game, that's all that matters.[/QUOTE] I've had kids go insane in Left 4 Dead 2 because I was "Stealing their kills" when in reality I was holding up their end of covering the squad as well as my own, since they were a massive vulnerability. Same goes for Battlefield Bad Company 2, or any team-cooperation based multiplayer game. I've honestly never based the amount of fun I am having in a multiplayer game on my personal score - I am always trying to assist, not build on my own bragging rights.
They fucked it up man
I hope the new Rising storms game can once again bring back RO2.
[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] You always make incredibly stupid responses to threads about mainstream populist gaming. The topic says nothing about the mechanics in a vacuum. The article is entirely about player reaction to the mechanics. He even spells out the reason it's immensely popular, his main area of concern is establishing a false ceiling and floor on the level of skill you can bring to bear, and he's 100% correct on how narrow it is, and he doesn't even bring up the [B]15 year old[/B] lag compensation model they further use to enforce this artificiality of progression. Whether RO2 sold well or not is actually completely immaterial and not even germane to the subject at hand, which is CoD mechanics are artificially simplistic and the gameplay equivalent of junk food, and the fact that the world's best CoD players tend to get smeared in other games with relative impunity by midcard contenders in other communities tends to make his theory hold some weight.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;39910552]What did CoD do that counterstrike didn't?[/QUOTE] Console
Odly enough, does anyone remember when people were saying that halo ruined a generation of gamers because of the whole "you have a shield that recharges" thing? I really hope people actualy do something this time
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;39925005]It has high default auto aim on consoles, and on PC has a higher bullet magneticism than a normal shooter it has a wide array of identical weapons that behave very similiarly to each other it utilizes a lot of 1hit kill weapons(knife, melee, throwing weapons) It encourages a mindset(outside of a few game modes) to run around like a headless chicken shooting the first person you see it rewards the winning player and pushes them further to victory "Skill ceilings and skill gaps" isn't fluff when it applies to other competitive games and it is not fluff when applied to a call of duty game. I have nothing against CoD. I have probably about 15 or 16 days played in actual game time on it across various different versions of it. I don't dislike it. I just don't think for online shooters, it's done a good job creating a skill based gameplay.[/QUOTE] Counter strike also has a bunch of similar/identical guns. I know most people use the m4 and ak47, but the other automatics are basically the same when it comes to spray and pray. It's not as varied as tf2, quake, or ut
CS is virtually the only modern FPS where every gun handles very differently. Very different recoil and spray patters for all the guns, you can't gun someone down from across the map with an MP5 like CoD.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;39931790]CS is virtually the only modern FPS where every gun handles very differently. Very different recoil and spray patters for all the guns, you can't gun someone down from across the map with an MP5 like CoD.[/QUOTE] uh, yeah you could. The Mp5 has low firepower but high accuracy so you're going to want to aim for the head and make your shots count. I know you're bullshitting and just blowing smoke up Valve's ass because you have less than 10 hours in CS:S. And you don't own any other iteration of CS. "gunning people down from across the map" happens with every weapon imaginable, you don't need to be 10 feet away from someone in CS to hit them. BF3 is doing just fine despite handing much differently than CoD. So what is Tripwire's excuse again? They released a half finished, unpolished game, with tons of problems and they got shit sales because of their own mistakes. Instead of going back and fixing their game they're pointing their fingers at CoD and saying they "ruined the genre". What kindergarden fucking bullshit. Get over yourself Tripwire. They're only getting this support because they're talking shit about big-bad CoD, and it's the cool ~edgy~ thing to do now.
I am a huge Tripwire fan, I bought RO:OST day it came on steam, and I have loved them ever since, but I still have to agree with this guy: [QUOTE=Aman VII;39908409]Coming from the devs who tried to casualize their game for COD kids and completely tanked their game by doing so. I feel bad for them but holy shit they couldn't have picked a worse move.[/QUOTE] They tried too much to appeal to the more mainstream FPS gamers with RO2, so much that it hurt their core playerbase. I don't regret buying RO2, because even though Tripwire are horrible at making proper releases, they still support their games properly with patches, new maps, gamemodes, vehicles and weapons long after release, but I still agree that RO2 could have been much better than it is now if they hadn't focused on getting a slice of the CoD market. RO:OST is still superior, I just played it for so long that I needed something fresh. The main proof of that they let down their core fanbase is that they released the classic gamemode about a year after launch. I loved the classic gamemode, but I still think it should have been the standard gamemode, and been in the game from launch. Instead of making the game more available, they should have had much larger maps and a few more vehicles, as that would have made the game much more unique.
[QUOTE=Bonde;39932108]I am a huge Tripwire fan, I bought RO:OST day it came on steam, and I have loved them ever since, but I still have to agree with this guy: They tried too much to appeal to the more mainstream FPS gamers with RO2, so much that it hurt their core playerbase. I don't regret buying RO2, because even though Tripwire are horrible at making proper releases, they still support their games properly with patches, new maps, gamemodes, vehicles and weapons long after release, but I still agree that RO2 could have been much better than it is now if they hadn't focused on getting a slice of the CoD market. RO:OST is still superior, I just played it for so long that I needed something fresh. The main proof of that they let down their core fanbase is that they released the classic gamemode about a year after launch. I loved the classic gamemode, but I still think it should have been the standard gamemode, and been in the game from launch. Instead of making the game more available, they should have had much larger maps and a few more vehicles, as that would have made the game much more unique.[/QUOTE] I want to love RO2 but for some reason after about 3 matches I get a random massive increase in frametimes and microstutter.
[QUOTE=catbarf;39924102]I remember quite a few Quake 3 competitions back in the day, and that game's a lot simpler than any CoD game. Where does this notion that simple = easy or simple = no competition come from? Go and chess are both extremely simple board games to learn, but clearly they're not no-skill or no competition games.[/QUOTE] CoD = Sprint around, see enemy, ironsights if enemy is two meters away from you, spray until one of you dies and get shot from the side. Quake 3 = Manage momentum, listen to environment, keep check on the item spawns, decide optimal time to engage opponent, projectile calculation and keep up the speed without crashing into a wall. Very simple.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39932120]I want to love RO2 but for some reason after about 3 matches I get a random massive increase in frametimes and microstutter.[/QUOTE] I haven't had that problem at all. Have you tried updating your drivers?
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;39931566]Counter strike also has a bunch of similar/identical guns. I know most people use the m4 and ak47, but the other automatics are basically the same when it comes to spray and pray. It's not as varied as tf2, quake, or ut[/QUOTE] Except that in CS; your bullets go all over the place and only hit things by chance if you fire full auto. And different guns require different tactics. In CoD I've noticed that the only effect of not holding the trigger down until your foe drops is that you will put out less damage per second and loose the firefight.
So hey, I'm an avid player of Black Ops 2 and I thought I should make a post in this thread. Yeah, I'm a gamer of probably and admittedly the worst franchise in the gaming industry, and I'm not cool with Treyarch. I think there's a lot of BS in the game that shouldn't be there, and a good portion of the community is garbage. The gameplay is watered down and repetitive. There's still a reason I play the game though, and it's because of the ease of just picking up the controller and shooting people in the face, and how it's more fun when you have access to a friend. I even got my mom into Call of Duty and play regularly with her and my other friends at school online - it's ridiculous really and should be saying something. I doubt my mom would be any good at any tactical shooter, let alone a game like Counter-Strike. With that said, I'm still a very big fan and player of Team Fortress 2, and other games when I'm at home on my PC. It's probably not evident on my Steam profile recently because I haven't had a lot of access to it, but Friday nights I play a WHOLE lotta TF2 (especially Mann vs Machine), Alien Swarm (we recently got into this), or other co-op video games with my family on the PC. I'm actually trying to get my brothers into Global Offensive (note that they refuse to play Call of Duty) because it's a fun, strategic game that I enjoy but can't really enjoy on my own. All of these games that actually requires some brain power requires some teammates I know, can communicate with, and have fun with, so it's probably not something I could play all the time. So, basically for me, when I'm feeling plain and want to shoot it up with friends, I go to Call of Duty. When I'm feeling down for a straight-up gaming night, I refer to what Valve has to offer. But I think that's saying something as well. Your run of the mill guy that isn't big on video games isn't going to want to really have a learning curve. In my mind this isn't a bad thing. That's a straight up target market decision that makes sense. It's unfortunately too successful, but I think there is a real way to combat it. Instead of trying to make a game more like Call of Duty, make a game more easy to pick up and get into. I'm not saying, "YEAH LET'S MAKE EVERY GUN OVERPOWERED", and I honestly have no suggestions in this department, but there should be a game where it's got a learning curve that isn't so brutal on the player. I swear, before I even played CoD, I had such a hard time getting into games like Team Fortress 2, and I feel that confusion at first was very justified. Took me months of tagging along with my brothers to get the hang of it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.