I don't know, but I know I'd rather play a rousing game of Left 4 Dead than play any more of a motion sickness-inducing, boring as hell game like Okami that everybody calls "art."
2) Games with a 1st-person perspective cause people more motion sickness than games with a 3rd-person viewpoint; that's just a fact. I've never experienced motion sickness from a game or movie but I know there's quite a few people that just can't play 1st-person games. I never heard of someone getting motion sickness from 3rd-person games while having no issue with 1st-person games.
2) Games with a 1st-person perspective cause people more motion sickness than games with a 3rd-person viewpoint; that's just a fact. I've never experienced motion sickness from a game or movie but I know there's quite a few people that just can't play 1st-person games. I never heard of someone getting motion sickness from 3rd-person games while having no issue with 1st-person games.
I know they do, but Okami gives me motion-sickness. The art-style is very disconcerting, kind of like Waking Life. I can't watch that for more than five minutes without feeling queasy.
This seems to be the reason. Call of Duty struck a perfect formula and it has remained relatively unchanged. They're easy to slip into; accessible to a lot of ages; multi-player is popular; epic explosions are epic and finally they're long lasting.
A developer can release the next Call of Duty and could easily profit off it for years to come. I can guarantee that Call of Duty 4 would still be played today very heavily if no other titles had been released. I won't be surprised if Activision drag out Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops for a long time. Because Map Packs will continue to sell for a while.
Other than stated above they also appeal to a very competative market: Young lads. When you look at Call of Duty, your online score (is it called a score? I don't know) is just one great big dick waving competition. It's a simple matter of 'mine is bigger than yours'. Guess what, that sells too.
Personally (this means my opinion) I don't like them. I've found fun in them for about an hour or so; but there are much deeper games out there I'd rather play (even on the multi-player platform there's much deeper gameplay). This isn't to say that I don't enjoy a shallow (yet definitely not cheap) thrill here and there.
With leaning, you can easily have it setup on the controller to have left/right on the d-pad lean when looking down the sights. That's how MGO does it and it works out extremely well as the PS3 d-pad is analog to boot, I don't see why it wouldn't work in a FPS.
Ok to be honest it is a nice idea but it will never happen because they would have to change the PC version to have the same system as they are lazy. The CoD lean on PC works regardless of ADS or not. CoD devs in general can be lazy about this sorta thing or they could just add the badly needed extra two buttons to a controller freeing up controls for it to be on D-Pad. I don't know what games you play but for certain games for me even ones designed for consoles are really restricted by this mostly fighting games.
I just don't care for playing at my computer desk and my PC is from 2001 and going strong as I tweak everything like windows services so it runs as efficient as possible (I don't even run an Anti-virus program anymore as it's really not needed). Plus, when I play a game, I don't want to have to tweak stuff as I'll try to get the game running as best as possible, and that's just taking away from game time. I've helped with and witnessed several of my friends' PC game issues and the solution just sometimes takes long to figure out as someone on some forum figured it out and you just gotta find it. I tried playing Deus Ex: Invisible War and that was just a pain as the game was developed for the Xbox first and there was a hole bunch user created fixes and stuff.
Right that's fair enough that is why you are a console gamer. That said it would solve so many problems with the game. I am not suggesting you come over to PC gaming you've made your choice and that is fine. Some of the problems wouldn't be in there as well on console if there was a dedicated server system but I'll get to that later.
I realize there are better FPSs than COD but it really seems like according to the gaming media and lots of COD players that COD is the gold standard for FPSs, not that it actually is; more to do with perception than actuality. In my view, TDM should play out like a game of tug-of-war as each team tries to move their front lines up further, but moving spawns really kills it for me. I'm not trying to say TDM offers great strategy (it doesn't) but moving spawns kinda makes TDM into a plain Deathmatch type mode as you don't know where the enemies are coming from if you don't know how the spawning system works. I actually played search and destroy more, I just played TDM when I felt like playing a respawn mode.
I know we are on a gaming news site so I don't want to offend anyone by this but so much of the gaming media is full of shit when it comes to AAA titles. Not all of it but a fair portion of it. I think everyone knows the bad vocal fanboys should be ignored. If you like TDM that way that is fine too. However, the current size of maps in CoD does not allow for this style of TDM which is why the more dynamic spawn has been part of CoD.
I'm just saying a game can do clan support much better (whether console or PC) than just having the player put 4 characters before their name for their clan tag; that is the entirety of COD's clan support, it's just plain sad if you ask me.
Yes they probably could but they are a bit lazy on that sorta thing. I don't the style of online play for CoD on consoles even lends to clan play as Dedicated servers of some sort are really needed.
I think we just have different terminology for dedicated server. To me, a dedicated server in an online is just any kind of computer (which could be a PC, a console, or full on server) handling the connections of every player in the game. If it's just a PC or console being the server, then obviously, a player can not be playing in the game from that console or PC. I don't see why the dedicated server has to be running constantly for it to be a dedicated server. If the server just runs games for an hour a day, you get the same game experience for that hour that you would get a 24 hour run dedicated server, it's just not constantly running but the game experience is the same. Basically, a dedicated server is just having all the connections being handled on one machine; a lot of shooters have player counts low enough that one person's connection has enough bandwidth to handle all the connections, shooters usually aren't MMOs. You either have games on dedicated servers (a machine handling all connections) or one of the players in the game is the host, those are the 2 methods of hosting games. Dedicated servers are obviously better so that there's no host advantage. In MGO, you can create a room that you host but don't play in, so MGO supports dedicated hosts created by other players who aren't actually playing.
Well anyone I have ever talked to about dedicated servers goes with my definition. What you described is more what you said later as Dedicated Hosts. I'd have no problem if games let it go like where you can host a game but not play. The way it currently is on consoles especially CoD the host advantage is disgraceful. You can't play against someone with 0 ping.
I worded that part about dedicated hosts not being an option on the consoles rather poorly. What I meant by dedicated hosts aren't an option on the console is that most console games have a player of the game be the host, so then you don't have the option of having a dedicated server to begin with. PC games have a history of having certain features that consoles don't have. PC games have a history of using dedicated servers whereas consoles do not. PC gamers expect them, console gamers don't. On the PC, if a game publisher doesn't actually run any dedicated servers, players are usually given the opportunity to create and run their own servers (I know several PC games can still be played online long after support has been completely dropped by the publisher and players keep the game going), which is a feature console games just don't have. MGO is the only game I know of that allows players to run their own dedicated server. Therefore, a console game utilizes player hosts or dedicated servers and most console games use player hosts so you just don't have the option of dedicated servers most of the time. Anyways, that's what I meant by dedicated hosts not being an option because most console games just don't allow for them, not that they can't, just that they usually don't.
Ok that is fair enough but consoles should really all have dedicated servers so we can finally end this nightmare of matchmaking. Matchmaking only works in things like L4D when you only need about 4-6 people. Any more than that you really need a server list. The best thing about Dedicated servers that would almost instantly solve the community problems on consoles some people like to complain about and allow proper communities to build up. This is because you will eventually start to see regulars if you frequent a dedicated server and make friends. Not that you can't do friends through matchmaking it is just easier with dedis to have a better community as it has to be better or it will be banned.
I think every game that utilizes matchmaking should have a system in place to determine a player's skill. If you don't have that kind of system in place, how are you going to put players into even teams for your online matches? If the game had public room support, it wouldn't be a big issue; however, when there's just matchmaking, it's a big problem.
Yes it is but that is just one of the glaring flaws of matchmaking and a reason I don't think it should exist. It would be easy to have a semi server filter where low level players could only have access to certain company owned servers for the newbies.
I don't play games with health regen. I got into COD4 for a bit because it was my first FPS online experience. I will make just one more point about health regen is that I feel it reduces teamwork as well; if I hit someone and take say a third of their health, then when one of my teammates and that guy meet, my teammate should have to only take 2/3s of his health because I already shoot him up a bit. But with that said, I'm guessing we will have to agree to disagree here.
Yes that is fair enough I know health regen is not the best system and we will agree to disagree. It is not a design flaw as you said earlier more of choice which fits CoD as it is not really about direct teamwork.
I played more Search and Destroy than TDM, I just played TDM when I wanted a match with respawning. In MGO, TDM is probably my least favorite mode. MAG is my favorite FPS this gen and it doesn't even have TDM.
With COD's killstreaks, sometimes it's not about the other team allowing a player have a good match, it's about the game itself letting it happen. I only played MW2 for an hour at my cousin's place before realizing it was just plain garbage. You can literaly just camp around get a few kills (probably 5 is all it takes), and just use the killstreak rewards to get you more kills and more rewards to get more kills, you see where this is going. So someone can literally be a smart moving camper, get a few legitimate kills, and end up with an awesome match. In MAG, if you camp, you are literally not helping your team whatsoever; whereas in COD, camping can be very effective in even objective modes.
To be honest here I think we are touching on whether or not camping is an effective strategy. Anyway given the size of CoD maps in certain game types especially the objective ones you have to camp. The way CoD is made you can just go running around the place. It isn't Battlefield with massive maps. There is a good chance that if the game lasted for 30 secs then everyone froze but you you could find an enemies team member in between 5-20secs. The 20 seconds would be on the very big maps.
This is actually a really good point. I introduced a mainstream-fan friend of mine to Sauerbraten, he couldn't hit anything. The game was too simple and accelerated for him, he just got confused xD
He then proceeded to kick my ass in Crysis
They're fun to play. At least, I find them fun. Get a party together on Black Ops or Reach, play a few matches, have some fun. Why else would you play a game? Last I checked, we play games for fun.
I play games to have fun. Having a blast with my friends online or through the story is a great way to have fun IMO. Especially on the same console as you can see how each other are doing easier and can better co-ordinate your actions.
Gears and Halo are awesome in this respect, and getting sticky grenade kills or blowing out someone's brains with an inconsistent shotgun never stops being fun for me. I find the multiplayer systems on these games balanced and fun for all skill levels (this is highly debatable but my friends and I found it really easy to just pick up the game and play).
Of course the campaign in both games helps, but we see it as more of a tutorial for multiplayer as you learn which weapons best suit you and you can practice nicely on the bots for as long as you wish.
"Realistic" shooters like CoD, not so much. Getting spawn killed 8 times in a row by chopper gunners is not fun for anyone except the guy pulling the trigger. People get way too good at games like this and slag off everyone who doesn't get 18-0 K/Ds. Do people complain about the squeaky 12 year olds on gears? What about Cod? That's what I thought. Shows which is the more mature game.
I'm a fan of Fallout and Mass effect too, so I guess I'm not just an online fan
Excellent games can sacrifice very little of one for a lot of the other, but to a certain extent, as you get crazier, you get less believable.
Both approaches are fine, and entirely a matter of taste. "Moon" and "Star Wars" are both excellent movies, despite one being much more far-fetched, and the other being much more believable.
Modern day shooters are popular because it is in a perfect middle ground where it is the easiest and most effective story to tell, assuming that it doesn't detract from your variety. A modern day setting, you can get right to storytelling without needing to explain every detail. The setting is the most recognizable. We know modern day well enough that we can interject the most imagination without losing believability.
If your talking about games with a Macho overtone, well, I think you need to take it less seriously. Sometimes, a violent, over the top, macho gore-fest is a great stress reliever. Its interesting to look at. If you don't think that a lone, muscle bound hero grabbing victory at the top of a pile of mutilated corpses with a chainsaw covered monstrosity of a weapon isn't at least kinda cool and cathartic, I have to prescribe you 20 cc's of Warhammer 40K, stat! Remember that popular does not mean bad.
It's fun to play online with friends. I like them. I don't play Blops or BC2 for the story. That would be ridiculous. I play it for the multiplayer, which I and millions of other people like.
I don't play L4D because I find it too simplistic and shallow. Same goes for TF2. I don't play Serious Sam and Painkiller because I like playing newer games, too. I did love Half-Life 2, though.
Can you explain how Halo, CoD, and Gears of War are immature? I'm not a big Halo fan, and I thought Gears of War was average, but immature? That just doesn't make sense. Also, I don't think Gears of War takes itself too seriously when they have those gore explosions with the chainsaw. The whole game was just having fun with gore.
I think you should just play other games, and stop crying over things you don't like. Just don't play them. Easy.
I agree with this post. I play them because they are fun. I am in no way trying to get engrossed in a storyline for a shooter, if I'm looking for storyline I will play an RPG. Also, shooting your friends (or enemies!) in the face is immense fun.
I also find your immaturity argument inaccurate. I am in my mid-20's and I bet most people that play CoD/Halo/whatever FPS is popular at the time are well adjusted people. You only remember the people flaming others over the mic because they stand out in these games (or maybe XBL in general). I am sure other game types have the same number of immature players, it's just that those games are not as directly competitive so they are not as in your face about it. Honestly, your opinion of the gaming community of certain games is just conjecture based on exactly that, your opinion.
It looks like we agree on most of this stuff. A dev being lazy and not wanting to expand gameplay (concerning the CoD leaning) means the dev really doesn't care enough so why should I care about their game. The games that I really get into are the games you can tell the effort was put in by the dev team on every detail, even the stuff that most players won't even notice. I think for most game genres, the standard controller is enough as if the devs are smart, they'll find a way to fit an extra control or two on the controller when at first, it didn't seem like it would fit. MGO has so many gameplay options available to the player outside of just shooting (killing or tranqing); there's CQC (you can put C4 on an enemy, let them get away, and detonate it whenever), you have knifing (which can be done in 3rd or 1st person), you can scan the enemy (which shows every other enemy if the team SOP linked), there's an auto-aim system so that close quarters shooting isn't cumbersome, and there's shielding. I'll agree that RTSs and strategic RPG battle systems (and probably a few more things) need to be dumbed down for a controller but many games can work just fine without being dumbed down on a controller. And, camping to me is anyone that just camps for kills and kills alone to where they aren't helping the team with objectives. TDM camping can be a good and effective strategy but if the whole team is camping, then the other team gets control of most of the map which usually results in them being able to pull through and win.
It looks like we agree on most of this stuff. A dev being lazy and not wanting to expand gameplay (concerning the CoD leaning) means the dev really doesn't care enough so why should I care about their game. The games that I really get into are the games you can tell the effort was put in by the dev team on every detail, even the stuff that most players won't even notice. I think for most game genres, the standard controller is enough as if the devs are smart, they'll find a way to fit an extra control or two on the controller when at first, it didn't seem like it would fit. MGO has so many gameplay options available to the player outside of just shooting (killing or tranqing); there's CQC (you can put C4 on an enemy, let them get away, and detonate it whenever), you have knifing (which can be done in 3rd or 1st person), you can scan the enemy (which shows every other enemy if the team SOP linked), there's an auto-aim system so that close quarters shooting isn't cumbersome, and there's shielding. I'll agree that RTSs and strategic RPG battle systems (and probably a few more things) need to be dumbed down for a controller but many games can work just fine without being dumbed down on a controller. And, camping to me is anyone that just camps for kills and kills alone to where they aren't helping the team with objectives. TDM camping can be a good and effective strategy but if the whole team is camping, then the other team gets control of most of the map which usually results in them being able to pull through and win.
Yes I do agree with what you are but I didn't agree that it applied to the whole series as well CoD Black Ops is good but it is more a side step of CoD 4 and not an advancement as it doesn't really add a lot. It doesn't do a lot wrong at its core but it doesn't do a lot to make it extraordinary. Ok well I think we can leave it that as I won't bother go into discussing my views on auto aim/aim assist for consoles as that is probably for another thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
