Poll: Will the competitive side of the "shooter" genre eventually be dumbed down?

[Clowndoe]

How does "I can get killed almost instantly" = "Dumbed Down"?

Low health doesn't "dumbed down" in of itself, but it does kill competition. Since you die so fast if one player spots the other first he wins, pretty much regardless of skill. Where I think it's "dumbed down" is that there isn't much to do besides having a good grasp on where the other player might be at any time by learning maps, which isn't even that helpful given the number of places the other player could be.

Compare that to Quake for example. The other player may have gotten the drop on you but even if he hits you with a rocket launcher you probably survived the first encounter. That gives you time to consider different things, like whether you have the guns to fight back, whether you should run and avoid confrontation to stock up on ammo and armor or try to fight back. You can use verticality to be better able to evade or chase down your opponent, or to give you a chance at splash damage if you miss your opponent. You have a variety of weapons that work in different situations to consider, and getting hits with those weapons is a lot harder given the speed, distance of engagement, and behavior of some of the weapons. In CoD, an encounter typically lasts less than 5 seconds, if that.

OT: I don't think you can kill competitive shooters. People have been playing Quake, UT and CS 1.6 long enough to prove that the competitive scene doesn't follow the games. Call of Duty could be the only series that gets a release for years, but a certain group of players would just stick to the old favorites.

 

[wulf3n]

Since you die so fast if one player spots the other first he wins, pretty much regardless of skill.

While that's true half the time, that's kinda what the games about. You say regardless of skill, but that's part of the skill. Seeing them before they see you.

Where I think it's "dumbed down" is that there isn't much to do besides having a good grasp on where the other player might be at any time by learning maps, which isn't even that helpful given the number of places the other player could be.

Not just maps, but knowing players. Understanding your opponent.
Will they flank? Will they rush? Will they camp? What perks are they likely to have? What guns are they likely to have? etc.

Compare that to Quake for example. The other player may have gotten the drop on you but even if he hits you with a rocket launcher you probably survived the first encounter. That gives you time to consider different things, like whether you have the guns to fight back, whether you should run and avoid confrontation to stock up on ammo and armor or try to fight back. You can use verticality to be better able to evade or chase down your opponent, or to give you a chance at splash damage if you miss your opponent. You have a variety of weapons that work in different situations to consider, and getting hits with those weapons is a lot harder given the speed, distance of engagement, and behavior of some of the weapons. In CoD, an encounter typically lasts less than 5 seconds, if that.

All I'm seeing is two different types of shooters.

Also I wonder if those who think it's "Dumbed Down" have played anything other than Pub matches. If all you've played is Pub TDM or god forbid Pub FFA of course it's not going to be competitive.

CoD is as much about teamwork as it is individual skill.

 

[GoaThief]

I think those who consider CoD to be "dumbed down" are just upset about having to actually think in a shooter to be competitive.

Clearly spoken as someone who has not played something like Quake at a competitive level. The games referred to earlier on feature this massively as map control and the like are often what competitive games boil down to when all the basics are relatively even and taken as a given.

So why the hate for CoD? How has it been "Dumbed Down"?

How does "I can get killed almost instantly" = "Dumbed Down"?

Did you not read the part where I said CoD was great? Where is the hate?

I don't believe CoD is "dumbed down", you're attempting to push those words, not me. I do believe, well KNOW, that CoD is leagues away from requiring anywhere near the amount of skills required for top level competitve arena shooters (as an example). All those points you mentioned apply to competitive shooters and then on top of that you're adding yet more levels such as advanced movement skills, spawn timers of health, armour and weapons, etc. This is how I know you've not played at a high level in aforementioned shooters, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that but please take note of those of us that have as it seems from our perspective that you're arguing night is day and vice versa.

 

[Lightknight]

Well I certainly think 3D shooters over use aiming with hitscan weapons, with the popular ones atleast ignoring slow moving projectiles with the ability to quickly dodge or reflect attacks.

There's also room for highscore systems in MP shooters imo, not just about killing ppl with style like Bulletstorm but shmup chaining that the SP FPS Xotic does. Or Hell what about an Ikaruga polarity system, different colour weapons/ or bullets do more or less damage depending on what colour the target is.

Ok, but those are basic gameplay mechanics that have been done in different ways for decades. Many of those don't work well in a realistic-type shooter. Picking up a lightning polarity gun in COD would completely work against the motif of the game. But you seem to already acknowledge that in your post. COD has its niche, games like Bulletstorm,SP FPS Xotic and Ikaruga have theirs. FPS is a big enough title to have sub-genres and I think it's time we understand it.

Imo it's not that there is any fresh avenues for the genre to go down, it's that most gamers hate complexity and just want a gun and a simple target to shoot at.

If that's what most gamers want, then why is it a bad thing. Why get in the way of what the player is trying to do so needlessly? There's not that much complexity in the real world. Shooting in the real world might as well be pointing and clicking just as much. Significant complexity is just poor user interface. Have you ever gone back and played the original 007? I played it about a month ago. It is awful now. The interface does nothing but get in the way and the 3D world was as simple as possible.

I personally would love devs to start to rediscover some of the 3D shooter elements from the PS1/2 era before Halo took off and every 3D shooter became a std FPS or 3rd person covershooter. While all the more interesting and quirky subgenres of 3D shooters like rail shooters became straddled with naff motion controls or the limitations of the 3DS.

I can't think of any title that would actually be that enjoyable anymore. Halo was a huge hit because you could point the gun and shoot. Just like in real life. It quickly pummeled existing titles because the interface actually made sense and made controlling your avatar a lot simpler. It was a huge leap forward on the UI front and going back would be a significant mistake to most gamers.

 

[wulf3n]

Did you not read the part where I said CoD was great?

I did not. I'm guessing it wasn't addressed at me.

please take note of those of us that have as it seems from our perspective that you're arguing night is day and vice versa.

All I'm saying is CoD focuses on the strategic elements of the shooter as opposed to the fine motor skills. Which is why I find it ironic to say it's been "dumbed down"

I don't see why you're getting so defensive. I made no attack on those that competitively play other shooters or imply that other shooters are any less/any more competitive than CoD.

What I was implying is that people that complain about CoD not being competitive are usually the players that suck because they don't have any situational awareness and get upset because they can't compensate with other skills like they can in other shooters.

But anyone that is truly good at games like Quake and CS will be good at CoD and won't have that problem.

 

[Ticklefist]

I don't think real actual competitive games have much to worry about. They're still successful doing the same things after the big console shooter boom that they were before. Consoles games aren't even part of the equation for a lot of us. I'm inclined to go all PC Master Race and suggest that nobody truly interested in competitive gaming is willing to do it with a gamepad.

 

[Lightknight]

Did you not read the part where I said CoD was great?

I did not. I'm guessing it wasn't addressed at me.

please take note of those of us that have as it seems from our perspective that you're arguing night is day and vice versa.

All I'm saying is CoD focuses on the strategic elements of the shooter as opposed to the fine motor skills. Which is why I find it ironic to say it's been "dumbed down"

I don't see why you're getting so defensive. I made no attack on those that competitively play other shooters or imply that other shooters are any less/any more competitive than CoD.

What I was implying is that people that complain about CoD not being competitive are usually the players that suck because they don't have any situational awareness and get upset because they can't compensate with other skills like they can in other shooters.

But anyone that is truly good at games like Quake and CS will be good at CoD and won't have that problem.

Yes, refinement is not dumbed down. Dumbed down is if it aims for you and tells you when to pull the trigger. Heck, even then everyone would still be on the same playing field and it's just make excelling at it all the harder.

 

[Ticklefist]

The most competitive shooters out there require little more than awareness of surroundings, character placement, character movement, skilled aiming, and solid improvisational skills. I don't think a game can take those elements away from the player and still be successful.

What I should have said instead of going all "consoles games arent' competitive derp" a minute ago.

 

[Lightknight]

I don't think real actual competitive games have much to worry about. They're still successful doing the same things after the big console shooter boom that they were before. Consoles games aren't even part of the equation for a lot of us. I'm inclined to go all PC Master Race and suggest that nobody truly interested in competitive gaming is willing to do it with a gamepad.

As long as everyone playing along also has the gamepad, then sure. But I'd consider the mouse to be a true advantage and it would be unfair if even one player had a mouse when others had a controller.

If everyone has the same input then it doesn't much matter if it's a mouse or a controller.

 

[GoaThief]

I don't see why you're getting so defensive. I made no attack on those that competitively play other shooters or imply that other shooters are any less/any more competitive than CoD.

I'm not being defensive at all, just having a regular discussion as you would down the pub after a few ales. Try imaging me saying it in a jovial voice with a smile? Sorry if I'm not communicating that very well, I'm typing from a mobile and thus tend to be quite concise instead of fluffing it out with loads of flowery goodness.

 

[laggyteabag]

Doubt it. As soon as a genre gets easier, or a particular genre or sub-genre is no longer as popular as it used to be, there is always that little niche audience looking for a new game based around that particular genre/ sub-genre. One example would be arena based FPS games, very little games based around this sub-genre are made right now and there is still quite a large audience for these games which is where games such as Red Eclipse or Shootmania Storm come in to try and capture that little niche audience, or (more ambitiously) make the sub-genre successful and more popular again.

All in all, whilst some games may be "dumbed down" to "widen the target audience", there will always be games that will try to capture the golden days of that genre.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

First, complexity is not synonymous with depth.

That said, I actually believe the converse is what is occurring: competitive play is leading games which have competitive aspects to become simpler and more constrained in the level of creativity and adaptiveness needed to win. I'm reminded at this point of Halo's "competitive" play, which in my opinion was one of the most dissonant, contradictory, and outright dickish competitive scenes thus far, and conversations I've had in the past with members of that community.

One of the first things that happened in Halo 3's competitive play, was to use Forge to remove physics objects from maps. The perennial answer was that they were removed to eliminate "cheap", "lucky", and/or "no skill" kills that would allow a lesser-skilled opponent to prevail over a higher-skilled one. I played Halo 3 as much as anyone else, easily enough to know "lucky" kills with physics objects were an infinitesimally-small, inconsequential, number of total kills, and to do it consistently -- let alone consistently enough to sway the outcome of a match -- took a lot of practice, creativity, and improvisational skills -- and were easily enough avoided by a player with a modicum of situational awareness. Not only that, but you also had the underlying assumption kills with physics objects cannot ever be performed intentionally, one would only assume to be because the pro players couldn't do it, and if the pro players couldn't then it must be a fluke when and if it does happen.

Forget lessons like "don't stand near explosive barrels", which in my experience was the overwhelming source of these "cheap, no-skill" kills about which "pro" gamers complained so heavily -- if you made that glaring a mistake, you deserve to be punished for it.

And, even if that's the case, then why were the power weapons allowed in competitive matches, and why were tactics like reload canceling not prohibited? The answer is, in my opinion, simple enough to deduce -- competitive gaming uses a strict, narrow, and arbitrary construction of "skill" that in many cases is aggressively exclusionary to higher-order thinking. Does something exist creative players can exploit, that requires adaptation and creativity to counter? ban it. Is it unorthodox and difficult to learn, regardless how effective? ban it. Is a character, map, or weapon unconventional that requires thinking outside the box to play or counter? straight down to the bottom tier, and/or banned.

That's not to say some components are so unorthodox, or overpowered, to render any sort of fair, baseline play impossible -- merely that "competitive" communities are so fervent to defend their definition of "skill" they will exclude or ostracize things that challenge it.

So, when developers see "competitive" communities manipulating the games' "rules" to suit their needs, they mistake this as a desire by the game-playing community as a whole for a simpler and more constrained game, and design to those specifications.

 

[Areloch]

Honestly, if I had to pick a single area where you could fairly definitively call CoD "dumbed down" it'd be some of the higher-tier killstreaks as of MW2 onward.

Lets give players a weapon that flies high above the map, meaning only players that happen to have a specific loadout with a rocket launcher can fight back, and give the weapon rapid fire, high explosive shells that do crazy splash damage, making it hard to miss.


...then we highlight everyone so you don't even really need to look.

If that's not starting to brush into the 'dumbed down' territory, then we have some...unique definitions happening.

Is CoD's core gameplay pretty strategic in a meta sense? Sure. But once you start getting into weapons where you'd be hard pressed to discern them from a wallhack, I start questioning.