What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Bellabong on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:23 am

Anyone following the CoD thread will know that I've made some very similar points about the series.

I'm interested to know what you guys think; What makes for a better game? Is it one that makes you feel good about yourself and your abilities? (CoD & WoW are the most prominent examples) Or is it one that that's more rewarding for skilled and/or dedicated players? (DotA 6/DOTA2, Quake, Broodwar)

PCGamer wrote:Earlier this month I visited Killing Floor and Red Orchestra 2 creator Tripwire Interactive to play Rising Storm, the upcoming standalone expansion to RO2 (look for a preview on Monday). After the demo, Tripwire President John Gibson and I got talking about the state of first-person shooters, and Gibson laid out a detailed criticism about the way Call of Duty "takes individual skill out of the equation." Gibson also expressed frustration over how difficult it had been trying to design a mode for Red Orchestra 2 that appealed to Call of Duty players.

PCG: How do you feel about the state of FPSes?

John Gibson, President: I think that single-player shooters are getting better. I think they’re finally coming out from under the shadow of the Hollywood movie, overblown “I’m on a rail” linear shooter. I’m talking about Call of Duty-style shooters. In the late ‘90s, you had the original Deus Ex, which was an RPG-shooter. And those kind of games almost took an eight year hiatus. And I’m so excited to see them coming back with interesting gameplay. Like the Fallout games, even though their shooting mechanics could really use some improvement, just mixing a really cool story, but not a linear story, one that you create yourself. The melding of RPG elements and shooter elements has been great. I’ve seen this reflected in a lot of the reviews, it’s like, “Okay guys, we’re tired of this on-rails experience.”

On the flip side, I’m really discouraged by the current state of multiplayer shooters. I think that, and I hate to mention names, because it sounds like ‘I’m just jealous of their success,’ but I’m really, I feel like Call of Duty has almost ruined a generation of FPS players. I know that’s a bold statement, but I won’t just throw stones without backing it up. When I was developing Action Mode [for RO2], I got a group of people that I know that are pretty hardcore Call of Duty players. And my goal was to create something that was accessible enough for them to enjoy the game—not turn it into Call of Duty, but try to make something that I thought was casual enough but with the Red Orchestra gameplay style that they would enjoy. And we iterated on it a lot. And just listening to all the niggling, pedantic things that they would complain about, that made them not want to play the game, I just thought, “I give up. Call of Duty has ruined this whole generation of gamers.”

What did they complain about?

Gibson: It’s the gameplay mechanics that they become used to. The way that players instantly accelerate when they move, they don’t build up speed. “The weapons really don’t have a lot of power” [in RO2]. They’re all very weak. The way they handle... They’re like: “I hate Red Orchestra, I can’t play it.” Well, why? “Because the guy doesn’t move like he does in Call of Duty. Call of Duty has great movement.” Why is it great? “Because it just is, I just like the way it works.” So you don’t like the momentum system in Red Orchestra? “Yeah, it sucks, it’s clunky, it’s terrible.” Well, why? “It’s just because I’m used to this.”

I make it sound like there was a combative conversation, probably because I get a little emotional when I think about it. But it was really a calm discussion of, “What don’t you like?” and “It doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” Almost every element boiled down to “it doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” And really, watching some of these guys play... one of the things that Call of Duty does, and it’s smart business, to a degree, is they compress the skill gap. And the way you compress the skill gap as a designer is you add a whole bunch of randomness. A whole bunch of weaponry that doesn’t require any skill to get kills. Random spawns, massive cone fire on your weapons. Lots of devices that can get kills with zero skill at all, and you know, it’s kind of smart to compress your skill gap to a degree. You don’t want the elite players to destroy the new players so bad that new players can never get into the game and enjoy it. I’m looking at you, Dota. [laughs] Sorry.

But the skill gap is so compressed, that it’s like a slot machine. You might as well just sit down at a slot machine and have a thing that pops up an says “I got a kill!” They’ve taken individual skill out of the equation so much. So you see these guys—I see it all the time, they come in to play Red Orchestra, and they’re like “This game’s just too hardcore. I’m awesome at Call of Duty, so there’s something wrong with your game. Because I’m not successful at playing this game, so it must suck. I’m not the problem, it’s your game.” And sometimes as designers, it is our game. Sometimes we screw up, sometimes we design something that’s not accesible enough, they can’t figure it out, we didn’t give them enough information to figure out where to go... but more often than not, it’s because Call of Duty compressed their skill gap so much that these guys never needed to get good at a shooter. They never needed to get good at their twitch skills with a mouse.

Players like Elliot [Cannon, Lead Designer] and I, back in the Quake and Unreal days, you know, we had to get good at aiming. These guys don’t have to anymore. The skill gap is so compressed that like, “The game makes me feel that I’m awesome.” These guys, when I actually watch them play, they’re actually very poor FPS players. And I don’t think it’s because they’re incapable of getting good, I think it’s because they never had to get good. They get enough kills in Call of Duty to feel like they’re awesome, but they never really had to develop their FPS skills beyond that.

And it’s a shame because when you do that, when you create a shooter like that, you’re very limited on the amount of depth that you can give the game. It’s all gotta be very surface level, like I’m sitting there eating cotton candy and I never get any meat and potatoes. And it’s frustrating for me as a designer to see players come in and they’re literally like “In Call of Duty it takes 0.15 seconds to go into ironsights. In RO2 it takes 0.17 seconds to go into ironsights. I hate this.”

Do you think it’s a matter of patience? Have these players lost their sense of patience?

Gibson: I think that’s part of it. The game is kind of spoonfeeding them, and making them feel great when they’re not. And like I said, that’s smart business, and I don’t blame Infinity Ward for wanting to do that. They’re selling millions of games and they have lots of people enjoying it, but I think there’s a depth of enjoyment there that a lot of these players are missing out on. And when you try to get them to branch out, their knee-jerk reaction is “The training wheels have come off, I’m gonna fall!” And I hate to see that.

It’s this weird dichotomy between, you know, single-player is getting much more depth, and players are just eating it up. They’re loving that. They’re buying these FPS-RPG single-player games like crazy. But multiplayer, “Ooh, don’t take my training wheels off.” I hate that. So we’re trying... we’re giving a little bit of training wheels, but we’re going to take them off occasionally in the shooters that we’re making, and hopefully we’ll get some of those people to branch out. I think for me though, I wouldn’t say I’ve completely given up on all of those players, but I’m not gonna try to make a game that tries to be Call of Duty at the expense of having fun gameplay that actually has depth.

Elliot Cannon, Rising Storm Lead Designer: Or creating a game that feels like you might be in a war, and you might die?

Gibson: Yeah. That’s one of the things that we do in our games, and it’s fear. When you play... I know there are modes in Left 4 Dead that are more hardcore, but when you play Left 4 Dead, and I’m really friends with Valve, so I hope they don’t get mad at me, but you do get spikes of adrenaline. But eventually that wears off because you figure out, well, as long as we stick together we’re never gonna die. In Killing Floor, when the Fleshpound shows up, you could be screwed. Half your team is probably gonna die. Your heart rate goes up, you’re freaking out, like “I can actually lose this shooter.” And if there’s no fear, there’s no tension, the victory is shallow. We want there to be some fear.

What do you consider your tools for expressing fear?

Gibson: Vulnerability is a big part of it, lethality. The ability to lose. There has to be... it’s kind of like, you know, if you’re gambling. If you go to the penny slots, you’re like, “Okay, yeah, whatever, I lost a penny.” But you go to the Roulette table, you throw down a thousand bucks, and you spin the wheel—you’re nervous at that point.

So, having the players have to take risks. Risk versus reward. They risk more, but the reward is greater. There’s more depth, there’s a bit more of a learning curve, but when you get that kill at long range with that bolt-action rifle, while the artillery’s flying around your head, and mortar shells are falling and guys are Banzai-charging you in the face, and your guy’s shaking, but you still kill him anyway. That’s an experience. You had some risk there, but you got a bigger reward. The kill wasn’t just handed to you. It wasn’t like “I called in the helicopter and it flew into the level and mowed down half the enemy team while I wasn’t even doing anything.”

Sauce: http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/call-of-duty-red-orchestra-2-interview

_________________

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 1oiS8nl

Henry wrote:"“Stepovers, tricks, that’s not the game. The game is what Thomas Muller is doing. If I had a son right now, playing, I would say to him ‘look at them, look at [Franck] Ribery, look at Muller.’ What Ronaldo does, and Messi, they’re just freaks. Don’t try to copy those guys. You can copy from Ribery, you can copy from Thomas Muller. What he did at the World Cup, people don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about it, but they should talk about it. He plays the game the right way: he defends, he attacks, he controls the ball when he has to control it, he reverses when he has to reverse it. When he has to finish, he’ll finish. He doesn’t do stepovers, but when he has to perform, he performs. He does what the game asks him to do.”"

Bellabong
Bellabong
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : TSV 1860 Munich
Posts : 3474
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by che on Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:21 am

as much as i hate cod, with global offensive, arma, and to a certain extent bf it's not like they're killing the fps genre... there will always be more children than adults who want to play games, and all these children will go for cod because it's easier to play, that doesn't mean the genre itself is dead... hell every single gaming forum is foaming at the mouth about arma 3, quality games will always find a customer base

why are they even bothering with trying to appeal to the cod crowd?

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? OAeOewV
che
che
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Benfica
Posts : 3597
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Art Morte on Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:04 pm

Yeah, the best Call of Duty game to date is the first one, because it actually required skill. I completely agree with that article and couldn't care less about new CoDs.
Art Morte
Art Morte
Forum legendest

Club Supported : Liverpool
Posts : 16641
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 33

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Die Borussen on Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:04 pm

absolutely spot on i dont have time now but ill post my thoughts once i get back

Die Borussen
Banned (Permanent)

Club Supported : Sao Paulo
Posts : 3442
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Great Leader Sprucenuce on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:02 pm

@che wrote:
why are they even bothering with trying to appeal to the cod crowd?

I have been asking the question for nearly 2 years now, i just don't get it.

What is the point of trying to appeal to a crowd when they will just drop your game in 2 months max for CoD there is their point trying to clone CoD games because the CoD fans have CoD for that and nothing will beat CoD at what it does.

My favourite MP shooter is Gears of War as most of you will know and the reason i fell in love with that in the first place was the fast paced intense action and tactical gameplay. cover mechanic but not just that....

It was simple and fun and instead of killstreaks you have power weapons ( ala Halo etc etc) you only had to choose between 1 or 2 rifles and a shotgun ( again i come back to simplicity)

Also the first 2 had extremely high learning curves most new players come to Gears and get thier shit rocked myself included at the beginning.

Then Gears 3 came along and tried to appealed to the casual crowd with high powered rifles and many other things to help hold the new players hands.

Put it simply what i like in a shooter is simplicity, fun factor and learning curve ( what is the fun in picking a shooter up and being fantastic at it from the word go?) part of the fun is learning a game and going through the stage of noob to shitting on the noobs it gives you a state of satisfaction.

The reason people loved CoD 4 was because it was simple from the mechanics to the killstreaks and maps.

3-5-7 was perfect for what they needed for that game once they went to the custom load outs it was ruined, the reason people loved past generation shooters like Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, Doom, Quake, Timesplitters etc etc is because they were simple.

A lot of this generation has forgotten what games are supposed to be.

Great Leader Sprucenuce
Great Leader Sprucenuce
Forum Legend
Forum Legend

Club Supported : PSG
Posts : 66655
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Onyx on Thu Mar 14, 2013 6:43 pm

CoD does actually require skill. There might easy ways to kill people etc, however I think people with skill can get more kills and be more effective.

Compared to Battlefield, CoD has smaller maps, fast paced action and you're straight into it. That's the good thing about it. It takes ages to find someone on Battlefield and the maps are too big. It's just not fast paced enough. It just depends on what you prefer imo.
Onyx
Onyx
Forum Legend
Forum Legend

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 39958
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Thimmy on Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:37 am

Yohan Modric wrote:CoD does actually require skill. There might easy ways to kill people etc, however I think people with skill can get more kills and be more effective.

Compared to Battlefield, CoD has smaller maps, fast paced action and you're straight into it. That's the good thing about it. It takes ages to find someone on Battlefield and the maps are too big. It's just not fast paced enough. It just depends on what you prefer imo.

This basically sums up my opinion on the topic of CoD being better than most other FPS games out there, right now. I simply prefer the fast-paced action, the high maneuverability (unrealistic or not, I don't care. I don't think games that restrict your movement to the point where your character is less mobile than your real-life self, is any more realistic - I'm looking at you, Crysis, Medal of Honor etc), and the design of the maps in CoD. I'm sure there are other games out there where you can stand out more by being more skillful than the average player, and that's great.. but I'm personally content with what difference I can make in CoD by having better accuracy and reflexes than the average CoD player. You can make just as much a difference in Call of Duty by being tactically clever, as you can in any other FPS game. Sure, there are tons of ways for people who lack these attributes to get kills easily, by using underhanded tactics like camping (complimented by the small maps), noobtubes and whatnot.. but I'd take those lamers over the slow-paced FPS games, any day. That's just my friggin preference.

The way I see it, the people who dislike CoD are the ones who picked up the game for a brief period of time, noticed a few things they didn't like, and declared that the game is garbage. I believe people experience CoD differently, and it's useless to try and explain to the ones who dislike the series why they're wrong, because their first impression is that the game mechanics caters to casual, spray and pray players, and that's usually what they base their opinion on when judging the game as a whole. The game is only as difficult as you want it to be. I'm not saying that it doesn't cater to that type of players, it certainly does, but you can get a lot more out of your CoD experience, if you know how to make it more interesting. I'm sure that there are competitive players out there who can explain it more into detail than I can. At the end of the day, it boils down to personal preference. You can keep saying that it's unrealistic and yada yada, but again, that's just a matter of preference.

It is true that the CoD developers' lack of effort into developing the series, and their recycling of old elements is setting a bad example for the FPS genre, but for the past few years, all I've been hearing from Battlefield fanboys and Anti-CoD enthusiasts is complaints that Call of Duty is unrealistic, made for dumb kids, stOOpid, and a bunch of other lame reasons that seem to indicate that these people just haven't played the game enough to be taken seriously. I think it's funny how many of them claim that they know what they're talking about because they've played CoD for several years, yet what they're trying to do is make people stop playing Call of Duty and start playing other FPS games that are less popular.

This John Gibson guy doesn't know what he's talking about when he says that CoD takes skill out of the equation. He points out a bunch of well-known facts like, CoD weapons not requiring any "skill", accuracy, effort to use effectively. However, in Call of Duty, the players who are fast, accurate, and last but not least, tactically smart will always outshine the less skillful ones. 90% of all CoD players may be spray and pray- type of players, but it's very possible to stand out from the rest of the bunch, if you know how to rack up kills and survive, while avoiding close-quarter confrontation. The players who prefer to spray and pray in Call of Duty, will most likely do the same in any other FPS game. These players are more often than not dispositioned to this type of playing style, and I don't think exposing them to a more challenging game would change that.

Personally, I don't really care that much about how many kills I get, or whether my team in Search and Destroy or any other game mode wins or not, as long as I'm having a good time playing it. I'm open to trying FPS games that are very different from CoD, but so far, the ones I've tried just didn't entertain me to the same extent. I still occasionally hear people say that Battlefield 3 is far superior to CoD and all, but that game's just not my cup of tea. I feel that CoD's competitors just aren't focusing on the right things. The most recent CoD games have several flaws that most of the CoD community are aware of, but I think there are enough positives to make up for that, to a certain extent. I feel that other, modern FPS games have less flaws, but lack that something that makes an FPS game worthy of being considered better than the rest.

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Tumblr_pgoe0wHCe11vgq1a3_540What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 2540025-52699210-2560-1440
Thimmy
Thimmy
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 8593
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by CBarca on Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:11 am

I enjoy picking up a more casual game and playing. I play FIFA online sometimes and I play Halo 3 or Reach online sometimes...but tbh, the most rewarding games are the ones that have a high skill ceiling, that require practice to get good at, and the ones where you just get railed at the beginning and you have to learn and use what you learn and build on those foundations and become a skilled player. It's when you get better and you learn and beat players knowing "god damn that felt good, I railed that guy and I was much more skilled than him"- that satisfaction is what is the most rewarding IMO.

Which is why the only multiplayer game I've truly been addicted to for a while was SC2 (and that didn't last long...school :facepalm: ). It allows for all of that.

I never liked CoD. The first time I played it I had a positive K/D spread and I generally stayed positive, even as I was learning the damn game. And there were tons of just stupid deaths that were so quick. I stopped playing quickly after I started (which was cause my brother got the game). I'm not saying I was a boss or very good or anything, but the lack of skill and lack of true competition turned me off from the game as a multiplayer game. I found if I was going to play casually I'd rather do it with an FPS like Halo.

And playing CoD as a competitive game? No thanks Laughing
CBarca
CBarca
NEVER a Mod

Club Supported : Athletic Bilbao
Posts : 17577
Join date : 2011-06-17
Age : 23

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by pUsHa on Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:07 am

LOOOL at the stuff that it takes you years in Battlefield to find someone ... yeah pretty much if you play on a console , but if you're on PC playing RUSH on a 64 men server or even 32 believe me it wont take you anytime ... it's not like you have to go by foot the whole map . Who the fk spread this idea that BF is not full of action !? When there is a Gunship shooting your ass along with Jets and Heli's in Conquest or Rush !? ... and for CoD junkies there is the Closed Quarters DLC with small maps and a Gun Master game mode ...
pUsHa
pUsHa
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : AC Milan
Posts : 1943
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by che on Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:32 am

i was going to avoid any fanboyish argument in this thread until i read this factually wrong statement

@Thimmy wrote:You can make just as much a difference in Call of Duty by being tactically clever, as you can in any other FPS game.

no... no no no no no absolutely *bleep* not... for all your raging about how people who hate cod just "don't play it enough", this only shows you don't play anything else enough to understand other games properly, or you're horrible at them

my flatmate plays cod on his xbox all the time and the room for tactics is about as big as the maps - which is to say tiny... no teamwork at all, no spotting, no resupplying, no spawning on the squadmate you select, and the points reward for an assist is 20% of the points reward for a kill

here's an example of teamwork that happened to me last time i played bad company: rush game so objective was to plant the bomb, i was playing as a sniper... my teammate ran up to their lines and tried to sneak around them while i was spotting enemies positions and clearing them out when i could... after my teammate got behind their backs, i ran into their line of fire and got killed, as did other two squadmates, we spawned on the guy who was still alive in a house behind their lines and attacked them from behind... this confused them, allowing the rest of our team to move up, plant the bomb and advance

another example... a gunship shows up, your teammates know you have a rocket launcher but can't hit it without a tracer because in bf it's actually difficult to shoot down a helicopter... one of your teammates respawns as a medic with a tracer gun without you telling him to, heals you with a medpack, shoots a tracer at the heli, you shoot it with your rpg

now please explain to me what part of this could have happened in cod

all I've been hearing from Battlefield fanboys and Anti-CoD enthusiasts is complaints that Call of Duty is unrealistic, made for dumb kids, stOOpid, and a bunch of other lame reasons that seem to indicate that these people just haven't played the game enough to be taken seriously.

90% of all CoD players may be spray and pray- type of players, but it's very possible to stand out from the rest of the bunch, if you know how to rack up kills and survive, while avoiding close-quarter confrontation.

so what you're saying is that bf fanboys who say cod is shit because it caters to morons are wrong because only 90% of cod players are morons?

I feel that other, modern FPS games have less flaws, but lack that something that makes an FPS game worthy of being considered better than the rest.

well, good for you... while i hate cod as a game, like i said there's plenty of other shooters so i have no problem with its existence so long as the competition keeps giving me what i want... and i certainly won't be campaigning for cod players to switch to games i'm playing, keep the children in their little sandbox

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? OAeOewV
che
che
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Benfica
Posts : 3597
Join date : 2011-06-05

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Twoism on Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:17 am

Planetside 2 is what MMO FPS should be
Twoism
Twoism
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : Arsenal
Posts : 2739
Join date : 2011-06-06

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Bellabong on Fri Mar 15, 2013 12:12 pm

Thimmy, from your statements it's so obvious you've barely touched other fps's. Trying to defend CoD and talk about its skill reward is about as fanboyish as you can get. Accuracy? What accuracy? Killing times are less than half a second, the game doesn't actually have bullets and it incorporates a flinch mechanic so I really don't understand why you try and bring accuracy into the equation.

Tactically smart? CoD? Lolwut? That's like saying Quake rewards good teamwork xD

The fanboys arguments trying to compare CoD to Battlefield 3 are hilarious, because BF3 is just as guilty as CoD when it comes to lowering the skill-gap. All they're really arguing about is one casualized tactical fps vs. a casualized twitch fps. Might as well argue about Quake vs. Battlefield 1942, an argument that's as fanboy as possible because it's a matter of personal preference.

This thread is about Quake vs. CoD, Super Meat Boy vs. Angry Birds, BF1942 vs. BF3, LoL vs. HoN, Diablo II vs. Diablo III, Left 4 Dead vs. Left 4 Dead 2, Aion vs. WoW, PES vs FIFA etc. so keep your x game is better than y game within the same genre. BF3 and CoD are different genres believe it or not and the core of the argument between twitch fps's and tactical fps's is individual skill vs. teamwork. Since they've both taken skill out of the equation you can see why BF3 is perceived as the better game.

_________________

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 1oiS8nl

Henry wrote:"“Stepovers, tricks, that’s not the game. The game is what Thomas Muller is doing. If I had a son right now, playing, I would say to him ‘look at them, look at [Franck] Ribery, look at Muller.’ What Ronaldo does, and Messi, they’re just freaks. Don’t try to copy those guys. You can copy from Ribery, you can copy from Thomas Muller. What he did at the World Cup, people don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about it, but they should talk about it. He plays the game the right way: he defends, he attacks, he controls the ball when he has to control it, he reverses when he has to reverse it. When he has to finish, he’ll finish. He doesn’t do stepovers, but when he has to perform, he performs. He does what the game asks him to do.”"

Bellabong
Bellabong
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : TSV 1860 Munich
Posts : 3474
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Thimmy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:43 am

@che wrote:
90% of all CoD players may be spray and pray- type of players, but it's very possible to stand out from the rest of the bunch, if you know how to rack up kills and survive, while avoiding close-quarter confrontation.

so what you're saying is that bf fanboys who say cod is shit because it caters to morons are wrong because only 90% of cod players are morons?

They are right, CoD does cater to morons. It does have shotguns and machine guns that have no recoil, and fire large cones of bullets, so that you don't have to aim, in addition to several other game mechanics that makes it so that people don't have to aim accurately, in order to kill fast. I personally think that the majority of the CoD community are mentally challenged teenagers Smile I just don't agree with the argument that "Call of Duty takes skill out of the equation", because you can get far in CoD by being a skillful player. I can look past the game's many flaws, because overall, I enjoy CoD more than any other modern FPS game that I've played. Hell, I'd take Quake 3 arena over Battlefield 3.

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Tumblr_pgoe0wHCe11vgq1a3_540What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 2540025-52699210-2560-1440
Thimmy
Thimmy
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 8593
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Thimmy on Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:53 am

Phritz wrote:Thimmy, from your statements it's so obvious you've barely touched other fps's. Trying to defend CoD and talk about its skill reward is about as fanboyish as you can get. Accuracy? What accuracy? Killing times are less than half a second, the game doesn't actually have bullets and it incorporates a flinch mechanic so I really don't understand why you try and bring accuracy into the equation.

Tactically smart? CoD? Lolwut? That's like saying Quake rewards good teamwork xD

The fanboys arguments trying to compare CoD to Battlefield 3 are hilarious, because BF3 is just as guilty as CoD when it comes to lowering the skill-gap. All they're really arguing about is one casualized tactical fps vs. a casualized twitch fps. Might as well argue about Quake vs. Battlefield 1942, an argument that's as fanboy as possible because it's a matter of personal preference.

This thread is about Quake vs. CoD, Super Meat Boy vs. Angry Birds, BF1942 vs. BF3, LoL vs. HoN, Diablo II vs. Diablo III, Left 4 Dead vs. Left 4 Dead 2, Aion vs. WoW, PES vs FIFA etc. so keep your x game is better than y game within the same genre. BF3 and CoD are different genres believe it or not and the core of the argument between twitch fps's and tactical fps's is individual skill vs. teamwork. Since they've both taken skill out of the equation you can see why BF3 is perceived as the better game.

Try playing Search and Destroy as the only survivor on your team, against multiple enemies. You won't get far if you don't know how to use tactics to your advantage. That is, unless you're playing against spray and pray type of players. In which case, all you need to do is to split them up and avoid close quarter fights.

Great accuracy and fast aiming (how fast you can get your enemy inside your crosshair) are both necessary to become an above average CoD player, because if you want to be able to efficiently kill enemies from all ranges, you can't just use the no-recoil, medium damage guns. The MP7 in MW3 is massively imbalanced, but from long distances, it will always lose against decent players with ACRs. You will need to be accurate and get your aim on the target fast, if you pick a high recoil/high damage weapon, like the PM-9, or the PP90M1 w/rapid fire. PM-9 does actually have a lot of recoil for a CoD weapon, and if you don't put rapid fire on PP90M1, prepare to get raped in close quarter 1on1s. The better your accuracy and aim speed is, the better you can compensate for these long and mid-range deficiencies.

I am a casual player, so yes.. there are a lot of new FPS games that I haven't picked up. I'm sure there is an FPS game out there that I would enjoy more than Call of Duty, but I don't agree that CoD takes skill out of the equation. It certainly makes it easier for the players to do well, with little effort put into it, but I think that's a shallow way of looking at it, and I don't think any above average Call of Duty players who have played the game for a long time, would agree that skillfulness has nothing to do with CoD. Even if the game caters to players who favor brawn over brain, that doesn't mean that you can't make a difference by having certain skill-sets that others don't have.

Call of Duty isn't only the most popular FPS game of today, because it caters to people who like to win easily, it also caters to players who have learnt to take advantage of these flawed game mechanics and use it against those who rely too much on the easy-mode that was given to them by default. I'm not afraid to admit that the Call of Duty series has many flaws in it's games, but it's still an appealing game to both casual and hardcore players who are willing to put some time into it. The two of you seem to disagree with me, either because you haven't played the game enough to understand what I'm talking about, or you have a buddy who's part of the group that I referred to as mentally challenged above(I didn't mean that literally). If you're a hardcore FPS gamer, like Phritz, Call of Duty may not seem very appealing, because it's far easier to spot the many, shallow flaws, than it is notice what makes it such a stand-out game to the people who do enjoy it. It's not easy to explain it to someone who's so insistent that everything Call of Duty represents is silly and not worth taking seriously at all Razz

Phritz: If you have any recommendations for a casual FPS game on console that you believe is better than CoD and Battlefield, please tell me what it is/they are.

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Tumblr_pgoe0wHCe11vgq1a3_540What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 2540025-52699210-2560-1440
Thimmy
Thimmy
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 8593
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by CBarca on Sat Mar 16, 2013 2:25 am

I haven't played hardly any Quake, but I do respect the game. Quake is boss.

_________________
Beer and guns
CBarca
CBarca
NEVER a Mod

Club Supported : Athletic Bilbao
Posts : 17577
Join date : 2011-06-17
Age : 23

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by FalcaoPunch on Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:05 am

No skill is needed to play COD. That's why it sells and that's why it's not rated amongst fans of FPS.


I hate it or actually... I despise it. I only play it on occasion to kill time with some buddies online or to dick around.

But the amount of drops shots, combination of perks, the crappy knifing system, OP weapons, quick scoping, running around firing a DSR with an ACOG scope, the list continues.

I loved Ghost Recon Future Soldier (third person). I loved the MP it actually emphasized on teamwork there was unique balance amongst weapons and overall was an enjoyable experience where never did I questiony death nor have a "wtf that is so bulls**" moment.


I haven't played many other first person shooters but COD is just crap atm.
FalcaoPunch
FalcaoPunch
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : RO Blank
Posts : 4173
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 26

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Bellabong on Sat Mar 16, 2013 5:07 am

Actually I enjoy CoD a lot, I just can't take it seriously because if I do, my brain breaks. But the reason I enjoy it is because it takes very little skill and concentration compared to a game like Starcraft II, which gets my heart-rate up and I start sweating out of nervousness and am mentally exhausted after 2-3 hours of playing melee.

Gibson isn't saying that CoD takes no skill, he's saying that it makes people believe they're better than they really are. Can you imagine all the ACR/MP7 players in MW3 learning how to deal with recoil? Can you imagine CoD snipers learning to deal with bullet drops and a lack of one-hit kill body shots? Can you imagine campers having to run around the map for health pick-ups instead of automatic health regen?

Of course there is skill involved in CoD but if you were to make a scale of skill involved in games with Brood War being 100, and Angry Birds at 0 I would put the Quakes in the 70's and the modern CoD's and BF3 in the 30's.

What I'm trying to emphasize is take 100 BF3 pilots, have them play BF2 and only half will do as well as they did in BF3. (A CoD comparison would be out of 100 decent CoD players, 80 would suck at Quake, whereas nearly all of the decent Quake players would do well in CoD). The main difference is that a crappy CoD player can kill a good CoD player, whilst a crappy Quake player can't kill a good Quake player, in your opinion, which the better game?

When describing CoD as high action, high maneuverability people seem to forget that it's a console fps with low health, normal gravity and pretty much makes ADS a requirement because of the accuracy difference with hip-fire thus slowing your target down further and making it easier to aim because the one thing that's lost in translation from PC to consoles is precision. It would almost be impossible to have UT/Quake be successful on consoles because controllers simply aren't precise enough to deal with those games pace and action.

As for console fps's which are better I can't really say, what else is there actually? Killzone? Halo? Resistance? Counterstrike GO? Crysis 3?

The console fps selection is pretty dire atm, mostly because consoles aren't about the challenge/innovativity/quality of games anymore, it's about competing against other forms of media such as TV/Movies etc.

_________________

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 1oiS8nl

Henry wrote:"“Stepovers, tricks, that’s not the game. The game is what Thomas Muller is doing. If I had a son right now, playing, I would say to him ‘look at them, look at [Franck] Ribery, look at Muller.’ What Ronaldo does, and Messi, they’re just freaks. Don’t try to copy those guys. You can copy from Ribery, you can copy from Thomas Muller. What he did at the World Cup, people don’t talk about it. They don’t talk about it, but they should talk about it. He plays the game the right way: he defends, he attacks, he controls the ball when he has to control it, he reverses when he has to reverse it. When he has to finish, he’ll finish. He doesn’t do stepovers, but when he has to perform, he performs. He does what the game asks him to do.”"

Bellabong
Bellabong
First Team
First Team

Club Supported : TSV 1860 Munich
Posts : 3474
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 29

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by CBarca on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:15 am

The console fps selection is pretty dire atm, mostly because consoles aren't about the challenge/innovativity/quality of games anymore, it's about competing against other forms of media such as TV/Movies etc.

That's actually a great line and one that I agree with.

Your rating scale has me looking like: Proud

Brood War at 100 Proud
CBarca
CBarca
NEVER a Mod

Club Supported : Athletic Bilbao
Posts : 17577
Join date : 2011-06-17
Age : 23

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Thimmy on Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:36 am

Phritz wrote:Actually I enjoy CoD a lot, I just can't take it seriously because if I do, my brain breaks. But the reason I enjoy it is because it takes very little skill and concentration compared to a game like Starcraft II, which gets my heart-rate up and I start sweating out of nervousness and am mentally exhausted after 2-3 hours of playing melee.

Gibson isn't saying that CoD takes no skill, he's saying that it makes people believe they're better than they really are. Can you imagine all the ACR/MP7 players in MW3 learning how to deal with recoil? Can you imagine CoD snipers learning to deal with bullet drops and a lack of one-hit kill body shots? Can you imagine campers having to run around the map for health pick-ups instead of automatic health regen?

Of course there is skill involved in CoD but if you were to make a scale of skill involved in games with Brood War being 100, and Angry Birds at 0 I would put the Quakes in the 70's and the modern CoD's and BF3 in the 30's.

What I'm trying to emphasize is take 100 BF3 pilots, have them play BF2 and only half will do as well as they did in BF3. (A CoD comparison would be out of 100 decent CoD players, 80 would suck at Quake, whereas nearly all of the decent Quake players would do well in CoD). The main difference is that a crappy CoD player can kill a good CoD player, whilst a crappy Quake player can't kill a good Quake player, in your opinion, which the better game?

When describing CoD as high action, high maneuverability people seem to forget that it's a console fps with low health, normal gravity and pretty much makes ADS a requirement because of the accuracy difference with hip-fire thus slowing your target down further and making it easier to aim because the one thing that's lost in translation from PC to consoles is precision. It would almost be impossible to have UT/Quake be successful on consoles because controllers simply aren't precise enough to deal with those games pace and action.

As for console fps's which are better I can't really say, what else is there actually? Killzone? Halo? Resistance? Counterstrike GO? Crysis 3?

The console fps selection is pretty dire atm, mostly because consoles aren't about the challenge/innovativity/quality of games anymore, it's about competing against other forms of media such as TV/Movies etc.

Now we're talking, I actually agree about most of this. I'm a bit confused as to why you picked Halo as a better console FPS, though. I've played Halo, and being a CoD player, it was surprisingly easy to get used to it. The Halo players I played against were pretty poor. I had never played the game before, yet it didn't take me long to dominate in Assault, Cap the Flag and King of the Hill. I probably just coincidentally ended up in a lobby packed with poor players in it, but regardless of that, it was an easy transition from Call of Duty. Like my experience with Battlefield 3, it was a fun and refreshing experience at first, but I soon grew tired of it.

Regarding snipers having to deal with bullet drops and whatnot: Quickscoping is something people either hate or love. It's unrealistic, it's fairly simple to do (on console), and it's in my opinion a lot of fun. They could make it a tad more realistic, but I don't think adding realism to something that isn't realistic to begin with, serves any purpose. Some people like CoD and Halo for the simple reason that they aren't realistic, after all. The CoD devs would never risk changing that, or else they'd be bombarded with hate messages on the official forums. Whenever they add difficulty to quickscoping in CoD, the people who aren't capable of doing it efficiently, whine about it. When they make it easier to do, more people start doing it.

I have a few friends who used to whine about quickscoping in MW1 on Xbox, before I even started playing Call of Duty myself. They used arguments such as lack of realism, easy-mode, and that it was just people taking advantage of a glitch. half a decade later, MW3 was released, and almost all of them were doing it themselves. If anyone's at fault for Call of Duty's lack of development or re-invention in recent years, it's the community. The "improvement" to sniping and quickscoping in MW2 was a direct result of suggestions and complaints on CoD's official forum. From what I hear, the battlefield community is far more sensible. I hope there will be a battlefield game in the future that has the same replay-ability value as CoD, yet keeps branching in it's own direction, rather than trying to appeal to the mainstream audience, the way CoD and Activision tend to do. I'm still mad that Tony Hawk's Pro Skater stopped being about skateboarding Razz

_________________
What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Tumblr_pgoe0wHCe11vgq1a3_540What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? 2540025-52699210-2560-1440
Thimmy
Thimmy
Fan Favorite
Fan Favorite

Club Supported : Real Madrid
Posts : 8593
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 30

Back to top Go down

What makes for a better [multiplayer] game? Empty Re: What makes for a better [multiplayer] game?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum