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

[nogitsune]

I'd say the success of COD has lead to stagnation of both the shooter genre and the game industry in general.

What would you say is stagnating exactly. What advances should you see that you aren't seeing? The more recent titles are as polished as they're going to get on current gen tech.

I'd say they are stagnating in creativity,most AAA developers keep making the same types of games with explosions,shooting or any of those combined.RPGs,stealth games,horror games,and many other non shooter genres are being homogenized into the same type of game simply because most developers/publishers want those COD sales numbers.Even when the next gen rolls in I expect more of the same when it comes the AAA game industry.

Honestly it's the pursuit of Graphics and the cost of having HD graphics. In the past, you only could have graphics so good whether it was PC or Console and so more money could go into other things like gameplay design or writing, companies liked to have good gfx because you could show them off easily. It's harder to show off great AI or a great story, so graphics would win out. With today's tech, you need an army to make sure every pixel is in place, every square inch looks good and it's ballooned the cost, not leaving a whole lot for other things.

Also FPS games have always had a follow the leader mentality and I kinda gave up on them when they all decided single player was for chumps, which was the flipping Arena shooter games (I don't have any more respect for Unreal Tournament than CoD, they both have the same problem of Multiplayer first and who gives a damn about single player.) The whole genre was everyone copying Doom, then it was quake, then it was half life, then it was UT and now it's CoD. The genre just needs to diversify.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.

Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?

 

[Skops]

Probably the biggest joke about competitive Call of Duty is that major tournaments ban the use of killstreaks. The biggest selling point to the games multiplayer is banned because it takes away the need for consistant teamwork and skill.

 

[loc978]

I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.

Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, it's just not competitive in comparison to old arena shooters.

I think the problem here has to do with the labeling of "filthy casual console peasants" (though there is one console shooter I enjoy. Dust 514 with a mouse and keyboard. There's no reason any shooter on any device with USB ports can't use that setup... except for lazy development).

...and of course simpler games are going to have a wider audience. The current audience for games like Call of Duty is far larger than the entire gaming scene was back in the 90s. Those of us who play fast-paced complex arena shooters were a niche back then, and we're a niche now (says the guy who refuses to play TF2 because the popular maps are too simple. Yes, I'm actually that elitist. I'm gonna go back to playing UT'99 with its million mods now).

 

[Erttheking]

I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.

Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, it's just not competitive in comparison to old arena shooters.

I think the problem here has to do with the labeling of "filthy casual console peasants".

...and of course simpler games are going to have a wider audience. The current audience for games like Call of Duty is far larger than the entire gaming scene was back in the 90s. Those of us who play fast-paced complex arena shooters were a niche back then, and we're a niche now.

Yeah, that does seem to be a bit of a problem. Not going to lie, I have been getting more and more into PC gaming as of late, but I still get really annoyed every time someone criticizes someone else for playing a console and not a PC, or for playing a game that was "dumbed down" and isn't a real game, ergo they are not a "real" gamer. I feel like there's just a bit of an elitism problem in general when it comes to gamers and that mindset has always just gotten on my nerves.

Heck, I've tried to get into Counter Strike GO but the game is just so damn brutally difficult and the community so toxic that I just can't dedicate myself to it. Does that make me a filthy causal?

 

[loc978]

I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.

Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, it's just not competitive in comparison to old arena shooters.

I think the problem here has to do with the labeling of "filthy casual console peasants".

...and of course simpler games are going to have a wider audience. The current audience for games like Call of Duty is far larger than the entire gaming scene was back in the 90s. Those of us who play fast-paced complex arena shooters were a niche back then, and we're a niche now.

Yeah, that does seem to be a bit of a problem. Not going to lie, I have been getting more and more into PC gaming as of late, but I still get really annoyed every time someone criticizes someone else for playing a console and not a PC, or for playing a game that was "dumbed down" and isn't a real game, ergo they are not a "real" gamer. I feel like there's just a bit of an elitism problem in general and that mindset has always just gotten on my nerves.

Heck, I've tried to get into Counter Strike GO but the game is just so damn brutally difficult and the community so toxic that I just can't dedicate myself to it. Does that make me a filthy causal?

...I'd say it makes you less than an absolutely hardcore FPS player... and so what? So am I these days. I don't have the time or patience to be hardcore into shooters the way I used to be.

Still, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a huge elitist. I don't play shooters with thumbsticks, because I find it to be terribly imprecise, and it bothers me when a game lets me score a hit when I know I missed (which covers about 90% of hits when using thumbsticks. I'm one of those who can win a match and feel like I lost the fight I was having with the game's horrible controls).

...but does that mean anyone who likes said controls is wrong? No. I still say the problem isn't gaming casually, the problem is applying the "casual" label so liberally and with such vitriol. Let people like what they like... just never try to claim a thumbstick shooter is an equal e-sport to something like CS... those guys are crazy. They'll gut you like a fish.

 

[Lightknight]

I'd say the success of COD has lead to stagnation of both the shooter genre and the game industry in general.

What would you say is stagnating exactly. What advances should you see that you aren't seeing? The more recent titles are as polished as they're going to get on current gen tech.

I'd say they are stagnating in creativity,most AAA developers keep making the same types of games with explosions,shooting or any of those combined.RPGs,stealth games,horror games,and many other non shooter genres are being homogenized into the same type of game simply because most developers/publishers want those COD sales numbers.Even when the next gen rolls in I expect more of the same when it comes the AAA game industry.

Do you believe that there is still significant creativity that can be brought into realistic shooters? I mean, Fantasy shooters have a lot they can do and screw around with from a portal gun to spinning sawblade guns that are actually dangerous and more effective than hand guns. But realistic shooters are thematically tied to being realistic.

So what kind of creativity would you like to see them do with that in mind? They've begun scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as top of the line tech is concerned so they MAY be able to do a futuristic take on warfare in the distant future rather than near future. But at that point you're talking about a different genre. Ultra futuristic is just sci-fy which isn't a bad thing but isn't COD or Battlefield.

You can only strive to get so realistic before you finally get realistic. Once you're there, any other step is a step away from the goal.

What the next gen will allow developers to do is apply minor tightening to graphics but the real prize will be improved physics rendering and AI. That will lead to better innovation as far as smarter bots. But that's just reaching a little closer to realism

If you're not happy with realistic shooters, you're going to have to do something other than COD or Battlefield. Gears of War, Halo, Resistance, these are titles for you. I personally like them all and appreciate both the realism of COD and the fantasy of the other titles. Complaining about COD because it's realistic and isn't changing away from realism would be almost like a fan of romantic comedies complaining about horror movies not being romantic or comedic enough for their tastes.

 

[fix-the-spade]

TLDR: Call of Duty has affected the shooting genre so much that I think future competitive shooters will follow in its footsteps and will have to dumb down its mechanics to appeal to the mass market of gamers in order to succeed.

Nope, we've seen how blindly copying CoD goes, it goes like Medal of Honor.

The success of Tribes and Planetside (and ARMA, Metro, Battlefield) show there is still a big market for games with a bit of challenge (or more than a bit). I think the future for FPS games leads away from from being as CoD-like as possible simply because those people who buy CoD in droves also fail to buy any other shooters in the twelve months in between. They've become an ingrained market that buys habitually the same way they do Fifa, Madden or even Dynasty warriors, they've not a good market to chase for a competitor.

I also don't see gaming as a whole going back to hit scan and auto aim just to ape Call of Duty, Battlefield has sold millions ignoring both, so it's not as if the mass market is repulsed by vaguely complex shooting mechanics.

I'd quite like to see a return on a larger scale from Unreal clones (or UT4), tanking damage and bouncing round the map like a deadly squash ball is much more gratifying than than the faux-realism that's in fashion now.

 

[Kroxile]

You mean there's a "smarted up" version?

 

[Lightknight]

You mean there's a "smarted up" version?

I always find it interesting when people demand innovation when there's not any clear area to motivate in.

 

[DSK-]

Shooters have been dumbed down since the release of Halo: Combat Evolved. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the only "active" competitive shooter that is truly "competitive" is Quake Live, which is basically Quake 3 with many new adjustments and features.

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

While other shooters are more focused on fine motor skills e.g. aiming and moving, CoD especially on HC is all about strategy, putting yourself in the correct positions, predicting what you're opponent is going to do etc.

While these elements exist in other shooters, the ease of death in CoD means they're essential if you want to win.

So what you're saying is that FPS games that rely on fine motor skills don't require intimate knowledge with the games' mechanics and strategic thinking, as opposed to COD?

Well, I'm sorry to say this contrary to your opinion, but my experience has been the complete opposite of what you have said, simply because of how many more variables a game like Quake or Unreal Tournament has and what you have to do in a game, particularly strategy wise.

Spoiler

In my experience I don't have to think in COD, because the game does so much for me; it gives me weapons the instant I spawn, I have perks that gives me various buffs, I have radar, I have killstreaks/scorestreaks. I don't have to time any power ups or health.

Of course, I'd fully agree that in regards to the damage output of the weapons it's far easier to be killed than in an arena FPS. At the end of the day it all boils down to keeping as steady firing position as humanly possible in order to get the drop on enemies and maintain accuracy.

 

[Lightknight]

Are we confusing "dumbed down" with "user friendly" here?

 

[GoaThief]

So, yeah, as a former professional who actually saw the entire scene going downhill

What was your major? Wonder if we've crossed paths before? Good comments by the way, I wholeheartedly agree.

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.

All I can see here is one big 'let's hate on CoD thread'. CoD is aimed at a more casual player base, but it works incredibly well in the 'easy to learn, hard to master' area.

No, it's not that at all. I consider CoD a great game for what it's worth and obviously has a place in the market - the problem is that anything that deviates from this, especially when it comes to competitive titles, are basically non-existent with hardly any players. This thread is more about the whys... for the record, I do not think CoD is hard to master at all. That said, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all merely that it should not be considered a competitive shooter in any way.

Nope, because competitive players play competitive games and if anyone "seriously" plays pro shooters they'd play Counter-Strike or TF2

I'd say those two being considered the only professional choices is just endemic of how far the genre has fallen.

The level of wank in this thread is getting pretty extreme.

"People keep playing Call of Duty and having fun. How dare they?! Waaaah!"

Actually, the tone of the thread only took a dive when you chimed in. Perhaps I could be bothered to address any points you made but I really can't be bothered as I think it would be an exercise in futility.

I'm sensing more than a little bit of elitism in this thread. I really miss the days where I could like Halo AND TF2.

Yeah, COD may not be the most complex game ever. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with liking it in and of itself, see above. It's more about the effect it's had on competitive shooters, and why no studio will really consider making them. Just see the recent rehash of Nexuiz. That's probably the closest we got to a new arena shooter in a good decade.

 

[bjj hero]

Everyones pouring scorn on cod. I guess thats the cool thing to do because its popular.

If its as no skill as everyones saying with little between the good and the average players then why are the "good" players consistantly going 25-2? Hows knowing your map and using and using the right weapon for he job better than the tool on quake ll who camped the rocket launcher?

There just seems to be a lot of pretentious elitism in this thread.

 

[TrevHead]

Whoever mentioned that the problem lies with most gamers who play MP FPS are all that competitive, they aren't that skilled and have very little motivation to improve, that's why a game like CoD is perfect for them.

My only problem is that casual MP games take away the all the scrubs and cannon fodder from some of the more competitive games and makes been a noob those games a pain because the skill ceiling is higher with not many other players of the same ability to play against. (i'm talking about MP games in general not just FPS)

You mean there's a "smarted up" version?

I always find it interesting when people demand innovation when there's not any clear area to motivate in.

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.

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.

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.

 

[wulf3n]

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"?

 

[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.