What? The Master Chief holds the damn thing on the cover of CE, I would assume it's the best gun in the game then...
CoD has almost ruined a generation of shooter players - Tripwire
- Thread starter Dave Meltzer
- Start date
What? The Master Chief holds the damn thing on the cover of CE, I would assume it's the best gun in the game then...
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Interesting to see people claim Halo "ruined" shooters and not give any reasons why.
Uiki
Member
Nice trolling, i really laughed XD
I agree, to a point. I think the immense popularity and subsequent embrace of the games by a couple large competitive organizations have distorted the console-only crowd's picture of the FPS landscape. That said, there are plenty of great shooters on the PC with active communities that can be played with a much better input method, the KB+M, however the popularity of COD and Halo have definitely hindered the progress of better multiplayer shooters with higher skill ceilings outside of the console space.
I would love to see something that shows off individual skill in Halo. Every video of competitive Halo I've seen linked on GAF has been meant to show how important teamwork is in the game (or at least, that's what the purpose changes to after the slow pace and autoaim has been rightfully mocked).
Honestly, it's gotten very tiring hearing about how important teamwork is when it's extremely important in every team-based mode in shooters.
Halo 2's success ended up changing the genre in a way that I wasn't fond of. Happy now? (even though that's basically what I've been saying)
I criticized some design choices in Halo 2 and blamed it's success for steering future games in the same direction.
They had playlists dedicated to no perks, killstreaks, etc in certain CoD games. Hell, there was even a playlist in CoD4 that allowed you to pick up weapons, perks, etc. on the map like all those arena shooters people here are lamenting for. Guess what?
They ended up being the lowest populated playlists in the games. So much so that they were subsequently removed in the sequels. Fact of the matter is, vast majority of people don't want to play CoD4 and the games after for arena based, power weapons on the map shooter. They will just go to Halo, Gears, etc for that.
phosphor112
Banned
I love how the poster's name is Ramirez.
Gotta stay frosty oscar mike.
This. I don't see how it stands out from the rest of the pack.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
eh at least in arena shooters, you had vertical mobility and actual aiming.
Now there is much less vertical travel, and more auto aim / iron site magnetism.
Uiki
Member
It was on black ops 1 and i played the shit out of hit.
On peak hour there was like 4000 people =/
But you can say the same about competitive matchmaking in black ops 2 and even in reach (the DAMN arena) and halo 4 pro-something playlist.
More balanced the game is, the less the people (on console).
The Librarian
Banned
No you weren't, but okay.
The latter isn't criticism of the game itself, because that is the fault of the game's success.
weekend_warrior
Banned
I feel the same way about all the assholes who complained about the movement in Killzone 2.
Scapegoat
Member
He seems to be angry that there are a lot of people out there who would rather a more arcadey FPS compared to a more simulation based one?
Interestingly, he is spot on about the compressed skill curve. This is the exact reason I prefer multiplayer shooters on console (with a controller) compared to PC (with mouse and keyboard).
I played so much CS back in the day, but once you start playing it at a more... pedestrian pace, your skills can begin to atrophy pretty quickly. Playing BF3 on console with that compressed skill gap (thanks to the controller) means less importance on the act of aiming and shooting, and increased importance of higher order tasks such as team work, movement, cover, sound, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, you still get these aspects in PC online gaming, but in the PC space the role of players muscle memory skill with the mouse contributes a lot more to whether they will "win" or not.
If you play at a high level competitively this is not an issue, but if you don't have the time/the desire to play as much as many people do (say the kids who played hours each day as many of us would have in our youths) then you're going to have a bad time more often then not if you just jump in for a couple hours now and then.
This sort of scenario is the reason I prefer to play multiplayer shooters on consoles with a controller vs mouse on a PC (most likely a CS memory while a noob):
- Come across an enemy from behind, you have the jump on them.
- Take aim, fire. First shot hits his back, recoil pulls your gun up and the next 2 shots miss.
- 20ms after you fire that first shot he spins around 180 and awp/deagle/scout shots you in the head, instadead.
There are plenty of people who love this aspect of gaming with a mouse - that there is this giant and vast skill range for you to explore. But for me - I don't have the interest anymore to maintain my "mouse skill" and would rather play with a controller that has a bit of autoaim, which puts more focus on the movement, cover, and teamwork aspects of the game.
Interestingly, he is spot on about the compressed skill curve. This is the exact reason I prefer multiplayer shooters on console (with a controller) compared to PC (with mouse and keyboard).
I played so much CS back in the day, but once you start playing it at a more... pedestrian pace, your skills can begin to atrophy pretty quickly. Playing BF3 on console with that compressed skill gap (thanks to the controller) means less importance on the act of aiming and shooting, and increased importance of higher order tasks such as team work, movement, cover, sound, etc. Now, don't get me wrong, you still get these aspects in PC online gaming, but in the PC space the role of players muscle memory skill with the mouse contributes a lot more to whether they will "win" or not.
If you play at a high level competitively this is not an issue, but if you don't have the time/the desire to play as much as many people do (say the kids who played hours each day as many of us would have in our youths) then you're going to have a bad time more often then not if you just jump in for a couple hours now and then.
This sort of scenario is the reason I prefer to play multiplayer shooters on consoles with a controller vs mouse on a PC (most likely a CS memory while a noob):
- Come across an enemy from behind, you have the jump on them.
- Take aim, fire. First shot hits his back, recoil pulls your gun up and the next 2 shots miss.
- 20ms after you fire that first shot he spins around 180 and awp/deagle/scout shots you in the head, instadead.
There are plenty of people who love this aspect of gaming with a mouse - that there is this giant and vast skill range for you to explore. But for me - I don't have the interest anymore to maintain my "mouse skill" and would rather play with a controller that has a bit of autoaim, which puts more focus on the movement, cover, and teamwork aspects of the game.
Damnit, you succinct bastard.
You implied it with this post; you seem to be agreeing with the guy who said "Halo was the original zero-skill shooter." You also implied that you were awesome at the game despite never playing it before, hence it take zero skill to be good at it.
Freezie KO
Banned
I prefer the skill be in the tactics rather than the act of aiming.
No you weren't, but okay.
The latter isn't criticism of the game itself, because that is the fault of the game's success.
lol. I'll take this time to thank evilore for the ignore feature.
phosphor112
Banned
I took my knowledge from FPS's and applied it there. The skill curve is hardly steep and allows new comers to easily adapt. Being able to "stick" a grenade on someone that's juking the shit out of you isn't the easiest thing, but skill comes with any game, but the "slower place" of Halo compared to the games I've played made it something I was able to easily master.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
"CoD was merely the instrument of the murder, not the cause...look to the metrics, and gain entrance to the fortress of the Dogma!"
Poimandres
Member
The best way to show off individual skill is to play 1v1 matches. There were a couple of maps on Halo 2 that leant themselves incredibly well to this (provided you changed your weapon spawn).
Uiki
Member
I always preferred pepsi.
OnimaruXLR
Member
There is a vein of people, from developers, to gamers, to publishers, with this weird desire for homogenization in gaming. Every shooter should have shooting like in X. Every game with melee combat should be like Y. The driving in every game should control like Z. It doesn't matter if the game is trying to do something smart or different, people just want what they're used to. It's the same mindset that made some people hate on Prince of Persia (the original) for not playing like a Mario game.
It's a really stupid and self-defeating trend that inherently limits the creative potential of games, but some people prefer "comfortable" to "interesting" or even "good." Not that every convention needs to be toyed with, but if a game isn't trying to be Call of Duty, it shouldn't need to play like Call of Duty.
It's a really stupid and self-defeating trend that inherently limits the creative potential of games, but some people prefer "comfortable" to "interesting" or even "good." Not that every convention needs to be toyed with, but if a game isn't trying to be Call of Duty, it shouldn't need to play like Call of Duty.
There is a skill to be decent at Quake. It's pretty high.
There is a skill to be decent at Halo. It takes some time, but you'll get there.
There is a skill to be decent at COD. It's pretty easy.
That's how I felt learning to play these games. I could hold my own in quake matches eventually but got WRECKED when I first tried. At my peak quake skill I was barely breaking a 1 k/d.
I was pretty bad at Halo when I started, coming from PC I was like wat is console aiming. Maybe it helped that I started on Halo CE for PC, so I knew the basics, but it still took me a while before I got decent at Halo. I hit decency toward the end of Halo 2. Was only rank 16... In Halo 3 I got better. Ended up hitting rank 47. Could have probably hit 50 if I didn't get rank locked. In Reach, despite not liking it too much, my skill really shined because Reach ruined BTB, my favorite gamemode, so I was forced to play the more competetive 4 v 4 playlists, played with some good skilled friends and we donged every night. I'd say im pretty well above the average Halo player now. I feel confident 1 v 1ing anyone irl.
But CoD? I played CoD for the first time at a friends house, this is CoD4 by the way, and I was going positive by the end of the day. In Halo, when you start out, you probably won't even get a kill if you're playing competent people. In CoD you can get a kill so long as you know how to aim in a console shooter and you get the drop on a guy.
But this isn't bout the base gameplay of each shooter.
This is about the systems put into place in these games, this is where CoD ruined FPS's. The big "casualizer" in Halo was the slower speed and recharging shield. It became a staple of FPS's. But everyone was still on equal footing. Sure the game was easier than Quake, but it was FAIR. In team situations, it came down to who had better teamwork. In one on one situations it came down to who was a better player. In CoD, someone could beat you if they had a better gun, or go lucky with a no scope. In CoD you could put perks on your person so everyone had different abilities and you never knew what you were up against. How did that guy kill me so fast! Stopping power. How did that guy not die! Juggernaut. Why didn't I see that guy on Radar! Cold Blooded.
Not only this, but it had this super annoying Rich get richer scheme. High level players got access to more guns and more abilities. Oh, Johnny Quikscopes here is wrecking everyone? Lets give him a Harrier Jet! An attack chopper, an AC130! In Halo, you had to fight over every advantage, vehicles, power weapons, power ups, etc. Same with Quake. In CoD they were given to you and they gave you more kills so you could unlock a better killstreak to get MORE kills with. Oh man, getting Nukes in MW2 was laughably easy. I didn't own CoD4 or World at War, but I got a nuke within my first couple games in MW2.
And this kinda bullshit started to infect EVERYTHING. Even Halo. Reach launched and now power ups were removed from maps and you started with an ability. You never know someone had armor lock until they armor locked on you. Now some people could traverse the map better than you could with Jetpack, or could move around the map faster with sprint. Active Camo, something you used to FIGHT over in Halo 1-3 was now a button press on demand.
Then Halo 4 went full CoD and introduced Personal Ordnance (killstreaks), timing power weapons was removed in favor of random power weapons dropping at random locations. Ok that wasn't from CoD, it was just a stupid move. AND THEY ADDED PERKS. AND CUSTOM LOADOUTS. Now you don't know if that guy around the corner has the pocket shotgun you can spawn with or not. Now you don't know how many rockets that guy has because he could have an ammo perk. Now someone can reload faster than you, can recharge shields faster than you, etc.
Fucking bullshit. Bring back fairness in FPS.
There is a skill to be decent at Halo. It takes some time, but you'll get there.
There is a skill to be decent at COD. It's pretty easy.
That's how I felt learning to play these games. I could hold my own in quake matches eventually but got WRECKED when I first tried. At my peak quake skill I was barely breaking a 1 k/d.
I was pretty bad at Halo when I started, coming from PC I was like wat is console aiming. Maybe it helped that I started on Halo CE for PC, so I knew the basics, but it still took me a while before I got decent at Halo. I hit decency toward the end of Halo 2. Was only rank 16... In Halo 3 I got better. Ended up hitting rank 47. Could have probably hit 50 if I didn't get rank locked. In Reach, despite not liking it too much, my skill really shined because Reach ruined BTB, my favorite gamemode, so I was forced to play the more competetive 4 v 4 playlists, played with some good skilled friends and we donged every night. I'd say im pretty well above the average Halo player now. I feel confident 1 v 1ing anyone irl.
But CoD? I played CoD for the first time at a friends house, this is CoD4 by the way, and I was going positive by the end of the day. In Halo, when you start out, you probably won't even get a kill if you're playing competent people. In CoD you can get a kill so long as you know how to aim in a console shooter and you get the drop on a guy.
But this isn't bout the base gameplay of each shooter.
This is about the systems put into place in these games, this is where CoD ruined FPS's. The big "casualizer" in Halo was the slower speed and recharging shield. It became a staple of FPS's. But everyone was still on equal footing. Sure the game was easier than Quake, but it was FAIR. In team situations, it came down to who had better teamwork. In one on one situations it came down to who was a better player. In CoD, someone could beat you if they had a better gun, or go lucky with a no scope. In CoD you could put perks on your person so everyone had different abilities and you never knew what you were up against. How did that guy kill me so fast! Stopping power. How did that guy not die! Juggernaut. Why didn't I see that guy on Radar! Cold Blooded.
Not only this, but it had this super annoying Rich get richer scheme. High level players got access to more guns and more abilities. Oh, Johnny Quikscopes here is wrecking everyone? Lets give him a Harrier Jet! An attack chopper, an AC130! In Halo, you had to fight over every advantage, vehicles, power weapons, power ups, etc. Same with Quake. In CoD they were given to you and they gave you more kills so you could unlock a better killstreak to get MORE kills with. Oh man, getting Nukes in MW2 was laughably easy. I didn't own CoD4 or World at War, but I got a nuke within my first couple games in MW2.
And this kinda bullshit started to infect EVERYTHING. Even Halo. Reach launched and now power ups were removed from maps and you started with an ability. You never know someone had armor lock until they armor locked on you. Now some people could traverse the map better than you could with Jetpack, or could move around the map faster with sprint. Active Camo, something you used to FIGHT over in Halo 1-3 was now a button press on demand.
Then Halo 4 went full CoD and introduced Personal Ordnance (killstreaks), timing power weapons was removed in favor of random power weapons dropping at random locations. Ok that wasn't from CoD, it was just a stupid move. AND THEY ADDED PERKS. AND CUSTOM LOADOUTS. Now you don't know if that guy around the corner has the pocket shotgun you can spawn with or not. Now you don't know how many rockets that guy has because he could have an ammo perk. Now someone can reload faster than you, can recharge shields faster than you, etc.
Fucking bullshit. Bring back fairness in FPS.
Apologies mixed you up with another poster. But yeah the point still applies I think Halo's competitive scene is really defined by the teamwork which goes into it. The reason I say that and also the main reason everyone mentions it is because it really is the most important aspect to the game.
You can have a team of four of the best competitive players in the game, lost to a better organized team and that's the real beauty of it. Yes most of the elements are present in other shooters but so what? They work well for Halo and it's gameplay.
I just don't like it when people disregard the amount of skill and hardwork which really goes into it.
The primary reason cod lacks the skill and precision of older shooters is sprinting and iron sights. These mechanics completely kill off the movement and strategy involved in any gun fight. Everything just becomes a shooting gallery of whoever moves their xhair fastest wins.
There is a complete lack of use of environment and movement in every fight in comparison to shooters that do not use these mechanics. The genre needs to move away from them.
There is a complete lack of use of environment and movement in every fight in comparison to shooters that do not use these mechanics. The genre needs to move away from them.
Ah, cool. Sorry, just figured you hadn't. I played some of it too, it was fun and refreshing.
Not sure what you mean by saying the same about competitive MM in Black Ops 2 or Halo 4 Pro. Competitive MM as in League Play? What does H4's Pro playlist entail? I don't have the game.
phosphor112
Banned
Yes. Even Counter Strike was fair. Even with kills/objectives/living meaning money at the end of the round, if you died from the get go, you STILL get money, and there aren't "perks" to arbitrarily push you above the rest.
Being a pro Tribes player doesn't make you an expert on anything other than Tribes. What you think you "mastered" is probably nothing more than a superficial understanding of Halo.
Uiki
Member
THIS.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
I've pretty much given up on fps games at this point. They are all I played during college. CS, Day of Defeat, Natural Selection, UT, Quake 3, etc.
Maybe my tastes have changed but I can't get into them anymore. I even picked up NS 2 and couldn't keep playing it for more than a week. I feel they made the game worse than the original.
The only one that has kept my attention though off and on is Day Z. I played Operation Flashpoint 2 a bit back in the day so checked out Day Z. So much fun even with the janky engine. Arma 3 looks like a nice upgrade and I'm looking forward to all the new stuff coming out for that.
Maybe my tastes have changed but I can't get into them anymore. I even picked up NS 2 and couldn't keep playing it for more than a week. I feel they made the game worse than the original.
The only one that has kept my attention though off and on is Day Z. I played Operation Flashpoint 2 a bit back in the day so checked out Day Z. So much fun even with the janky engine. Arma 3 looks like a nice upgrade and I'm looking forward to all the new stuff coming out for that.
projectmayhem
Neo Member
It's consistently had around 1k players daily so I don't know why people keep saying it's dying, plus the modding community for it is great, new maps get released all the time.
Autoaim is only there for console versions of the games, so it's not really applicable here. Verticality is mainly map design, and even Blops 1 had a ton of verticality and long-distance shooting. Only MW3 and Blops 2 have done away with it in the COD series.
Whoever denies the influence Halo had on the FPS genre is either delusional or stupid. It changed the entire gaming landscape and finally gave America its voice in the gaming industry. I dare say it was the defining moment in which Japan realized the American game industry could be a true contender; the catalyst that shifted control away from Japan's dominance and gave it to the west.
The industry would be a different place if Halo never happened. It changed everything.
The industry would be a different place if Halo never happened. It changed everything.
Mockingbird
Member
It was slow as hell. But then when you go from Return to Castle Wolfenstein and then to any shooter, I guess they all seem slow.
Uiki
Member
I meant that even the more "balanced" playlists in reach and h4 (no radar, no loadouts, 110% movement speed..it takes away almost all the crap) are completly ignored by the majority of players, like it was for barebones in black ops 1, just because there is more skill gap in that playlist than in the others.
What i mean is that on console no one wants a more balanced and competitive game because the majority of players aren't really multiplayer gamers.
Uiki
Member
Seventy_X_Seven
Member
Almost? Almost only counts in horseshoes and . . . oh, ok.
phosphor112
Banned
Skills and knowledge translate across games in a genre. The core game mechanics differ but my reflexes translated easily, and learning the rest of the game isn't hard. Where each prop I can jump off of, or where each explosive barrel is. Which spots are bottlenecks... It really isn't that hard to learn.
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
The Halo comments are not valid at all. We got plenty of great FPS games since it's release with their own identity and following of people, it wasn't until COD that literally almost every FPS has been compelled to adopt its same structure of gameplay.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
It's funny how everyone who bags on CoD as being the easiest game to master ever hardly played it and had 3/1 KDR....
sure you did.
Everyone has a 3/1KDR on CoD.
sure you did.
Everyone has a 3/1KDR on CoD.
Not that I disagree, but there's some merit to what he's saying. I'm prone to saying "well, it doesn't feel like Call of Duty" for shooters as well. Call of Duty's pin-point accuracy on consoles (or at least it's stick acceleration) has ruined some FPS on consoles for me simply because they aren't as "precise"/accurate.
And maybe that's a bad thing for devs like the Red Orchestra dude, but really: He should take some elements like the acceleration and put them in his game.
On the other hand Call of Duty has ruined some FPS conventions like arena shooters having health bars and picks up for the sake of map control. Now a days that's a foreign concept for most shooters because the younger player-base that grew up with Call of Duty (and some of us older players that are "getting set in our ways" from Call of Duty) has been raised to where they can't stand that type of convention.
It's like Uncharted 2 1.00 to 1.04: You had the ability to run around and traversal the map and if you got shot, you weren't a dead man. You could get into cover and return fire and play smarter than the person that first saw you to where you could get an upper hand and reverse the role and beat them/kill them instead of them killing you.
As opposed to 1.05 on where the lower health basically killed map traversal: it was particularly bad in 1.05 in team games because NO ONE would leave their spawn and would just sit in starting-spawn cover with the FAL to headshot anyone that was stupid to leave starting-spawn cover because they couldn't reach cover in time from the starting spawn area's cover. Also because of this players that were seen/spotted and fired at generally died and couldn't "outwit" the person firing on them.
This lowered the skill gap to where pro/longer-playing players that turned tables weren't able to do that and casuals got a big buff.
It's really a crux of an issue: How do you let pros/players that want a different style game play that game while also not alienating the casual/"Call of Duty" market too badly.
AwakenedCloud
Member
I love how the genre is ruined from people enjoying a game. People will play what they like, and there's still plenty of FPS games with a solid hardcore community, especially on PC.
Uiki
Member
NullPointer
Member
So true. And most multiplayer gamers don't care about what the competitive community wants. They want to have fun, quickly, and not have to memorize map layouts, weapon spawns or timers, or be required to play as a well oiled team.
So the simple, pick up and play game modes dominate, while objective modes dwindle in popularity.
What I think we need is games that start off accessible, train the players in the deeper systems, and then reward removing the training wheels over time.
The_Hitcher89
Member
I had more fun playing MW2 than any other shooter. It could be Pavlovian bar-filling, or maybe its just that they made a game that controls impeccably, and makes the act of shooting somebody and playing the game an absolute blast. Hmm, something to ponder.
The onus is on others to come up with something better, and it constantly irks me to see IW blamed for the industry's lack of originality, or even an ability to get close to improving on the concepts in their own derivatives
Its the second one
The onus is on others to come up with something better, and it constantly irks me to see IW blamed for the industry's lack of originality, or even an ability to get close to improving on the concepts in their own derivatives