Will Doom 4 going to save FPS genre?

[Vigormortis]

snip

Oh...kay...

Congrats on winning an online match, I guess? And what exactly was your reason for quoting me?

When did I ever say the removal of skill requirements in competitive-based online games was a good thing? For that matter, at what point in my post did I say anything that seemed to contradict your assertions?

I'm quite baffled by this post.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

snip

Okay... Congrats on winning an online match, I guess? And what exactly was your reason for quoting me?

When did I ever say the removal of skill requirements in competitive-based online games was a good thing? For that matter, at what point in my post did I say anything that seemed to contradict your assertions?

I'm quite baffled by this post.

Judging from the previous posts I;d say he has big issues when it comes to online gaming today and in general with winning and life itself, that's what I;m getting from those posts anyway, pretty sure a psychiatrist would get the same too.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Because you don't like the way the FPS genre has changed over the years doesn't mean it needs saving, especially considering it is one of the most, if not the most, popular genres there is.

So to answer your question, no I don't think Doom 4 will save the FPS genre, because it doesn't need saving in the first place.

 

[sageoftruth]

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

I think TotalBiscuit had a pretty good answer for that one. In a youtube video he had on old vs. new styles of FPSs, he mentioned how the thing about health packs was you had to go look for them. Sure that's negated if you quicksave/quickload to the point where you never need them (in that case, shame on you), but otherwise, it puts you in a situation where you have to explore and put yourself in further danger in order to survive, making it a game of survival as well as shooting stuff. Once regeneration of health was brought in, it was just about (tactically) shooting stuff. Halo managed to hold onto some of that Medkit charm early on, but once 2 and 3 came around it felt like a lot less was at stake, since I regained everything at the end of each firefight.

The bottom line is, it's different from quicksaving/loading because of those moments when you finish a firefight without a full health bar.

 

[SKBPinkie]

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

I think TotalBiscuit had a pretty good answer for that one. In a youtube video he had on old vs. new styles of FPSs, he mentioned how the thing about health packs was you had to go look for them. Sure that's negated if you quicksave/quickload to the point where you never need them (in that case, shame on you), but otherwise, it puts you in a situation where you have to explore and put yourself in further danger in order to survive, making it a game of survival as well as shooting stuff. Once regeneration of health was brought in, it was just about (tactically) shooting stuff. Halo managed to hold onto some of that Medkit charm early on, but once 2 and 3 came around it felt like a lot less was at stake, since I regained everything at the end of each firefight.

The bottom line is, it's different from quicksaving/loading because of those moments when you finish a firefight without a full health bar.

Hmm... that's a good distinction. Not something that I like, to be honest, but I can see how someone would prefer that instead.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Look, if you enjoy that kind of thing, then more power to you. But I have little interest in being utterly humiliated every time I step onto a server. Yup, the skilled player deserves to win and if they weren't winning in Call of Duty, I'd say you have a point. But they are winning. They always win, because these games require a good amount of skill to play well.

There's plenty of ways to score lucky kills in a game like Call of Duty, but as everyone knows, good players create their own luck. They're able to spot opportunities and capitalize on them. That's why they're good. The only thing different are the scores. Some games it's harder to score than others, so the score in hockey is 3-1, while in American football it's 35-7, and in basketball it's 105-92. Everyone of those is a pretty good ass kicking.

EDIT: It occurs to me, if you're beating everyone by a hundred kills.... maybe you should seek out better players to play against. That's not competition, that's just slaughter. I'm not sure how that could qualify as fun in anyone's book.

 

[Evonisia]

No, Doom will just be a generic rip off of a previous, probably better game that will have a style which has either been used way too often or stands out in the new scene so everybody praises it when it really doesn't deserve it. Like the other Doom sequels.

Doom 2: Just Doom 1 but more of it.
Doom 3: Just System Shock 2 but less deep and had a less good story.

I'm not going to go into the "shooters need saving" business. The OP has a very clear, very restrictive taste and anything else is a disgrace and you should feel bad for liking shitty games.

 

[Rozalia1]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

 

[Sherokain]

It all depends what you mean by "save" the FPS genre, its alive and kicking really if you think about it. Maybe not as it used to be but if it wasn't popular it wouldn't sell.

 

[Artaneius]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

 

[Evonisia]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Unless the specific game in question has horrible perk balance (which is what? MW3? Maybe Black Ops?), a good player on the victim team will be able to break through that. Even bullshit like the C4 and Quickscoping is counter able by even low level classes depending on the actual player using those classes.

Otherwise the actual matches are not based on "he has the superior weapon/perk/equipment/whatever therefore he will always win".

 

[Rozalia1]

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

And that post tells me everything I need to know. A big thing in those games back than was the very simple fact that the good players knew where all the good weapons were, and they'd get them while making sure that the not so good players are stuck using the crappy weapons. Starting players would have to be completely butchered before they got the weapon locations burned into their memory...before they even thought about standing a single chance.

That is not skill. That is purposely wanting other player's weapons to be limited unless they put in the amount of time you did in learning where everything is. That isn't the attitude of a "good player" you're having, its of a bad sport who doesn't want "bad players" killing them.

... Except its completely available to you too... its like those people who play fighters and whine "all you do is X, what a scrub" when they repeatedly get hit by the same tactics over and over again. If you do know all the inns and outs it doesn't matter if they use X, Y, or Z.

Oh and I mean no offence but I have a hard time believing your CoD 4 tale. Someone who gets those results wouldn't be on here complaining like you are about modern games giving unskilled players too many advantages.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

Well, I look at your pic and think that shouldn't happen in any competitive game, because, well, that's nothing resembling a competitive situation.

Without you in the game, it would have been competitive as the two teams seem reasonably matched. How can your team take any pride in that victory when you carried them? How can you take any pride in so completely outmatching your opponents? That's less skill than playing far below your level. It's like playing Doom on "Please Don't Hurt Me" and bragging about it being no challenge.

If a NFL team dominated the league like that, you can guarantee the rules would be changed the following year to prevent that from ever happening again, because that kind of thing isn't interesting, it's not fun to anyone but the person doing the dominating, and that person isn't getting any better because no one is forcing them to get better.

So, no, I don't think a match should look like that.

As for CoD having easy kills; it sounds like it's more like basketball where high scores are encouraged and its fans enjoy the high-scoring action. Good players still come out on top, while novice players get enough kills to have fun and keep coming back. If the goal is fun, then guess which game they'll gravitate toward.

If the goal is Video Games: Serious Business, then probably not.

 

[Vigormortis]

If the goal is fun, then guess which game they'll gravitate toward.

If the goal is Video Games: Serious Business, then probably not.

This is my primary sticking point, and one of many reasons I can't entirely agree with Artaneius.

There is room within the gaming landscape for both kinds of competitive online shooters. The industry can accommodate pure-skill based twitch shooters like Quake and Counter-Strike while also accommodating more "leveled-playing field" type games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

This notion Artaneius and the OP have that the only valid online shooters are those that demand endless hours of devotion to master is as ludicrous as it is destructive. It's that precise attitude that will bring about the death of the genre.[footnote]And I say this as someone who equally loves playing casually online and competing in amateur and pro-level scrim and league play.[/footnote]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On a side note:
I'm still baffled as to why Artaneius quoted me previously. If someone could offer insight I'd appreciate it.

 

[Artaneius]

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

And that post tells me everything I need to know. A big thing in those games back than was the very simple fact that the good players knew where all the good weapons were, and they'd get them while making sure that the not so good players are stuck using the crappy weapons. Starting players would have to be completely butchered before they got the weapon locations burned into their memory...before they even thought about standing a single chance.

That is not skill. That is purposely wanting other player's weapons to be limited unless they put in the amount of time you did in learning where everything is. That isn't the attitude of a "good player" you're having, its of a bad sport who doesn't want "bad players" killing them.

... Except its completely available to you too... its like those people who play fighters and whine "all you do is X, what a scrub" when they repeatedly get hit by the same tactics over and over again. If you do know all the inns and outs it doesn't matter if they use X, Y, or Z.

Oh and I mean no offence but I have a hard time believing your CoD 4 tale. Someone who gets those results wouldn't be on here complaining like you are about modern games giving unskilled players too many advantages.

To understand what I'm saying, you have to look at video game skill as one who would look at work ethics. At work do you expect the same benefits as someone who has worked there for many years? Same principles, reward those who have put in the work and effort and punish those who haven't. I still complain about CoD even though I did well on it when I played it because I shouldn't be doing well until years of dedication, blood, sweat, and tears. I've seen people never play a shooter in their life get high stats on CoD and it just makes me embarrassed and honestly sickened. When back then it took so damn long to achieve victory and now people are just handed it like little pieces of candy. People have no pride or respect for those who dominated the scene. Now it's "If the game is too hard or doesn't have a matchmaking system, we don't play." You earn respect not given it for profit.

And for someone who brings fighting games up, you should already know what I'm talking about. Being good in fighting games myself took many years and it's pretty much the same thing. When you dedicate a lot of time and effort into something your going to get pissed off when they take away the meaning behind getting good in the first place. That combo on my gif was done by me and I'm very proud of it. I'm proud of all my ass kicking and so are all gamers good in games. We shouldn't be shunned for it. We should be rewarded for it.

 

[Bravo Company]

I'm fairly certain the people arguing that Doom 4 will save FPSs are stuck with rose tinted goggles of the arena shooter days on how they're so balanced or based purely on skill.

To that I say bullshit. Sure, you got to the railgun first and now you're 1 shotting everybody, but how much counter-play can you have against the guy that is 1 shotting everyone? Once the player base skill level is limited to "who can bunnyhop to the OP weapons first" its not much fun, especially for someone just getting into the game. I'm all for playing arena shooters. I thoroughly enjoy some old-school lan parties playing some UT2003 or Quake, but don't start spouting about how they take so much skill.


Also, to the screenshot from Artaneius, its possible to do that on any shooter if you've been playing for years and you join a lobby full of people that have spent less than 5 hours playing the game. Additionally, I personally hate playing matches that end that way. I'm usually on the upper end of the score board, but if I'm demolishing kids that hard, I'm going to find another server to play on because that's just not fun for anyone.

 

[Netrigan]

To understand what I'm saying, you have to look at video game skill as one who would look at work ethics. At work do you expect the same benefits as someone who has worked there for many years? Same principles, reward those who have put in the work and effort and punish those who haven't. I still complain about CoD even though I did well on it when I played it because I shouldn't be doing well until years of dedication, blood, sweat, and tears. I've seen people never play a shooter in their life get high stats on CoD and it just makes me embarrassed and honestly sickened. When back then it took so damn long to achieve victory and now people are just handed it like little pieces of candy. People have no pride or respect for those who dominated the scene. Now it's "If the game is too hard or doesn't have a matchmaking system, we don't play." You earn respect not given it for profit.

I get where you're coming from. Competitive play picks certain games for reasons. id ruled that scene for years as they took great care in balancing weapons and making sure there was a proper technical foundation. The original Unreal Tournament, which I thought was much more fun than Quake 3, did silly things like linking your mouse movement speed to your framerate, which made it functionally useless in competitive play.

But, quite frankly, most folks are just looking for a bit fun. They're not going to dedicate large chunks of their life to mastering the skills of their favorite game because they don't have the time or desire to do that. But they enjoy going on-line for an hour or two every night, trash-talking their friends & random strangers, and not worrying overly much that they're not terribly good at the game.

As I mention, I tend to be a bit of a mid-lister. Even back when I took the whole thing fairly seriously, I was just never very good at earning kills. I'm a slippery little bastard so I got a decent kill/death ratio, but it's a very, very rare thing for me to come out on the top... and if I do it's because I'm surrounded by newbies. The absolute worst thing which could ever happen to a game I was in is to have someone who took it seriously drop in, because it just becomes the Mr. Hardcore Murder Show and there's a steady stream of people dropping out of games because they're looking to play a pick-up game of hoops and some wannabe MJ shows up taking the whole thing way too seriously and killing all the fun.

 

[Artaneius]

To understand what I'm saying, you have to look at video game skill as one who would look at work ethics. At work do you expect the same benefits as someone who has worked there for many years? Same principles, reward those who have put in the work and effort and punish those who haven't. I still complain about CoD even though I did well on it when I played it because I shouldn't be doing well until years of dedication, blood, sweat, and tears. I've seen people never play a shooter in their life get high stats on CoD and it just makes me embarrassed and honestly sickened. When back then it took so damn long to achieve victory and now people are just handed it like little pieces of candy. People have no pride or respect for those who dominated the scene. Now it's "If the game is too hard or doesn't have a matchmaking system, we don't play." You earn respect not given it for profit.

I get where you're coming from. Competitive play picks certain games for reasons. id ruled that scene for years as they took great care in balancing weapons and making sure there was a proper technical foundation. The original Unreal Tournament, which I thought was much more fun than Quake 3, did silly things like linking your mouse movement speed to your framerate, which made it functionally useless in competitive play.

But, quite frankly, most folks are just looking for a bit fun. They're not going to dedicate large chunks of their life to mastering the skills of their favorite game because they don't have the time or desire to do that. But they enjoy going on-line for an hour or two every night, trash-talking their friends & random strangers, and not worrying overly much that they're not terribly good at the game.

As I mention, I tend to be a bit of a mid-lister. Even back when I took the whole thing fairly seriously, I was just never very good at earning kills. I'm a slippery little bastard so I got a decent kill/death ratio, but it's a very, very rare thing for me to come out on the top... and if I do it's because I'm surrounded by newbies. The absolute worst thing which could ever happen to a game I was in is to have someone who took it seriously drop in, because it just becomes the Mr. Hardcore Murder Show and there's a steady stream of people dropping out of games because they're looking to play a pick-up game of hoops and some wannabe MJ shows up taking the whole thing way too seriously and killing all the fun.

Most matches I play I'm not a wannabe MJ. Personally most games I'm quiet and just focusing on doing what needs to be done to win the match. I don't trashtalk or anything like that. However; I understand what your saying. I do get annoyed when I play against someone who trash talks and just kills off the fun of the game. But trust me, I purely focus on the game itself. If I lose, it don't matter. But I do try my hardest gameplay wise to win.

 

[Vault101]

title grammar bad mabye I think?

I don't think the genre needs "saving" I think we need other games

and Spec Ops: The Line to name a few.

Spec ops wasn't a first person shooter.....

it was a third person shooter...I actually would like to see more third person shooters..or third person anything