Personally i think that it (For the most part) does.
But there are some exceptions.
If you are playing Halo for example, you can shoot just as accurately running 30 miles an hour as standing still, so in that game i don't think so, but since it usually takes 2 shots it is more acceptable.
Playing Team Fortress 2 i believe it is absolutely acceptable, after all, you need to charge your shots, heads are (Relatively) small, and you usually wound up deaf from random Demoman/Solder spam, and your totally boned at close range. and even if yo find a good spot, the second you kill someone, they get a snapshot of exactly where you are.
Now the big one, Call of duty 4/MW2
It depends, Demolition, S&D, Domination, CTF, its definitely fair, they are objective games with need of a static defense.
Headquarters, its understandable but annoying, but usually not practical with the constantly switching objective and chaotic spawns, for the most part you can avoid half the map while still getting to the objectives in time
In 3rd-Person games with ACOG, God no, that crap is basically a little "Fuck You" dot. Its 100% accurate 1-shot kills WHILE MOVING WITHOUT STEADY AIM (I am aware that i just notified dozens of people of that trick, but i don't play 3rd person so HA!)
Hardcore games its a little double ended, i can see why staying in the same bush is attractive, with all the SMG's running around spraying their way to victory, but with no killcam its harder to believe it is balanced
So what do you all think? Acceptable? In what games is it acceptable? Am i talking out of my ass?
Also, if you use the Barrett, you suck at sniping, PERIOD.
You can still be a good player, but not a good sniper
Edit 1:
I dont have as much trouble with spawn camping in MW2, getting killed fast, yes, but someone sitting outside spawn points? never (Except Highrise, fuck Highrise)
And wow, EVERY option got one vote for awhile there on the poll
But there are some exceptions.
If you are playing Halo for example, you can shoot just as accurately running 30 miles an hour as standing still, so in that game i don't think so, but since it usually takes 2 shots it is more acceptable.
Playing Team Fortress 2 i believe it is absolutely acceptable, after all, you need to charge your shots, heads are (Relatively) small, and you usually wound up deaf from random Demoman/Solder spam, and your totally boned at close range. and even if yo find a good spot, the second you kill someone, they get a snapshot of exactly where you are.
Now the big one, Call of duty 4/MW2
It depends, Demolition, S&D, Domination, CTF, its definitely fair, they are objective games with need of a static defense.
Headquarters, its understandable but annoying, but usually not practical with the constantly switching objective and chaotic spawns, for the most part you can avoid half the map while still getting to the objectives in time
In 3rd-Person games with ACOG, God no, that crap is basically a little "Fuck You" dot. Its 100% accurate 1-shot kills WHILE MOVING WITHOUT STEADY AIM (I am aware that i just notified dozens of people of that trick, but i don't play 3rd person so HA!)
Hardcore games its a little double ended, i can see why staying in the same bush is attractive, with all the SMG's running around spraying their way to victory, but with no killcam its harder to believe it is balanced
So what do you all think? Acceptable? In what games is it acceptable? Am i talking out of my ass?
Also, if you use the Barrett, you suck at sniping, PERIOD.
You can still be a good player, but not a good sniper
Edit 1:
With the major one shot kill sniper rifles, you should only need one shotsasquatch99 said:And how does using the Barrett mean you suck at sniping, period?
I was talking about normal camping,DeadlyYellow said:Are you referring to regular camping or spawn camping?
I dont have as much trouble with spawn camping in MW2, getting killed fast, yes, but someone sitting outside spawn points? never (Except Highrise, fuck Highrise)
And wow, EVERY option got one vote for awhile there on the poll