Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Sabotage Times - How Call Of Duty Ruined Video Games.
Now we’ve got Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 being the most played multiplayer shooters. They both just have teams shoot at each other for about 10 minutes, and then tally the deaths. The skill level for such shooters has dropped due to the addition of ‘perks’ and weapon modifications such as ‘rapid fire’. Now if you have a character in Modern Warfare 2 or Black Ops who has a sub-machine gun with the rapid fire attachment and the perks made for a sprinter then you can sprint around dodging shots and the rapid fire attachment means even if your opponent is more accurate, you can get more shots in. It completely removes any need for skill. For me this destroys any idea of fun I had with these games, they basically play the single-player for you and the multiplayer is based on pure luck more than anything else. A game journalist who goes by the name Total Biscuit had the greatest description I have ever heard for these games, “It’s Angry Birds in FPS form”, referring to the simplistic repetitive nature of them as well as their massive marketing.

View
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

24. Re: Op Ed Sep 13, 2011, 17:52 ^Drag0n^
 
I'm going to have to agree with the "ruining" part.

IMO, adding perks rewarded you for how long you endured a game, as opposed to rewarding you with skill by playing it.

Over time, the worst of players will get the best perks and be able to school those that are new to the game based strictly on the balance of time in the game being in their favor.

I know it makes me sound like a grumpy old man, but I'll take Quakeworld/Quake 3 DM over anything.

Reflexes, biatch!

^D^
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Op Ed Sep 13, 2011, 01:00 Beamer
 
Sepharo wrote on Sep 13, 2011, 00:58:
Are you guys sure you've played HL DM?

I can hear those snarks right now just thinking about it.

It always drove me insane that they didn't respawn in the snark pit. That seemed lazy to me, as the trap only worked once, as opposed to the water room trap which I used to haunt and drown people by the boatload.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Op Ed Sep 13, 2011, 00:58 Sepharo
 
Are you guys sure you've played HL DM?

I can hear those snarks right now just thinking about it.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 21:46 yonder
 
Beamer wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 10:28:
Wildone wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 00:34:
its 100% true..when I play those games I just keep dying randomly and feel like I have no control over how I died, I never felt that way playing Doom2, HL2 ect

There's more of a learning curve in CoD than there was in Doom 2 or HL2, etc.
Which makes sense - those were mostly barebones deathmatches. CoD is a step beyond that. Only one, sure, but it is a step.
And, the big difference, you can die in one shot. You couldn't do that in Doom. If you are new and don't know what's going on you won't know how to figure out where that one shot is coming from and how to avoid it.

For me that was always part of the fun - when someone or some team got themselves well bunkered down it became a game of skirting around their view and taking them out.

While I know the mods exist, I've never met anyone who played Doom of HL for the MP. Those are just tacked on. CoD primarily exists as a MP game. So to say that CoD's MP is barely a step above Doom and HL's MP is a mark against CoD. Compare CoD to Quake 1 thru 3 or UT or something appropriate.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 10:31 Beamer
 
Ultimately, if you're good at one pseudo-realistic military shooter, you're good at all of them.

I dominated MW2.
I got my ass kicked in the DICE-made MoH, except for one level.

Very different play styles. Very different games.
And this is partially why it kills me when people say dumb things like "MW is just spawn-camping." Spawn camping was virtually impossible in MW because the game chose to spawn you next to your teammates and far from enemies. It was very rare to die near your spawn. In DICE's MoH, though, I would often go through a string of respawning in the same place and getting taken out by the same sniper.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 10:28 Beamer
 
Wildone wrote on Sep 12, 2011, 00:34:
its 100% true..when I play those games I just keep dying randomly and feel like I have no control over how I died, I never felt that way playing Doom2, HL2 ect

There's more of a learning curve in CoD than there was in Doom 2 or HL2, etc.
Which makes sense - those were mostly barebones deathmatches. CoD is a step beyond that. Only one, sure, but it is a step.
And, the big difference, you can die in one shot. You couldn't do that in Doom. If you are new and don't know what's going on you won't know how to figure out where that one shot is coming from and how to avoid it.

For me that was always part of the fun - when someone or some team got themselves well bunkered down it became a game of skirting around their view and taking them out.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 07:37 Golwar
 
It completely removes any need for skill. For me this destroys any idea of fun I had with these games, [...] the multiplayer is based on pure luck more than anything else

I don't know why this is worth to be discussed, just the part above qualifies this as nonsense.

Yeah, completly removed need for skills ... odd that some people are then usually still better than others? I assume they have a constant lucky stream?

I don't play CoD so I can't tell how that game fares with its perks. But I can't recognize that they ruined BC2.
 
Avatar 55169
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 02:09 Kris Redbeard
 
Cornholio wrote on Sep 11, 2011, 17:06:
Bring back AQ2!

Hail!
 
Avatar 21244
 
GROUND BRANCH
Mature Classic Tactical First Person Shooter
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 00:34 Wildone
 
its 100% true..when I play those games I just keep dying randomly and feel like I have no control over how I died, I never felt that way playing Doom2, HL2 ect  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Op Ed Sep 12, 2011, 00:22 Jerykk
 
But I see it more as the FPS equivalent of Diablo looting. New perks are just the carrot on the end of a stick that keeps getting longer. Yes, you can argue that it's like an MMORPG, but you grind in those games. You don't grind in CoD, you play, just like in Diablo.

Loot and leveling are the primary reasons why people play hack 'n slash games like Diablo. Remove those two things and nobody would play them. Conversely, shooters are supposed to be driven by gameplay alone. That's why people played CS, Tribes, UT, Quake, etc, for so many years. They didn't need a tangible carrot on a stick. They kept playing because the gameplay was enjoyable and had enough depth to sustain players. The problem with modern shooters is that they don't really have any depth. Weapons are largely interchangeable and don't require unique skill sets or present any meaningful learning curves. Traversal is equally simplistic and has no learning curve at all. Ultimately, if you're good at one pseudo-realistic military shooter, you're good at all of them.

I also heavily disagree with your "9 times out of ten," I never once played a CoD game long enough to get my hands on an AK47 but I certainly destroyed thousands of people that had.

I think it's safe to assume that those people were less skilled than you. Again, skill can compensate for lack of unlockables, provided that your opponent has less skill than you. If opponents are equally skilled but one is level 70 and the other is level 1, the level 70 player has a distinct advantage.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 23:49 Beamer
 
Jerykk wrote on Sep 11, 2011, 20:10:
I do blame CoD for popularizing the whole multiplayer unlockable fad. Now every developer feels it necessary to include such a system, even in games that don't benefit from it. Tribes: Ascend is a good example of this. They've added a bunch of redundant weapons, removed the freeform loadout system and restricted you to predefined loadouts that can only carry two weapons. Why? So that they can implement an unlockable system that forces you to grind to unlock said loadouts. It's absurd and goes against everything the series has stood for.

Then there's the fact that unlockable systems are inherently unbalanced. A level 70 player with all the weapons/items/perks has a pretty significant advantage over a level 1 player with none of those things. People will argue that skill can overcome this advantage and while this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the advantage exists. If two equally-skilled players fight one another and one is level 1 while the other is level 70, the level 70 player will probably win 9/10 times. In addition, if a player is level 70, chances are good that he has significantly more experience than level 1 players, so he's getting the unlockable advantage on top of his skill advantage.

I disagree with this slightly.
In some ways it echoes my WoW arguments, in that all that is rewarded is time, not skill.
But I see it more as the FPS equivalent of Diablo looting. New perks are just the carrot on the end of a stick that keeps getting longer. Yes, you can argue that it's like an MMORPG, but you grind in those games. You don't grind in CoD, you play, just like in Diablo. I also heavily disagree with your "9 times out of ten," I never once played a CoD game long enough to get my hands on an AK47 but I certainly destroyed thousands of people that had.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 23:10 Cornholio
 
Only COD I ever bought was the first one.

But I did play the 4th one at a LAN party... the top 3 in those were 2 guys with level 35 or so and me at level fucking 0.
Every round it was between us 3 for the top spot, then the guy hosting asked if we wanted to do "old school" to nullify the perks and levels.

Guess who went on to win every damn round after that. This guy.
Perks are lame.


Oh and +1 to bringing back the original tribes. The Real Tribes.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 22:09 Creston
 
For me this destroys any idea of fun I had with these games, they basically play the single-player for you and the multiplayer is based on pure luck more than anything else.

Then stop buying it, tardbilly! Maybe then they'll stop making the same dumb fucking game over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 20:24 Ventura
 
I like the insinuation that the more skillful players are those not running around with the perks. Can't be that fucking smart if they're passing on them and then ending up towards the bottom of the ladder after each and every game, can they? All that time I was camping the quad in Quake 1, I guess I was doing that wrong

I actually read that article, and apparently, I should be playing a game called Limbo instead, where you just jump your way to the end. Or something.

If that's the future of gaming, thanks but no thanks.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 20:10 Jerykk
 
I do blame CoD for popularizing the whole multiplayer unlockable fad. Now every developer feels it necessary to include such a system, even in games that don't benefit from it. Tribes: Ascend is a good example of this. They've added a bunch of redundant weapons, removed the freeform loadout system and restricted you to predefined loadouts that can only carry two weapons. Why? So that they can implement an unlockable system that forces you to grind to unlock said loadouts. It's absurd and goes against everything the series has stood for.

Then there's the fact that unlockable systems are inherently unbalanced. A level 70 player with all the weapons/items/perks has a pretty significant advantage over a level 1 player with none of those things. People will argue that skill can overcome this advantage and while this is true, it doesn't change the fact that the advantage exists. If two equally-skilled players fight one another and one is level 1 while the other is level 70, the level 70 player will probably win 9/10 times. In addition, if a player is level 70, chances are good that he has significantly more experience than level 1 players, so he's getting the unlockable advantage on top of his skill advantage.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 19:09 Trevellian
 
Bring back Tribes... the first one. Please. I'd play that for weeks and not complain.

Someone should turn it into a web browser game like Quakelive.
 
Avatar 55066
 
For the Republic
-C22 Waterson of Planetside 2
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 17:06 Cornholio
 
Perks are for pussies...
COD is a spam fest.

Bring back AQ2!
Never have and never will like CS either.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 17:02 Brumbek
 
His point was lost when he started making idiotic statements like it being "based on pure luck". Um, no. Rapid fire Mini-Uzi with Marathon Pro is awesome for some levels, but the good players can use this much more effectively than the bad.

Those with skill still dominate. In fact, if this person had skills, he'd realize perks and killstreaks actually give a MUCH larger advantage to good players. So it becomes unbalanced, but not in the bad player's favor, and certainly not based on the whims of "luck".
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 16:46 MrBone
 
Face it. The writer is absolutely right. These game, including TF2 have become a joke due to perks. It ruined them.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Op Ed Sep 11, 2011, 15:24 Beamer
 
God that's stupid.  
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo