Treblaine said:
Lucky Godzilla said:
So what you are saying is the only way a competitive FPS can be good is if it is a hardcore skill based shooter. Did you ever pause to think the reason why CoD got so mainstream was because that's precisely what it is not? What Call of Duty has done an amazing job with is creating a game where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment. THe game offers enough depth in the unlock and metagame as well as shockingly, reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map. But at the same time your random joe can pop the disc in, play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.
You know what I said.
Yes, I know that's why COD became a success, but that doesn't make it a good thing. Slot machines making loads of money doesn't mean slot machines make for better games than chess.
I am saying if you had any idea what the alternatives were and were open to trying them you wouldn't tolerate COD. It is terrible, but what have you got to compare it to?
Well, considering that you have started out your argument by making a massive assumption about my gaming preferences, I can already tell this is going to be a absolutely wonderful discussion.
ugh
Besides, good and bad are fundamentally flawed. You treat your own OPINION as if it is the definitive unshakable measure of value that all of us should judge games on. Shockingly opinions differ, what you despise someone else will adore.
Besides, I find your comparison of a game of chance and a game of strategy slightly absurd. Both slot machines and chess succeed in what they set out to be. They know what they are, and drawing a comparison between the two is a tad absurd considering they appeal to entirely different kinds of people.
where both the hardcore and casual can find enjoyment.
By what definition of "hardcore"?!?!
Competitive gamers are utterly derisive of COD. Hardcore for COD is not hardcore in any kind of broader terms.
And "What Call of Duty has done an amazing job of" is deluding casual that they are hardcore because they can game the system slightly in their favour by cheap and cowardly attitude in games, or just getting a string of luck scanning in the direction they pop out from. It's not about skill, it's about exploiting the inherent unfairness.
I wasn't aware that all hardcore gamers play competitively. True all competitive players are hardcore gamers, but not all hardcore gamers are competitive. Besides considering the rather healthy competitive circuit that has formed around the cod games, I'd say not all competitive players are derisive of it.
O.K now let's look at how you define "the inherent unfairness" that is truly unique to cod, and how.
- "whoever sees the other first, with all likelihood gets the kill."
Oh so whoever sees the other first will with all likelihood gets the kill, as is the case with roughly 90% of FPSgames.
You must be joking.
And that's about it really, so according to you and fast TTK game is inherently bad because people can get the drop on one another.
The game offers enough depth in the unlock
Depth? Meaningless depth. The unlock weapons that are almost totally indistinct. From sub machine-guns to machine pistol to assault rifles to light machine guns, they are all high damage, high rate of fire weapons. It's just several dozen reskins of a Quake Lightning-Gun with quad-damage.
Very few weapons break the mould significantly without being nerfed with the clear intention of saying they shouldn't be used other than generic full auto weapon.
The perks are nerfed and have to be because they can be used in so many unbalancing combinations. The "Create a class" system is inherently flawed by how it allows so many positives without negatives. Games serious about balancing have set classes. It's all good on the surface but any hardcore gamer very quickly sees the flaws. The perks don't change gameplay much.
And that's the problem, YOU the player, your skill, that is not progressing. Your weapons and accessories and perks are upgraded in almost entirely superficial or trivial way. It can't escape from how the weapons all fire so fast and are so powerful they are almost identical.
The depth should be in the gameplay, using the weapons and items in more and more advanced ways with new weapons being used in different ways, often to enhance your area of expertise.
Christ where do I begin with this one?
O.K the fact that you lumped CoD LMG's and SMG's into the exact same pool is more telling than anything. Here's a challenge, go try rusing with an LMG. Now try rushing with an LMG. Now go lock down a sightline with an LMG, now go lock down a sight-line with an SMG. They lack of depth you observe is because you have absolutely refused to apply the weapons given to you in their intended role,and treated them all as the same gun. Your claim that all the weapons are reskins of one another is frankly absurd and more indicative of your ignorance on the matter than your knowledge.
Now perks, you ***** that perks are positive, with absolutely no negatives that inherently unbalance them. Almost as if they are a perk are something.
Snark aside, you failed to once again grasp the core philosophy behind balance. What balances the perks is not inherent negatives, but other perks. Ghost, blind eye, cold blooded, juggernaut, tac mask, flack jacket, hard wired, and engineer. THESE are what balance perks in entirely negating the benefits awarded by select attachments and perks that do buff your proficiency. You the player must make the choice between added benefits or added protection. The negatives you claim are lacking have been built within the system since the start, but once again, YOU failed to see them blaming YOUR own ignorance as a fault of the game.
reward players for learning the basics of the game, as well as the layout of the map.
You think COD is the only game that does this? For such a slow and simple game it's not that is has a shallow learning curve, it plateaus almost instantly. It's just about edging out and spraying on people. It's too random, look left and they are on the right, you're dead.
I'd like to ask that same exact question of you. Are you really so naive to believe that CoD is the only game that does this? Or that the reason you were sprayed down may have been because the opposing player was more aware of the most congested lanes on the map, and used this knowledge to position himself in the best position to reap kills off those too stupid to try another route.
play a quick game of tdm, get a killstreak or two and call it a day.
This is part of the problem, this is the worst kind of reward to give in the game, it's kind of the dumb thing to ask for but that you shouldn't really take, like eating the ice-cream dessert before the main course.
Killstreaks reward the player with kills that don't play into the inherent gameplay of one-on-one combat.
It's a pavlov association trick. They get a number every time they get a kill, then you can just give them a number and they don't even see the kill and they get the appreciation. Either it's automatic where they don't see it or they are hugely detatched firing from some orbiting aircraft at Red-squares.
The original reward for killstreaks was announcer accolades. The likes of Unreal you couldn't just get a lot of kills, you had to get them in rapid succession. And you got your name revered on the whole server.
Now what's on balance better? Screwing up other's day with having them killed by super-bots, or awarding them with badass accolades?
I mean why are you stopping to use an ipad in a first person shooter?!?!
COD is casual... it's so casual. You can't care about the game it's just about getting random kills and to hell with balance. Hardcore games don't have things like killstreak that fly in a chopper gunner for getting a few kills in a row.
Geez, I've sen my fair share of pretentious pricks in my day, but you're on a whole other level.
Don't like killstreaks? So put on blind eye or cold blooded. Whip out your stinger, you'll have the damn streak in flames in a matter of seconds. There's your goddamn balance, you are entirely immune to A.I killstreaks, you are invisible to manned gunners, and you can kill it with minimum effort. If you allow killstreaks to plough your team into the ground, that's not a failure of the game. CoD gives you ample effective tools to effectively and quickly counter killstreaks. It is YOUR fault for not using the tools given to you.
You know nothing of what you are talking about it, yet expect everyone to mindlessly parrot your ignorant statements because you are obviously right. I mean can you get any more pretentious!?
I wasted far too much of my time arguing with you.
