With the newer games you have to think ahead but you have less time to do it. I enjoy the fast paced action of them.
Are all recent online shooters aimed to ADHD kids?
- Thread starter Cranberry3
- Start date
No, they aim them at ADULTS who have lives beyond the screen and frankly don't want the investment required in tactical games. Twitch shooters like CoD are pick up and play with constant progression regardless of skill, kills/deaths, wins/losses etc. They give people gratification without effort and consequently make for a mindnumbing experience for gamers of yesteryear, who's only target and reward for hours of gaming was a greater win to loss ratio (and kills to death).Anthraxus said:
Irresponsible parents and shop owners who give pre-pubescent kids these games that aren't made for them, should be blamed for the presence of "impatient", "ADHD" kids... not the developers.
Please, if you're going to dismantle the current generation of games, try to start with a real problem.
As for the OP. Shooters have always been on a lower tier of wits when it came to competitiveness. Look at the best players from the old Deathmatch era with power ups and weapon drops. What propels them over the typical gamer isn't a mind of a tactical genius, or a profound knowledge of the games mechanics. It is precision and mobility (skill). Power ups, if anything, completely numbed the tactics in the game, dragging it down to "I got invul, time for lulz" or "Double Damage Rape face time". That is exactly the same kind of shit that CoD promotes with it's perk system (having not played MW3, I can't be sure if that has changed).Cranberry3 said:
Even in team games of that era, like Counter Strike and the classic Team Fortress, ultimately it boiled down to which team had the better skilled players. Capturing the flag or stopping the bomb was seemingly incidental.
The industry has NOT changed, in essence, at all in regards to shooters and ESPECIALLY since the Xbox era (where I, personally, say the industry took a turn for the worst for about half a decade and hasn't recovered yet, but hell I'm just really cranky right now). The same shit just got a new coat of paint, and someone made it more accessible. Also, the big brands are whoring out on "REALISTIC" damage. That's it. (and fuck that).
I have a lot of gripes with the current standard in games. "Dumbing down" (streamlining for those who care) is not one of them... anything that removes monotonous chores and OCD level graph sheets is a plus in my opinion (that is work, not gaming, though I am partial to that stuff from time to time). But When I buy 2 different games (same genre), I want 2 different experiences... the industry, especially in shooters, has failed to offer me 2 alternatives for a long time. Damn Modern Warfare and all those who thought it was the shit and worth emulating ad nauseam (bloody Producers). A great game it may have been... but 3 years later, those same mechanics have sullied the genre.
EDIT: Apologies for the disgusting overuse of brackets and commas. It's late and I couldn't be arsed retyping.
Oh boy.. I had no idea. I'm sorry. I hope you will feel well in the near future. After all.. games are just games.mindlesspuppet said:I feel like you're so far off base on this one that it's pretty much a joke. I too am nearing 30. I grew up with Quake. No other FPS really, it might be hard for some younger people to conceive, but back in the day the Quake franchise overwhelmingly dominated online multiplayer, there really wasn't much in the way of alternatives until Unreal Tournament hit.Cranberry3 said:Hello people.
I´m nearing my 30's and I feel I can't enjoy online shooters the way I used to. I used to love games like Mech Assault and Crimson Skies for Xbox (mainly Mech Assault). So what was better in those games than online shooting games today?
In those games, you had the opportunity to think about your next move before attacking your foe. If your health/stats were low, you wouldn´t go after a guy who had just finished off another enemy, and had picked up his/her power ups. Because you'd know it wouldn't end well. On the other hand, if you had just witnessed an even fight and the winning half hadn't picked up the power ups yet, you would definitely go after the winner because his/her health would be low.
And also, it used to take a while to kill an emeny if both parties had full health. It required some smooth dancing and facing your enemy for more than 3 seconds. These days it's just one shot and that's it. So mother******* boring imho. I like to play games when I've had a couple of beers. It's one of my ways to relax. But games today... you have to be super sharp to get your kills. Reaction times are everything. Sure you can argue that you need to know the right spots and weapons and bla bla bla... But it would be nice if there was a game (or even games) for casual gamers who still enjoy competition but value tactics more than reaction times and don't want to spend hours upon hours to learn all the perfect camping spots and getting exp points.
Bottom line.. screw you gaming industry. You've left out us mech-loving-slow-killing-tactic-orientated old bastards
That being sad... fucking Quake. Hyper fast, carry 10 weapons, rocket jumping, no zoom or aim down sight, Quake. If anything our generations games were made for people with ADHD. I play modern FPSs and get bored by the amount of walking I have to do between kills, ducking out of cover, etc. I want to grapple the ceiling, hit you with a rail slug from across the map, switch to my rocket launcher, rocket jump over a ledge, and shot gun enemies as hit the ground, and I want to do this all in the course of 5 seconds time.
Newer shooters have gone great strides to make strategy and tactics be a more important part of gameplay, they do this so less skilled players can still be competitive. Old shooters relied heavily on twitch, if you didn't have it, you failed and failed hard. Consider that in the mid 90s the most popular game mode was deathmatch. Now 99% of multiplayer is team oriented.
So no, you're just flat out wrong here. Our generation's games were made for the hyper-active kids. New games are slow paced.
I hardly think quick deaths means that it's a dumbed down shooter. If you look at the more "realistic" military shooter games, like Arma or Rainbow Six, they're all very easy to die in. When it comes to multiplayer however, I think the problem is coupling quick deaths with respawning death math, as opposed to team and objective based gameplay, where everyone has one life per round.
I suppose i could have elaborated my point. Halo leans more towards needing quick reflexes because of its "arcadey" nature. Team tactics are minimal, you can easily "lone wolf" a multiplayer match and do fine. The most complex thing tactically would be riding together in the same vehicle.Skin said:
Battlefield may be no socom or ghost recon. But IT DOES have more tactical options, yes created by vehicles. Classes like the assault and sniper, do not really have the equipment to take out a vehicle. Engineers do, and other players who are not engineers rely on them to get rid of the vehicles. "Lone wolfing" on the game is much more difficult because of vehicles and quick death. Medics can assist the team by healing them and reviving them. Every player can also "spot" enemies to help others target them.
Halo has none of this, bar vehicles. But every player has the ability to take down a vehicle by themselves by finding a powerful weapon or jacking the driver.
Not hating on halo, halo is great in a wholly different way to battlefield. Just sharing my views, no need to jump down my throat.
Holy shit you are so off base when it comes to competitive FPS. We'll take Quake Live as an example. Competitive 1v1 is not about how accurate you are with your weapon, not at all. It's about map control. Doing so means you have to track your enemy's movements, and fill in the blanks with guesstimates based on their tendencies. You modify your play style based on your strengths. If you're very accurate with your weapons, you can afford to take risky shots. To compete in Quake Live, you must also have a very profound knowledge of game mechanics. The obvious strafe jumping is difficult to master. Using corner glides and other techniques to shave off critical seconds in your route to your destination.Ragsnstitches said:
The purpose of map control is to deprive the opponent from acquiring items. A good map has well planned weapon and armor spawns to ensure that no single part of the map is given too much favor. Staying close to the 100 armor power up spawn the whole game will get you killed. Depending on the maps, 1v1 Quake Live matches may have very little actual killing. Some of the smaller and more open maps (such as hectic in the featured video) promotes a lot of fighting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DreDIhnK-co
I agree with you with regards to CoD. The removal of spawning items around the map just removes a whole metagame that helps make Quake so awesome. Counter-Strike is a strange beast. Clutch plays and accuracy plays a good role. The tactics come in trying to figure out what the enemy team is going to do and taking steps to counter that.
I have a bit of an uncanny valley when it comes to FPS pacing. You've got tactical shooters on the initial ascent; Halo, Battlefields and the sorts, which are as fast paced as I like it along the first peak, then you dip down into the valley itself, past BF3 (which clings onto the side for being a little too fast paced) into CoD and Gears. Climbing up the taller side of the valley as we continue to get faster-paced, we near the peak where we've got the original UT's and Quakes sitting atop the chart as king and queen of fast, demanding, skilful FPS.
I would gladly pay £40 for a slower, tactical FPS. One harnessing the best from Ghost Recon, SWAT & Rainbow Six. But developers and publishers alike only want to go with the flow, the tried and tested, down the illuminated route that offers little in the way of exploration. Shame, really. They're missing an unsaturated market, hidden away from the common path, to try and compete in an over-saturated one. They keep that up and they'll find themselves losing consumer confidence; if it's not already happening. Know what happened the last time consumers lost confidence in the industry? '82 industry crash that all but killed off gaming. I know I have lost some confidence, and I'm pretty damn sure others have done too considering the growing resentment amongst gamers against the industry, and publishers in specific.
Nevertheless, what happened to the good old days of slow paced, tactical shooters like the original Rainbow Six's? Or SWAT 4's? Brothers in Arms was close to it, a nice modern iteration; but too short and not free form enough. Operation Flashpoint is slow, but I find it tries to rush you along with unseen mission timers - and the fact that the AI's superiority to a human via line-of-sight makes it pretty darn impossible in the later levels.
Instead ofCode:"Similarity" it's "Pace". Instead of "Familiarity" it's "Bvenged's Likeness".
I would gladly pay £40 for a slower, tactical FPS. One harnessing the best from Ghost Recon, SWAT & Rainbow Six. But developers and publishers alike only want to go with the flow, the tried and tested, down the illuminated route that offers little in the way of exploration. Shame, really. They're missing an unsaturated market, hidden away from the common path, to try and compete in an over-saturated one. They keep that up and they'll find themselves losing consumer confidence; if it's not already happening. Know what happened the last time consumers lost confidence in the industry? '82 industry crash that all but killed off gaming. I know I have lost some confidence, and I'm pretty damn sure others have done too considering the growing resentment amongst gamers against the industry, and publishers in specific.
Ya know, I really hate this kind of argument. Oh you're not happy? Well screw you, it's not all about you , GTFO of my industry.Hosker said:
Just because someone is not in the majority does not mean their opinion and displeasure with the state of things doesn't matter.
I don't understand...
Why not just play what games do appeal to you instead of insulting the industry, the consumers and children with attention disorders?
Just find a handful of people who also like a game and play with what you can get. And if that's not enough, you should try expanding your horizons with an open mind, or reconsider how much time you spend on video games, if that's not enough.
Personally, I'm not much for FPSs, and only really enjoy them when teamwork is involved. Co-op Halo, many Valve multiplayer games, etc. Most FPSs could do little to appeal to me any less, from unpleasant visuals to hyped-up cometitiveness and gameplay that I'll never be able to experience because I get too uninterested in a single game to become particularly skilled. But I take what I like and leave it at that. Is it wrong for the industry to target more competitive play, when I find co-op to be vastly more enjoyable? Of course not.
The thread has very politely offered you a variety of alternatives and well thought out explanations of the merits and shortfalls of contemporary games; how about a little respect instead of this hostile attitude you've been flaunting, OP?
Why not just play what games do appeal to you instead of insulting the industry, the consumers and children with attention disorders?
Just find a handful of people who also like a game and play with what you can get. And if that's not enough, you should try expanding your horizons with an open mind, or reconsider how much time you spend on video games, if that's not enough.
Personally, I'm not much for FPSs, and only really enjoy them when teamwork is involved. Co-op Halo, many Valve multiplayer games, etc. Most FPSs could do little to appeal to me any less, from unpleasant visuals to hyped-up cometitiveness and gameplay that I'll never be able to experience because I get too uninterested in a single game to become particularly skilled. But I take what I like and leave it at that. Is it wrong for the industry to target more competitive play, when I find co-op to be vastly more enjoyable? Of course not.
The thread has very politely offered you a variety of alternatives and well thought out explanations of the merits and shortfalls of contemporary games; how about a little respect instead of this hostile attitude you've been flaunting, OP?
Okay, I had a response but I accidentally hit a button and lost it all... I'll instead, give my response in bullet points.Zer_ said:
*I was under the impression the OP was specifically talking about regular, public MP and not professional/Clan level tournaments (despite my mentioning of Higher Skill and Competitive scenes). In that case I have to agree with you, there are nuances I can't ignore. When you reach a certain plateau in skill and are against another person who is similar in skill, these nuances will play a greater role (map control/knowledge, awareness of game flow etc).
*But when I play public matches, which I do FAR more often then partaking in tournaments (just don't have the time to allocate to a full fledge tourny). It is essentially the same story for every FPS ever made... Good players, trounce bad players and the team who have the most good players usually wins. The features that lend to this advantage are Primarily Shooting and Moving better then the others, with Map control and match flow awareness a distant second. As I said earlier, the successes are almost always incidental and in favour of the team with the most kills (exceptions, of course, do exist).
*Though I hate CoD, it's not for it's Multi Player or it's core mechanics (regen health and low damage thresholds etc.)... but rather it's shallow addictiveness (rewards for doing jack shit). Just like Quake 3 or Team Fortress or Unreal Tournament, CoD has it's own nuances that actually make it a decent and competitive game... that is, when Perks are disabled and the weapon selection is narrowed down to eliminate significant, off the bat advantages. It sickens me that CoDs "heritage" is shallow gratification and it's one of the biggest influences in the FPS genre in the last 5 years.
*Nice Video