Red Orchestra Dev: CoD Has Ruined A Generation Of Gamers

[beastro]

I love RO and it's what got me to enjoy WWIIO.

It takes patience, but also teamwork or else it becomes a skirmish and I think that's what people hate the most.

I think the funny thing about RO and other FPS' is that when you're praised for your high kill count in RO, it actually is a compliment and means something where most others, especially those of the CoD vein, have no worth tied to kills.

Red Orchestra is an interesting concept, but if you deliberately craft a game with a steep learning curve you only get so much sympathy when no one wants to dedicate 20 hours a week to become competent enough to enjoy themselves.

You don't need that many hours a week to be good at it, you just have to be patient. I haven't played it in ages and had little little experience with the first title before I began playing with friends.

The amusing thing was that while I did well, I never felt like it, because of my reaction to firing which I felt froze me too much mentally.

Maybe I'm just in an easy position because I don't care about kills/deaths and love to be support. In RO I love to be there plinking off riflemen as guys rush in to points and the same held in WWIIO where helping capture positions, defend them and suppress the enemy to allow my team to move in close more than made up for the huge time sink that often goes into actually getting to a battle much less taking part in one.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Red Orchestra is an interesting concept, but if you deliberately craft a game with a steep learning curve you only get so much sympathy when no one wants to dedicate 20 hours a week to become competent enough to enjoy themselves.

You don't need that many hours a week to be good at it, you just have to be patient. I haven't played it in ages and had little little experience with the first title before I began playing with friends.

The amusing thing was that while I did well, I never felt like it, because of my reaction to firing which I felt froze me too much mentally.

Maybe I'm just in an easy position because I don't care about kills/deaths and love to be support. In RO I love to be there plinking off riflemen as guys rush in to points and the same held in WWIIO where helping capture positions, defend them and suppress the enemy to allow my team to move in close more than made up for the huge time sink that often goes into actually getting to a battle much less taking part in one.

I agree, but then playing with friends is always more fun no matter your skill level. If you can't get friends together to play a game, you're stuck with a bunch of 'lone wolf' types who will make all the support you give redundant because they only care about their K/D ratio. In that kind of environment, the only joy most people will get out of the game is creeping up the leaderboards: hence the need to invest some time to get really good at it.

The best FPS games I've ever played were team-based games where I could play with my friends. Playing those same games on random servers was an utterly joyless experience.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

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.

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.

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.

There are training ground.

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

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.

 

[beastro]

The best FPS games I've ever played were team-based games where I could play with my friends. Playing those same games on random servers was an utterly joyless experience.

I'd agree with you if not for the fact that I enjoy such games, especially WWIIO, solo.

I guess it's the perk of being a support personality. I certainly know that if I was more the kind of person that would be storming and clearing buildings and capturing points it wouldn't nearly be as fun.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

my point was that just because you shoot guns in the first person perspective the game is not a shooter.

That's subjective. because you can definitely play it as a shooter.

The weapon handling in fallout is also dependent on not just your ability to click at the right spot on the enemy but also on your characters ability to shoot. Reflexes are really not that important in fallout since the AI usually walk straight towards you and if they don't you can stop time in order to spot them. having the better gun and perks is much more important than being able to shoot better.

Yes, but not everyone considers shooters to be purely reflexive.

I also find the fact that you use the word "mission" in fallout weird since it doesn't really fit, a mission is when you are a soldier and your CO gives you order, when you are just wandering around and people dump all their problem onto you to solve it's called a quest because you clearly are the protagonist in an RPG.

Now you're just being pedantic.

Meriam-Webster:
mission: 4a : a specific task with which a person or a group is charged

Yes, "mission" or "objective" is used much more in reference to FPS games, but usage of it to refer to "quests" or "tasks" is not wrong, because it does fit.

also yes, every change from the old fallout to the new can be traced directly to the change of perspective.

I disagree, real-time vs turn-based is a huge difference in how you approach games.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

I'd say TF2 has done more to ruin FPS games on PC than CoD has. Simply because of the matter that if you now put out a team based shooter on Steam, or even on PC in general, people will turn around and go "But yes, how does it compare to TF2?", and since a few years you can add on to that "TF2, a completely free game". So it's become incredibly hard to sell team based multiplayer shooters on Steam because, well, there's this behemoth of quality that is TF2, which is now free for everyone. One example is Gotham City Impostors, which was a pretty fun casual shooter once it got past its launch issues, but it didn't do well for long simply because, well, it wasn't TF2. And the devs had the gall to ask money for it when TF2's free. Eventually it did go F2P but a lack of frequent updates meant the boost in population was short lived indeed.

Which also contributes to the fact that TF2 remains the second most played game on Steam more than five years after its release, Valve just keeps adding stuff to it. Which means it remains a stiff competitor if you're wanting to put out a game that is about two teams shooting each other that doesn't offer vastly different, like asymmetrical gameplay like Natural Selection II and Primal Carnage, which is Humans vs. Aliens and Humans vs. Dinosaurs respectively.

So basically, if you want to put out a shooter on PCs and you're not CoD, Battlefield or TF2, you'd best have something amazing and/or unique up your sleeve if you want to last.

That said, I thought RO2 did pretty well in its niche, I certainly have no problem finding a server on the rare occasion I decide to boot it up again. Sure it's nowhere near as big as TF2 or CoD are, but it's doing alright.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I fail to see the issue.

Red Orchestra 2 is, to be completely honest, just as generic as the next FPS. It's just a CoD clone with no regenerating health, simulated ballistics and a bullshit "suppression" meter that makes your screen go gray if too many bullets whizz by you. The only thing that makes Red Orchestra 2 stand out is the fact that it takes place in the Russian-German theater instead of the usual Normandy Landings or Africa operations, and piloting a tank requires like 4 players working in tandem.

 

[Lucky Godzilla]

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.

 

[Korten12]

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.

There isn't much of a point to argue with him. He went through an entire thread once trying to argue that anyone who chooses consoles over PC are dumb and couldn't even comprehend why someone would play consoles. It was quite pretentious.

 

[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.