Valve: Modern Shooters "Pander" to Casual Gamers

[theonecookie]

Eh how do you make a mutiplayer shooter hard shurley that's got more to do with who your playing against more than any other factor and also I don't remember CS having a super steep learning curve in the first place It was get gun shoot gun kill man and that was that

So I call bullshit on this It's Just valve being arrogant pricks to try and pander to a diffrent somewhat more elitist crowd

 

[-Samurai-]

I didn't read the whole thing, but I got agree with what I read. Shooters (cough*CoD*cough) are pandering to the masses and as such have destroyed any semblance of a learning curve. The games are easy to pick up and play and you won't really get much better than you were at the start.

So instead, Valve plans to pander to, and make tons of money from, CoD haters.

Valve knows that the only group bigger than CoD fans is the CoD haters, and they plan to exploit that by saying that their "new" game is everything that modern games aren't.

That's Valve for you.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

I hope they have a enough sense to do depth rather than just hard, but I expect they'll just do hard.

Depends; there's a wide variety of weapons to choose from, but how do you you expect depth to be put into a multiplayer game?

In war games? Map design is really important for one, not to mention weapon attachments and equipments, gadgets.

 

[Normandyfoxtrot]

Personaly I don't think much of valve so this all just seems like pretentious mouth flapping.

 

[Vrach]

Oh yeah, definitely, I mean, what casual player isn't pandered by Battlefield 3's (and BFBC2's) 1-3 shot kills on open maps in a game where cover can be blown to bits by explosives and RPGs - and in BF3's case, even regular fire?

And since the new players have access to the same arsenal people who have been playing for longer, like in Counter Strike, it's really easy to just jump in and get pandered as a casual. Ohwait.

Note, not casual myself and I know my way around Battlefield pretty well - but I know my best mate who just jumped on the BF3 beta the other day got slaughtered pretty bad. I remember when I first got BFBC2 as well, I couldn't tell my arse from my gun, had no idea who were friends, who were enemies and what bush the snipers really like to lay in. It's not a hopeless experience at all, the game lets you get better over time and there are systems that help a new player do that, but to say modern shooters are pandering to casuals is ridiculous.

 

[Sentox6]

Halo:reach didn't feel like they were pandering to the casual crowd. That game takes skills to win games.

...

...

Why didn't someone tell me it was opposite day? Sure, there's more skill involved in Reach than Call of Duty as a whole, but nevertheless it was still a major step away from competitive gameplay.

Bloom introduces random luck into gun battles, grenades are given an immense buff, movement traits are nerfed so you can't strafe well, sprint and no melee-bleedthrough lets players forgo aiming entirely, armour lock pauses the game for five seconds and lets you get out of your own bad choices, jetpacks destroy any semblence of map control whatsoever... I could go on forever.

The title update + beta playlist has introduced a little hope, though.

 

[UNHchabo]

- firstly, it would add an extra element of 'realism' to the gameplay, important when your game recolves around shooting terrorists and special forces as opposed to aliens and demons.

- secondly, it added a tactical choice to the gameplay: players could either sacrifice movement speed for improved accuracy, or they could keep their movement speed but have to deal with bullet spread and recoil. This allowed players to experiment with different playstyles, without giving one side too much advantage over the other. Iron-sighters may move slower, but they have just as much if not more chance of popping someone running past them emptying bullet clips wildly into the air.

Sorry Valve, but this isn't 2004 anymore. Shooters have changed since you guys last made any serious waves in the genre, and it would be nice if you could keep abreast of those changes and see them for the improvements they've caused as well as the detractions, and not simply criticise everything released since Half-Life 2 as being 'pandering to casual players.'

(quote cut down for brevity)

Saying that every shooter should include iron sights is like saying that every racing game should insist on having a cockpit camera. Sure, it's more realistic, but some of us like our arcadey fun. If I'm playing a Burnout game, I want to have slightly unrealistic physics, and I want to be able to use the majority of my screen to see my surroundings, not the inside of the car.

Similarly, when I play Counter-strike, I want to be able to accurately shoot my gun from the hip, even if that's less realistic. When I feel like realism, there are plenty of games and mods I can play, Insurgency being one of my personal favorites. In that game, the gameplay is slow and deliberate because one body shot can take you out. In CS, on the other hand, even a body shot from the Scout can't take you out.

I have no problem with iron sights in games that aim to be super-realistic, like ARMA, Red Orchestra, or Insurgency. I do have a problem with it in games that are more arcadey though, because all it does is slow down the gameplay.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

What about the two-weapon, military jargon, dirt-brown graphics, regenning health, endless, unskippable cutscenes, QTEs, chest-high walls thing? Will it have those at least?

 

[Aircross]

I said it once and I'll say it again.

I love Valve.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I do plan on getting the console release. I actually thought it was coming out today, for some crazy reason, but, damn it, it doesn't come out until the end of the month.

I have "played" the demo of the first in the sense that my laptop could run it at the lowest of settings at 25FPS - until I got to some actual shooting, where it dropped to ten or fifteen.

(This might actually be a compliment to my laptop - it's not everyday you come across a laptop meant purely for work that can run Crysis, let alone get through the first little bit)

I would prefer to play the original on PC, but that isn't happening anytime soon so Xbox version it is.

1) It IS out, at least on the PSN, as I've just downloaded it.
2) Console version wont be the same, you wont get the same experience we got on the PC version. They're using the same engine for Crysis 2 which means the suit functions from the first wont be there. I'll send a PM after I give it a try.

 

[natster43]

Personally I think if they make it so it is about a accurate with iron sights normally I will be happy with being able to just keep running every where, but it seems the only choice that developers go with are either aim down sights to be accurate or spray and hope you hit an enemy. Also hey I might actually play a counter strike game. Sounds interesting enough. Now I will just wait for the to actually do stuff with Left 4 Dead.

 

[UNHchabo]

By the way guys, if you want to play CS while looking down the sights, you can install third-party viewmodels:

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2036632

Spoiler

 

[spazzattack]

I was a little surprised that Valve isn't going to put iron sights in their game. I for one like the immersion of pretending to hold the gun up to your eye to line up your shot. I know it is technically unnecessary for aiming in a video game, but I think there is more than one reason every game puts in iron sights besides "pandering". Of course I still trust Valve to make a stellar game that is set apart from the rest. Too bad it won't come out until 2021 or so.