Red Orchestra Dev: CoD Has Ruined A Generation Of Gamers

[MopBox]

did he just call fallout a shooter? because of he did he really should turn in his hardcore member card.

I noticed that too.....kind of made me wince

Excuse my ignorance but, Why did it make you wince?

 

[TotalerKrieger]

RO2's arcade-style unlock system & faster-paced gameplay (compared to RO1) were purposely designed to attract COD-players. Gibson is just bitter about having the CODers reject his game for being too difficult for their tastes (the horribly buggy launch didn't help either). Ultimately, these design choices did nothing but negatively impact player behaviour, damage the game's historical authenticity, and alienate the core RO fanbase.

Alternatively, Gibson may be trying to drum up some controversy/attention in preparation for the soon-to-be released Rising Storm expansion.

At present, the RO2 community is dying a slow death. Good servers are getting increasingly hard to find as each month passes. It is a real shame because if you strip away all the arcadey crap that was added, RO2 is really one of the best FPS games released in quite a while. The game is unforgiving, but this enhances the experience by adding tension and a sense of real power to the weapons.

Admittedly, RO2 is not very fun at first if you are coming from games like COD or BF. However, if you climb the learning curve, RO2 will become one of the most satisfying FPS expereinces to be had. Where before you may have blindly run out into the open only to have your head blown off by some unseen enemy, you later begin to understand where the more dangerous areas on the map are and just how to counter these strongpoints. Running out in the open become calculated gambles, with the use of smoke and suppressing fire acting as modifiers to this risk. You begin to see the utility of properly dialing in your sights, the absolute need to coordinate attacks on objectives, as well as understand that firefights are conducted most often at ranges between 100-250 metres (ranges typically reserved for snipers in COD or BF, you learn to spot enemies in the distance). There is lots of CQC action as well, but it is done in areas where it makes sense to have close range engagments (ie. tunnels, buildings, trenches, bunkers, etc).

That said, if you do put some time into RO2, it can be very jarring to return to the likes of COD or BF. Shooting some SOB with a 7.62 NATO round center mass only to have him turn round and kill you with a grenade launcher becomes far more difficult to tolerate after you have experienced the awesomeness of taking out an enemy with a single well placed (but very lucky) pistol round.

 

[Vault101]

Excuse my ignorance but, Why did it make you wince?

calling Fallout 3 or NV a shooter...or implying it to be just another FPS just seems wrong

 

[Treblaine]

Snipped

I'm not going to take the time to respond to each element of your response in turn, that would be far to time consuming.

Suffice to say, elements of it are so pretentious I quite literally burst out laughing. Part of it is on me though because after rereading my post, I realize that my post didn't really bring my overall point across. This guy tried to make a game mode that would directly appeal to CoD's demographic, when he failed to make it appealing enough to them, he blamed CoD. The reason I criticize him is because he was obviously trying to appeal to casual gamers with a game built for hardcore gamers. Naturally there are people who like his game (I actually quite enjoy killing floor) but if you want to broaden your audience you have to make concessions for people who won't make concessions for you. It's worth remembering that CoD has a large amount of players who only play CoD, much like Madden or FIFA. Trying to appeal to them will be difficult, because CoD is their only frame of reference. The funniest thing is that when people do try, CoD players don't even look at it. Everyone who doesn't like CoD anyway are the only one's who care, and they only get pissed. It's quite amusing.

If millions of people are hooked on slot machines... that doesn't mean that's an ideal of gaming.

I think he's saying he realises what I appealing to them is something so bad he refuses to make it... not that he can't.

Concerning camping and other specific things you mentioned, camping was more of a problem in CS than in CoD from my expirience. When you can't respawn camping becomes order of the day. I hear this is also a problem in RO but I haven't played it so I'm not in a place to pass judgement. Saying that it plateaus quickly is also a lie, I can say that from experience. I started in CoD4, my K/D and W/L have risen through each installment as well as over time within the same game. Many people who dismiss CoD aren't willing to put the time into it to see what it has to offer. The difference is: in CoD you can get lucky and have a good match when you're new. In say CS: Source, you get shat upon nonstop by people who have been playing for so long that you could never really hope to compete with them. People really need to watch the Extra Credits about multiplayer balance, it illustrates my point perfectly. On a side note, the Quake gameplay above really doesn't seem to contain much in the way of skill. It's a montage of OHKs and bunny hopping. I fail to see the skill inherant in that.

Well as has been said, Counterstrike isn't the only PC game and COD has no-respawn modes like Search & Destroy.

The essential problem of how the game is played remains, the fundamentals of gameplay.

Even if skill level plateaus, that doesn't mean you can't get an advantage.

The problem with measuring by K/D is it's a zero-sum measure, someone's K/D can only go up if someone elses goes down, the avarage K/D... is 1. It has to be.

I'm not talking about CS, I'm talking about the likes of Team Fortress 2. And the problem with COD is the randomness of the encounters you say how much it's about getting lucky, that's the thing, skill is less relevant, it's like a slot machine. It's random chance of running around who will run into the other and get an easy kill.

I've tested this, just pin both triggers for Aim-Down-Sight and Shoot, and sweep the thumbstick in the general direction of they are and there is no way you can't get the kill. And poorly-coordination, almost random spawning and poor connection/lag-compensation mean it's just so random who sees who first.

You can hedge the odds in your favour with camping of various sorts. That's what rises K/D, not the skill, the cautious attitude.

That's the problem, if you walk into someone's firing line before them there is virtually no counter.

This is what made me laugh. Let me rephrase this for you. "I walked into someone's stream of bullets, so I died." I have no idea what to say. This left me speechless.

Yes. That may be realistic but... the real world sucks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Real war is unfair. We shouldn't try to contort it into "fun" while trying to remaining realistic.

And don't rephrase my sentences out of context that clearly changes their meaning. My point is for a game like TF2, if you walk around a corner someone is looking at, you stand a chance to fight and there are stages of maneuver, counter and so on.

There are training ground.

Also I'm no grammar Nazi but you may want to check yourself before you claim to have superior taste.

No, you ARE being a grammar Nazi over what is such a trivial typo. I missed the S. But you had to bring this up as relevant to the discussion. That's desperate. Even if this was from my bad grammar (you you really think I though that should be spelled that "Are" rather than "is a" rather than a minor typo of a single letter) what does writing ability have to do with taste in games? Nothing.

Jack Thompson doesn't have better taste in games because he never makes a typo.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, if you want to learn the actual differences between the weapons in CoD I recommend XboxAhoy's weapon guides. His voice is also verbal chocolate, so there's that.

I know the differences, I have been subscribed to him for years and a regular lurker on Denkirson forums. The problem is to spite how much he makes a big deal of the differences, the differences are not significant.

 

[Korten12]

snip

We get it, you hate consoles or anything to do with them. Now can you get off of your high horse and for once open up to the idea that not everyone is you and that people like other things? That just because you hate something doesn't make it bad. You seem to have a superiority complex.

 

[Treblaine]

snip

We get it, you hate consoles or anything to do with them. Now can you get off of your high horse and for once open up to the idea that not everyone is you and that people like other things? That just because you hate something doesn't make it bad. You seem to have a superiority complex.

Hate's a strong word.

Also it implies it's mainly emotional and that I'll calm down and change my mind. No. I'm simply deeply unimpressed of consoles offerings and I won't deny that I am irritated by people who denigrate alternatives in favour of consoles.

Of course over the past 8 years I've had a 360 and a PS3, I've given them MORE than their fair chance.

I've done far more than actually state my preferences, I have made arguments and reasoned debate. What have you contributed? How are you not on a high horse with your opinion? I think you will find I have not structured my arguments as "oh well this is bad because it's not Treblaine's personal tastes" I've given reasons based on common values, those common values that I do not see challenged, only excuses for deviating from those values.

You seem to have a superiority complex.

It would be if I was an actual literal Personal Computer.

Of course I am, like you, a human being able to chose to use any device I so like. Saying and explaining why one is better than the other is not elitism nor superiority complex.

 

[Stainlesssteele4]

Red Orchestra was... awkward to say the least.
No one likes bounding boxes. No one.

Seems to me like a dev hating on another popular franchise in wake of their own lack of success.
I agree with him to an extent, mostly that CoD is ruining the potential of other shooters, but not as dramatically as stated in the interview.

I enjoy the Call of Duty series, and usually defend it where I can, but I don't respect it, nor appreciate the effect it has had on the shooter market.

 

[Treblaine]

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

Are you saying that you have seriously given games like Team Fortress 2 a chance and gone back exclusively to COD... if so, why?

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.

It's my opinion if it's good or bad.

But the important part of the discussion is not my opinions but my explanation of how I came to my opinion using reasons. That's the important part that you cannot dismiss.

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.

I don't think COD sets out to be like a slot machine. But it does end up much that way. The game leaves the impression of challenge accomplished by skill, but I think that's an illusion and not necessarily one engineered.

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.

It's obvious what I meant, anyone else could understand it but you are misrepresenting it.

My point is that skill is so irrelevant. Campers never have such an advantage as they have in COD, even over the most experienced players. In fact being a good player in COD isn't about fighting, it's about camping.

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.

No. For the love of Gaia, I am FED UP with people taking my arguments as

"so according to you..." or "essentially what you are saying is..." or "Basically you mean..."

and then some partial or inaccurate but ultimately misleading part of my stance.

It's not JUST the "fast time-to-kill" it's also how EASY it is and how much if favours PASSIVITY.

-Fast TTK
-Easy to attain fast TTK
-Easy to attain fast TTK with passive approach.

And also how easy it is to get the drop on people in COD with random spawning, impossible coordination on maps and how many headglitch spots there are.

Early COD games had it a bit better, with slow firing rifles and uncontrollable sub-machine guns and weak melee, engagements were less instantaneous, you had to work for kills and you could fight your way out.

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 rushing with an SMG*. 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.

{*excuse my presumptive Typo change}

I did rush with an LMG, SMG, and Assault Rifle, doesn't actually make much difference. We are talking fractions of a second difference. Of course you wouldn't choose the LMG as they have near the same performance and are slightly slower, so don't use them, but it's hardly like it really matters. And of course it's obvious that rushing is simply rushing to a position to ideally camp, as you outline later.

What matters is camping as much as possible. Generally it's good to have a fairly steady rotation of the map, due to spawn-flips.

Now perks, you ***** that perks are positive, with absolutely no negatives that inherently unbalance them. Almost as if they are a perk are something.

You illustrate the problem, with the kind of presumption being that the perks should be there and any problem would be with them not being perks.

The problem is they ARE perks, they are attributes combined in almost any order.

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.

No, I understand well enough how it's supposed to work... and I understand how in practice it does NOT!

The perks don't balance as they are not counters to other perks.

And it's not my ignorance, it's painfully obvious to me which perks to pick.

You seem to assume I'm one of those people who complain about COD because I'm not good at it...

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...[/quote]

Hey, I've got a positive K/D ratio on COD MW2 and BO to spite it being the first console FPS game I've player... it's not that I get killed a lot... it's that I find it too easy to kill with cheap no-skill tactics. When I try to be ambitious I get slaughtered by what in replay-review I see is totally implausible to counter to.

...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.

That's camping. I don't want to play a game about shooting fish in a barrel, whether I am the fish or the shooter.

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 can't solve any problem with COD with a Perks. I can see why the developers thought this, instead of making balanced classes just saying "it's you're problem, you solve it!".

And that's precisely what I did, I ALWAYS had my Strela as secondary, without fail. Always Ghost. I was spending my time constantly shooting down air support which was just tiresome busywork for an ungrateful team. My memory of Black ops and Modern Warfare series was shooting down air support while teammates run past me not giving any cover. Bep beep beep beeeep, launch, repeat for the inevitable flares. No point in putting down SAM turret, they have to be in the open and with spawn flipping it'll be the enemy's lunch in no time.

The obvious choice is ghost/assassin/cold-blooded type perk(s) but then you have the problem of why even bother with killstreaks?

Realise I am not complaining because I lost... I am complaining because I won so consistently with such cheap tactics that were boring to implement.

I call in my chopper gunner and I don't care/b]. I don't care about a bloody robot getting kills for me without me doing any effort. I can accept the "reward/disappotintment" balance of me gettign direct kills. But knowing my chopper is getting kills and I'm not even appreciating it as it's happening where I can't see it and I know what an unfair position it has... I don't enjoy it.

You seem to view my objection to Killstreaks power as being killed by them, rather than from earning them.

I consider Killstreaks a poor reward for good shooting and it wasn't even good shooting. I want something more appreciable than some robot running off and killing for me, or to sit in a shooting gallery blasting red squares. And I think on reflection and considering the alternatives others would soon.

It's hard to reject such overpowered gifts... but that doesn't mean you shouldn't.

I never ever said I was fed up with losing. My problem was how I was able to win and what I got for winning.

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 expected you to listen and respectfully consider.

Geez, I've seen my fair share of pretentious pricks in my day, but you're on a whole other level.

That was uncalled for.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

If millions of people are hooked on slot machines... that doesn't mean that's an ideal of gaming.

I think he's saying he realises what I appealing to them is something so bad he refuses to make it... not that he can't.

Slot machines have no relevance here. They are neither competitive or video games. Note also that I never said it was "an ideal of gaming" I said it was accessible. There are flaws present in CoD just like any other game. The boon of CoD's constant sequels is that they have worked out a surprisingly large number of kinks in the system. Black Ops 2 was the first game in the series to not outsell it predecessor, however. Foreshadowing CoD is on the decline. It's reign (I theorize at least) will come to an end with the new console cycle.

Well as has been said, Counterstrike isn't the only PC game and COD has no-respawn modes like Search & Destroy.

The essential problem of how the game is played remains, the fundamentals of gameplay.

Even if skill level plateaus, that doesn't mean you can't get an advantage.

The problem with measuring by K/D is it's a zero-sum measure, someone's K/D can only go up if someone elses goes down, the avarage K/D... is 1. It has to be.

I'm not talking about CS, I'm talking about the likes of Team Fortress 2. And the problem with COD is the randomness of the encounters you say how much it's about getting lucky, that's the thing, skill is less relevant, it's like a slot machine. It's random chance of running around who will run into the other and get an easy kill.

I've tested this, just pin both triggers for Aim-Down-Sight and Shoot, and sweep the thumbstick in the general direction of they are and there is no way you can't get the kill. And poorly-coordination, almost random spawning and poor connection/lag-compensation mean it's just so random who sees who first.

You can hedge the odds in your favour with camping of various sorts. That's what rises K/D, not the skill, the cautious attitude.

Is there a truly objective way to tell skill then? I can't surmise a way to tell just how much skill playing a game against human opponents takes aside from those numbers. Stacking against the average is the only way to track one's progress. Skill aside from data is open to interptritation, which has no place in a debate. I would also like to see your "test" recorded, seeing you attempt to spray someone down from long range with a Vector should be quite entertaining. I stack the odds in my favor by knowing the map, my playstyle, having trained reflexs (which help in all shooters really), predicting enemy movements, and using the appropriate weapon for the appropriate scenario.

Black Ops 2 actually implemented a wide array of anti camping measures, along side that though, campers are notoriously easy to dispatch. They stay in the same place, so assuming you aren't dense they can be flanked and dispatched easily. You could also use my favorite method FMJ, or greandes/other explosives. I surprised you place so much grief on camping when in reality it is seldom an issue worth noting. Lag-comp is a huge deal even if you like the game, and despite knowing why they don't fix it, it irritates me nonetheless.

Yes. That may be realistic but... the real world sucks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Real war is unfair. We shouldn't try to contort it into "fun" while trying to remaining realistic.

And don't rephrase my sentences out of context that clearly changes their meaning. My point is for a game like TF2, if you walk around a corner someone is looking at, you stand a chance to fight and there are stages of maneuver, counter and so on.

I rephrased it to expose its underlying absurdity. I wasn't trying to change your meaning. The more I read though, the more it seems like you are a fan of TF2 and the older shooters that focus on movement over accurate shooting. It seems you gauge as one's ability to manuever. While I can respect your opinion it's worth knowing that not everyone shares it.

No, you ARE being a grammar Nazi over what is such a trivial typo. I missed the S. But you had to bring this up as relevant to the discussion. That's desperate. Even if this was from my bad grammar (you you really think I though that should be spelled that "Are" rather than "is a" rather than a minor typo of a single letter) what does writing ability have to do with taste in games? Nothing.

Jack Thompson doesn't have better taste in games because he never makes a typo.

I admit it was petty to do that, I apologize. I just find haughtiness repugnant regardless of context and I was a bit too eager to point it out.

I know the differences, I have been subscribed to him for years and a regular lurker on Denkirson forums. The problem is to spite how much he makes a big deal of the differences, the differences are not significant.

I would say the differences are significant. Dominant weapons would not emerge if that was the case, and I would not get nearly the level of satisfaction from not using them. Out of curiosity how much CoD have you/do you play(ed)?

 

[MammothBlade]

I think the guy is being overly negative in saying a whole generation is ruined, but much of what he says is true.

it was that it seemed a bit too much like real WW2 city fighting: Slow, and likely to end suddenly with a instantly fatal bullet from someone you never saw.

ZOMG you have to learn how to play! That's surely a good thing. Whereas CoD advertises realism but it's just babby's first FPS.

He's right (not the escapist extract, the whole article) to a degree. CoD is an 'easy' FPS, but a dangerous one. It tells players they could swim in the ocean in a hurricane whilst in reality they're paddling in a inflatable pool wearing water wings. So when players go to a 'real' FPS, they suddently feel like they've been dropped into the deep end without ever learning to swim, so they cling to CoD.

In the past, if you played a game, it could lead you onto other games within the genre. With CoD, you simply don't learn the skills to ever be competant elsewhere. No-one likes to feel like they've gone from being good to abysmal, even if the 'good' was only smoke, mirrors, and killstreaks.

Exactly. I used to play CoD, but I realised just how much it felt like I was running on an instant gratification hamster wheel. CoD requires little to no skill, everyone is "good" at Call of Duty. The devs mastered behavioural psychology to make players feel awesome with little or no effort. But hey, a lot of games do that, right or wrong. Call of Duty was probably just the first to employ it in substitution for a working, balanced game.

 

[Treblaine]

Slot machines have no relevance here. They are neither competitive or video games. Note also that I never said it was "an ideal of gaming" I said it was accessible. There are flaws present in CoD just like any other game. The boon of CoD's constant sequels is that they have worked out a surprisingly large number of kinks in the system. Black Ops 2 was the first game in the series to not outsell it predecessor, however. Foreshadowing CoD is on the decline. It's reign (I theorize at least) will come to an end with the new console cycle.

It is of course an analogy. If I say "a heart is like a pump" I don't mean the heart is a metal piston that needs an external power supply and control box to operate.

I think they have relevance as they give illusion of control and skill (the arm pull) but winning or losing is far too random.

Precisely what kinks have COD series worked out?

Is there a truly objective way to tell skill then? I can't surmise a way to tell just how much skill playing a game against human opponents takes aside from those numbers. Stacking against the average is the only way to track one's progress. Skill aside from data is open to interptritation, which has no place in a debate. I would also like to see your "test" recorded, seeing you attempt to spray someone down from long range with a Vector should be quite entertaining. I stack the odds in my favor by knowing the map, my playstyle, having trained reflexs (which help in all shooters really), predicting enemy movements, and using the appropriate weapon for the appropriate scenario.

Black Ops 2 actually implemented a wide array of anti camping measures, along side that though, campers are notoriously easy to dispatch. They stay in the same place, so assuming you aren't dense they can be flanked and dispatched easily. You could also use my favorite method FMJ, or grenades/other explosives. I surprised you place so much grief on camping when in reality it is seldom an issue worth noting. Lag-comp is a huge deal even if you like the game, and despite knowing why they don't fix it, it irritates me nonetheless.

I'm not saying COD has inherently less skillful players, that is of course ridiculous. I am saying that the fundamentals of COD gameplay make skill in most aspects of the game irrelevant to propensity to camp and look for "sish in barrel" shots.

seeing you attempt to spray someone down from long range with a Vector should be quite entertaining.

It's a powerful rapid fire hitscan weapon. I'd like to see how you can MISS! And it IS powerful, just because some weapons kill in 3 shots rather than 5 shot. 5 hits to kill with such a rapid fire-rate and hitscan bullets is easy, will kill them in about a quarter of a second, without stopping power, with the lowest damage drop-off. That leaves no time to respond.

Now in a head-on fight with an ACR where they both fire are the exact same moment, the ACR might win. But that's not how fights go, it's hardly about trading fire starting from the exact same moment, it's about hitting them and they are dead before they can react. The only reasonable chance you have to survive a hit once you get the screen shake and reddening of being hit is to run away and hope they are amazingly incompetent and miss. Not turn and fight.

I rephrased it to expose its underlying absurdity. I wasn't trying to change your meaning. The more I read though, the more it seems like you are a fan of TF2 and the older shooters that focus on movement over accurate shooting. It seems you gauge as one's ability to manuever. While I can respect your opinion it's worth knowing that not everyone shares it.

Well regardless of your intentions, you did change the meaning.

I don't arbitrarily prefer TF2 and work back from there, I do so for reasons that I have explained.

Don't take the reasons you of my argument that then declare it unreasonable.

I have not said the reason is purely maneuver, you don't seem to be really considering my REASONS, you are oly trying to deduce who I am rather than what my argument is.

I would say the differences are significant. Dominant weapons would not emerge if that was the case, and I would not get nearly the level of satisfaction from not using them. Out of curiosity how much CoD have you/do you play(ed)?

You can declare what you like. But I have given reasons.

The weapons fire so fast with an easy to obtain time-to-kill of around 0.2 to 0.3 of a second. That's so fast, that's almost as fast as the fastest "simple" human reaction time. There is not chance to respond and with aim assist and such a hose of lead, you can't miss. It's even worse with the akimbo machine-pistol spraying or rapid-fire shotguns, aiming is optional. And there is the "homing lunge" of the melee knife.

Dominant weapons only emerge as giving slight advantages, but they are nothing to get excited about.

Most of it is an illusion, a new weapon model right up in your face, but functions almost identically.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Reading this gives me the impression that every time I've been playing CoD multiplayer, I've been playing it like a far, far different game.

Well, impression, it's probably true.

 

[Treblaine]

I don't think COD sets out to be like a slot machine. But it does end up much that way. The game leaves the impression of challenge accomplished by skill, but I think that's an illusion and not necessarily one engineered.

Once again, if you take time to learn the popular lanes on every map, improve your aim, learn positioning, tailor your classes to your preferred style of play, and above all adapt to new situations, I guarantee you will find yourself doing better at the game.

These feats cannot be accomplished by luck alone.

You can't chose your spawn. And trying to use tactical insertion is diabolical for how often it is destroyed out you come out facing down a gun barrel or eating a landmine.

"I guarantee you will find yourself doing better at the game."

When you say things like this it's very reasonable to assume you think my objections come from inability to do well.

So why not toss a flashbang and spray them down while they remain blind? Or use an emp grenade to instantly disable any and all equipment they set up? Toss a grenade into their spot to flush them out, take a longer route to flank them, or avoid the lanes they are covering entirely.

There is a reason why all those 100+ kill games are from rushers.

You know that doesn't work, as I kill them before they have a chance to even consider throwing a flash bang, and by the time they have respawned and gotten back there again I've moved position.

And because of tac-mask. That's not a perk that counters a perk, that's a perk that counters an anti-camper methods.

Feel free to keep your opinion on fast TTK games, but remember, a rather significant portion of people do actually prefer not having to land five headshots to get a kill. These games cater to different people, and it's largely dependant on what you started out on playing.

But what about the significant proportion who prefer a challenge to getting their games?

You are exaggerating to say "five headshots" but with such rapid-fire hitscan weapons as you have in COD that even wouldn't be hard.

All I'm asking for is it take a little bit more skill, have engagements last a little longer than a fraction of a second.

Once again it is painfully clear that you have not spent the time necessary to truly get a grasp on the game.

Hmm, this still seems to have the attitude of me not being able to succeed.

Now this is understandable, you have made it abundantly clear that you despise fast TTK games, so why would you? Still, if you actually observed the people who do good in the lobby, it's time and time again the rushers.

They rush, to a good camping spot. That's what I see. It's not the most cowardly camping, it's fairly exposed and covering a wide area.

Now I'm going to recommend you watch this excellent video by extra creditz on balancing for skill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w
(please be kind on me, I have not yet fully grasped the art of embedding youtube videos on the escapist)

You don't point out any part of that, but as far as I can tell that puts down COD. The part where he says "prevent one weapon or aspect to rise to the top".

While they may talk about noobtubes you can easily substitute it for camping, after all, if you play and cod game post MW2 the noobtubes are generally useless. However, the core argument still stands. A game developer who makes a game only enjoyable for the l33t gamers and does not accommodate for new players has partially failed to deliver a good product. Sure you can post up in a window, but speaking from extensive first hand experience across almost all of the cod games, you will never do as well as a experienced rusher.

Annoying yes, but considering the fact that the developers have given you so many tools to counter campers, it's not their fault, but yours if you continue to die to the same guy posted up in one position. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

"A game developer who makes a game only enjoyable for the l33t gamers"

Agreed. But making the game easy, slow and random is a solution that is worse than the problem.

Even with COD trying to do that, COD is the worst example of only being enjoyed by the best, as the good players call in crippling killstreaks, they win an unassailable score lead making defeat of their opponents all but inevitable.

You think games like Sandy Ravage getting 67-1 kills is egalitarian? It's enjoyable only to sycophants who are impressed by being killed by robotic killstreaks ordered in by an internet celebrity...

See making each kill challenging goes BOTH WAYS, if it's hard for you to kill them, it's hard for your opponent to kill you. Each have more chances to fight back, to engage with them longer and see what they are doing.

An essential element of multiplayer is that for every kill, there must be a death. For the game to remain on the high side of "fun to suck" ratio the enjoyment of each kill must be maximised, Having robot controlled helicopters run off and get kills disturbs the balance. COD isn't about getting better kills, it's about harvesting numbers of kills in contrast to fewer deaths. That's fundamentally unbalancing, especially HOW they are able to build up killstreaks.

You seem to assume I'm one of those people who complain about COD because I'm not good at it...

Another assumption huh? At this this rate I wouldn't be surprised if you started telling me where I live, my occupation, the name of my cat, and what kind of car I own.

You really do seem that way, I am being honest on my impressions. That's not an unreasonable assumption.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. My criticisms of your opinion are founded not because of what I assume to be your skill level, but in your assumptions based off ignorance.

earlier in same post:

if you take time to learn the popular lanes on every map, improve your aim, learn positioning, tailor your classes to your preferred style of play, and above all adapt to new situations, I guarantee you will find yourself doing better at the game.

You are clearly being presumptive of my ability to succeed in the game, and that being relevant.

You want a list? Actually read the damn perk descriptions next time you play the game.

What's worse is you utterly IGNORED the second half of my argument. You ignored it entirely! Read it again, go on do it! It's obvious you cherry picked what you responded too, so correct your glaring mistake!

Balance stems from not what you bring, but what you didn't bring! let's go ahead and pick ghost from blops 1, widely considered to be fairly overpowered. Now tell me, what advantage does it give you if no enemies on the other team are running spy plane? You have wasted the perk, it gives you no benefit whatsoever! You could have elected to bring more ammo, protection against explosions, and move faster. But they key is, you can only choose one! What if instead of spamming spy plane, they spam grenades? Ghost does nothing for you!

The balance is found not in the negatives within the perks themselves, but in forcing players to choose between them. To weigh the importance of one benefit over the other, as you cannot have both.
(well you can in blops 2, but I'm not going to explain the entire pick 10 system to you)

But the stuff you don't bring is worthless.

Ghost and similar perks removes your red name tag. The red nametag serves no social purpose, it is nothing but a huge red bullseye in the cluttered and/or shadowy environments, it's just makes it easier for you to see them first. And of course partial or complete immunity to almost all killstreaks and if they aren't calling in Spyplanes, that'e because they are being pounded or have been conditioned to not bother from all the ghost users.

The alternatives are worthless. Lightweight with insignificant speed boost. Flak Jacket in a game with weak and rarely used explosives, weak compared to the firearms. Scavenger when you have more than enough ammo and can easily pick up weapons.

Such stealth perks are so good they are worth it even when split up. As for MW3 and Black Ops 2

The question isn't if you are good or bad, but if you understand the core of the game.

My understanding of the game and your assumptions of my understanding are irrelevant to my reasoning which is not based on me personally, the reasoning I have stated applies regardless of who says it.

Please do more to address the substance of my argument as if anyone was saying it, don't constantly go back to me.

Now I'm going to be a hypocrite and make an assumption: Whenever you try to be "ambitious" you attempt to play CoD like you would a slow TTK. When that fails, you go back to the one strategy you know you can do well at.
Camping
If you want to get out of the corner, pay close attention to how xcal and Sandy Ravage play. Pay attention to how they move in relation to cover in particular, it's not camping if you move behind cover during a firefight as long as you don't set up a fixed position there waiting for someone to come along.

And lets clear up what I consider camping, things like darting from window to window, easing out to blast anyone who happens to come along, that's camping. I'm not getting stuck in exposing myself and trading blows with the enemy, I'm doing everything I can to be hard to see, hard to hit yet able to train my sights over killzones for easy kills of anyone who advances.

Actually, lets drop such a loaded term as "camping". The point is it's a type of play that is very defensive, very passive. It's clear in so many of Sandy Ravage's high-kill videos how often he depends on edging out sighted in and getting people on their flanks or where they make mad dashes out. And of course, most of the kills came from the killstreaks. That's high rolling. But it's boring.

You are given effective to dislodge campers, by refusing to use them. the fault lies on you, not the game.

Again, you respond as if my problem with camping being how I dislodge them. My problem is how such defensive tactics are so successful. You cannot use a flashbang on every corner. And any good defensive/passive player will shift around enough that by the time they have respawned and worked their way back, they are in a very different position.

Well if your problem lies not with shooting down killstreaks, but in them getting you kills?

Now I may be wrong with that assumption (and please tell me if I am) but, uh, why not just run non lethal killstreaks? UAV, Counter UAV, VSAT. If even that is too much for you, than why haven't you not run killstreaks at all? I mean, even you recognized the relative ease in shooting them down, so opposing lethal killstreaks are not the issue. But the choice to run killstreaks or not is entirely within your hands, you never have to run them.

Because I'm playing to win and that's how you win but that's a sucky way to win. And yeah, I do normally run UAV and Counter-UAV.

My problem is when I call in air-power I don't see them being shot down. Shooting them down is easy but a tiresome chore and you can't decide "oh NOW I'll have my Strela" you have to give up all secondaries for the effective anti-air weapon to be reliably at hand.

Well I also expected you to listen. Considering you failed to acknowledge one of my core arguments you are in no position to lecture me on this.

Precisely which core argument was that? I directly quoted almost every part, I left out the dross or the parts I agreed with.

You are a bit of a dick.

Again. Uncalled for.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

camping

You keep using this word as a reason COD is bad which to me is quite weird. You are one of the only people that say this about COD. Everyone that doesn't like COD usually says that all you do in COD is run around like crazy to raise your K/D ratio. Why do other people say it's funny when they see COD payers run around sole in more team based games? Is it maybe because that's how most people play COD?

Now, I've played enough COD in my time to know that camping is hardly the best option. Killcams are the main reason for this because they kill you once and then you know where they are so a simple grenade toss and they are dead. I'd like to think I'm a bit above average when it comes to shooters and when I play COD I am usually top of my team or game and do you want to know how I do it? It sure isn't from camping.

 

[Magmarock]

I understand his frustrations, and I agree that COD has ruined FPS gaming for the most part.