CoD has almost ruined a generation of shooter players - Tripwire
- Thread starter Dave Meltzer
- Start date
This shitty laptop I have until the parts for the new rig get here cannot play RO 2, but man I was in love with the original. I remember getting shot in the foot and slowing down and was like WTF!?
Took me awhile to get into the swing of things, get used to the recoil, mechanics etc., but it paid off BIG TIME. Although now everyone plays that one single map so I got bored and have RO 2 in my sights down the line.
Took me awhile to get into the swing of things, get used to the recoil, mechanics etc., but it paid off BIG TIME. Although now everyone plays that one single map so I got bored and have RO 2 in my sights down the line.
Yes, but the question is how?
Unlockables that are specific to certain game types, only accessible through victory and/or behavior points?
(eg: a desirable gun that is available to everyone who revives an ally at least 500 times).
It initially revolutionized the genre, but a lot of developers and publishers got lazy and said to themselves "Kids like COD, let's make it like COD."
COD didn't ruin anything. It was a cinematic game from the get-go. Infinity Ward made their already award winning series more engaging for console gamers and everyone else copied them. If anyone's at fault, it's everyone else but the original developers of COD.
COD didn't ruin anything. It was a cinematic game from the get-go. Infinity Ward made their already award winning series more engaging for console gamers and everyone else copied them. If anyone's at fault, it's everyone else but the original developers of COD.
Mr_Appleby
Member
other way around! desirable guns that get removed for a player after over-using them. So the more kills you have, the crappier weapons you get given.
You'd have people going "man, I did all this work for nothing," though, and reject the game.
I read through the article and maybe I missed this, but none of the COD player complaints mentioned by Gibson had much to do with the lack of subsystems in place (killstreaks, perks, etc.) to lower the skill gap but were general "it doesn't feel like Call of Duty." Just based on the few quotes given, it just sounds like the players were not use to the pacing of the game yet and were frustrated that they could not utilize all of their tools to their fullest extent.
I'm not sure how common it is for there to be a big learning curve in FPS since its not something I read about too often in genres outside of fighting and strategy games. Personally I don't play many FPS games at all, but when I started Halo 3 with my roommate in college it took a solid few weeks before I was able to match his skill level. Two years later I play Black Ops for the first time thinking it would be easy to get into but nope, the controls and movement was just completely out of whack from what I was use to in Halo 3. So it took a good week or so before I finally got the hang of the movement and I started to enjoy myself again and feeling like I could make significant contributions. I played a bit of the Killzone 2 demo to try it out and again felt that movement was out of whack, only this time without a friend there to push me to get use to the controls I just deleted it and never bothered to pick it up. It could be that the bigger problem is that these players are so use to playing Call of Duty that it is too much effort to learn the new rules of a different FPS, made much harder if friends are not available with the same game to push them to get better.
I'm sure there are players who want killstreaks and the like in all games, but just going by the quotes provided I'm not convinced all these COD players demand these subsystems. If a Call of Duty spin-off was released that kept the feel of the game but removed all the randomness and made it more about knowing weapons placement and map knowledge, would that still be popular? Still feels the same, just different rules.
Again I don't play any FPS at all, just my 2 cents from a casual player. If Gibbons included more quotes along the lines of "I want to summon helicopters to mow down my opponents" or "I wanna be rewarded for killing people" then I would be convinced of his complaints.
I'm not sure how common it is for there to be a big learning curve in FPS since its not something I read about too often in genres outside of fighting and strategy games. Personally I don't play many FPS games at all, but when I started Halo 3 with my roommate in college it took a solid few weeks before I was able to match his skill level. Two years later I play Black Ops for the first time thinking it would be easy to get into but nope, the controls and movement was just completely out of whack from what I was use to in Halo 3. So it took a good week or so before I finally got the hang of the movement and I started to enjoy myself again and feeling like I could make significant contributions. I played a bit of the Killzone 2 demo to try it out and again felt that movement was out of whack, only this time without a friend there to push me to get use to the controls I just deleted it and never bothered to pick it up. It could be that the bigger problem is that these players are so use to playing Call of Duty that it is too much effort to learn the new rules of a different FPS, made much harder if friends are not available with the same game to push them to get better.
I'm sure there are players who want killstreaks and the like in all games, but just going by the quotes provided I'm not convinced all these COD players demand these subsystems. If a Call of Duty spin-off was released that kept the feel of the game but removed all the randomness and made it more about knowing weapons placement and map knowledge, would that still be popular? Still feels the same, just different rules.
Again I don't play any FPS at all, just my 2 cents from a casual player. If Gibbons included more quotes along the lines of "I want to summon helicopters to mow down my opponents" or "I wanna be rewarded for killing people" then I would be convinced of his complaints.
NullPointer
Member
Look at what Halo 4 is doing right now. Its got the unlockables and progression system and loadouts of a COD inspired shooter, but after much gnashing of teeth they've added pro playlists. These pro playlists limit loadouts and have more competitive settings that reduce the chaos and unpredictability while focusing on higher order tactics and strategies on a fairer playing field.
Now give these pro playlists their own armor unlocks and emblems, exclusively tied to skill rating in these playlists.
Bam. New players get their accessible and chaotic fun multiplayer, and they can stay there as long as the want. Its the base game. But those who want to invest deeper in the game and focus on skill get that too, and the unlocks will drive players to give it a shot as well as provide people with visual bragging rights. Most players will be in the casual group, but thats OK - its fun, it has its own rewards based upon time played (XP). But you also get that smaller, core crowd of competitive players which keep the community going and provide a summit that other players can try to reach.
It'd also lead to boosting and cheating, which is the part where this all falls apart. That and figuring out ways to properly train new players in the finer points of map control and tackling objectives and gametypes. There's definitely a way though.
Happypwnstar
Banned
CoD is the center of laziness CoD 4-BO 2 used the same reload sounds ass backwards lazy and many other things that's whats wrong with it no creativity just put shit together sell it like crazy. People buy its we keep making it kids learned that this is what to expect then it just goes down hill.
ShinobiFist
Banned
COD, got me into Counter Strike:GO
Your opinion on your skills and knowledge is a bit conceited. That statement is also like a round peg in a square hole. Yes, it fits -- you understand the basics, but I promise you you don't understand the full breadth of how Halo works. I may understand Halo, but that doesn't mean I'm knowledgeable about the competitive nature of Quake or Counter Strike or TF2 or Killzone 2 or Gears of War etc. Those are all games I've played (some for hundreds of hours), but I don't actually understand them to the extent that a professional player does. I probably don't even understand Halo to the same extent as a professional Halo player, because I'm not at their level, but I've put in enough time and effort to understand all of its fundamentals. I'm not trying to say that Halo is super fucking deep, but it takes more than 60 matches of a game to thoroughly understand it, even in Halo's case.
I thought of some more analogies. It's like saying, "I'm an expert in chemistry which also makes me an expert in astronomy because they're both sciences." Or "I'm a master oil painter which also makes me a master at watercolors."
nephilimdj
Member
Pretty sure its because they got there reload sounds from a firing range, remember footage back then of them at firing ranges.
For people who are into competitive shooter, it might be. MLG has zero presence on an international level, that's why they ditch consoles FPS and is heavily courting Moba.
Also, given that the Asians dominates on Starcraft/ LoL/ Dota as well as Sweden for CS etc, would you not want to play with the best players around the world, or just in your own little region if you're a competitive player?
vasametropolis
Member
All-time most incorrect statement. Halo games had a VAST skill gap between high and low level players. You'll notice that as the Halo games gradually became less skill-based, the long time players actually started to drop it.
Big team matchmaking playlists were loaded with vehicles and that was good fun as an alternative to the mentally-racking skill based matchmaking ladder.
I'm not sure how your post relates though.
Can't those competitive players still play competitively despite CoD's existence?
any game can have a metagame. halo's isn't very deep, though
the skill gap in halo is pretty small compared to other competitive games
i really hope this was a joke post
Sounds about right.
The Bookerman
Member
They were ruined from Quake 3 already.
edit:
Fixed, we outta go all the way back.
R_thanatos
Member
i have to agree in a sense to what was written in the first post ...
Most people don't try games properly because it's not COD
NO.
Most people don't try games properly because it's not COD
NO.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
Gaming is about having fun, people having fun in ways you dont really care for doesnt mean they are playing games wrong or they are ruined.
There are plenty of options when it comes to shooters, if those CoD players wanted a game that is more of the style you like then they would buy and play it.
There are plenty of options when it comes to shooters, if those CoD players wanted a game that is more of the style you like then they would buy and play it.
NullPointer
Member
'Ruined' is a fine word to use if existing series' are being transformed into COD clones and losing what made them unique in the first place.
You don't have to clone to be accessible.
i don't think that's necessarily true. i'm sure a lot of players have never even played other types of shooters. a lot probably don't even know they exist. ask a college kid if he's ever played quake or doom or tribes or any other old school shooters - you'd be surprised how many say no. a lot of them have probably never even played a pc shooter, or if they have, never gave it a fair shot
and another thing - is everyone playing call of duty really having fun? i know a lot of people who play the game - it doesn't seem like it. they complain about it constantly, and it seems like they're just addicted to it and not actually enjoying it unless they're winning
SkoomaSuckinSwit
Member
In both games, actual aiming skill has taken a backseat to other things: positioning, scorestreaks, gadgets, vehicles, perks, load-outs, etc. So you can actually be better than someone with superior shooting skills in these games, by using superior tactics.
(If CoD in particular had an ounce more aim assist, more than the borderline aimbot-strength aim assist it has currently, it would officially change the game's genre from an FPS to a FPRTS.)
CoD's got the mainstream crowd covered - "Core Mode" evens the playing field and makes it easy for everyone to have fun. But I think they should also try and cover the other end of the spectrum too - the highly competitive FPS. As it is now, the only difference between CoD's Core Mode and Hardcore Mode, is - 65% less health, no health regeneration (that I know of), and the removal of most HUD elements.
I'm not even sure what the point of removing the HUD is, as this isn't a simulation game. It actually hampers the competitive aspect of the game.
CoD needs to rethink their Hardcore mode, and make it more skillful - remove most of the aim assist, give the guns actual recoil & spray patterns, remove the accuracy penalty when hip firing, remove the ability to go prone, remove panic knifing, remove "noob tubes", change all AI-controlled scorestreaks to player-controlled scorestreaks.
(If CoD in particular had an ounce more aim assist, more than the borderline aimbot-strength aim assist it has currently, it would officially change the game's genre from an FPS to a FPRTS.)
CoD's got the mainstream crowd covered - "Core Mode" evens the playing field and makes it easy for everyone to have fun. But I think they should also try and cover the other end of the spectrum too - the highly competitive FPS. As it is now, the only difference between CoD's Core Mode and Hardcore Mode, is - 65% less health, no health regeneration (that I know of), and the removal of most HUD elements.
I'm not even sure what the point of removing the HUD is, as this isn't a simulation game. It actually hampers the competitive aspect of the game.
CoD needs to rethink their Hardcore mode, and make it more skillful - remove most of the aim assist, give the guns actual recoil & spray patterns, remove the accuracy penalty when hip firing, remove the ability to go prone, remove panic knifing, remove "noob tubes", change all AI-controlled scorestreaks to player-controlled scorestreaks.
PaulExcellent
Member
I dunno.
I kinda like playing Zombies with my friends every once in a while.
That doesn't make it a good shooter, sure.
I mean, I can go play Unreal Tournament and TF2 if I want a good one.
I think it's just fun, and neat to play with others.
Is that not what matters?
I kinda like playing Zombies with my friends every once in a while.
That doesn't make it a good shooter, sure.
I mean, I can go play Unreal Tournament and TF2 if I want a good one.
I think it's just fun, and neat to play with others.
Is that not what matters?
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
But why are they changing into CoD. Is it because there arent enough people who actually want the type of shooter they are trying to make? If so thats not the gamers problem.
Well why wont someone make a quake or tribes type of shooter and then let the gamers decide if thats what they want right now? What happened to all the gamers who grew up on those games? Why arent they enough to support a new game in that same vein anymore? Did they all decide they wanted to switch to CoD also?
You can find people complaining about every online game from CoD to NBA 2K, at the end of the day if they didnt enjoy the game they wouldnt spend 60 bucks on it and play it all the time.
vasametropolis
Member
The_Hitcher89
Member
Is he blaming CoD though, or the devs who can't be bothered to try something else?
Thug Waffle
Member
I think this talk of Halo ruining the genre is nonsense. But the argument that the skill gap compresses with each installment is pretty valid. I can't imagine how Halo:CE and Halo 2 ruined (so harsh) the genre.
NullPointer
Member
When is there ever enough? You're either the largest slice of the pie or else you're irrelevant.
Gamers lose out because there's less choice overall if you want polished games with solid production values and very different game systems and styles of play.
I blame the bean counters and myopic investors. COD is fine and earned its place. I think devs are trapped for the most part.
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
This is the reason I have always thought why Call of Duty is so popular. It is a good game, I'm not arguing that. But the reason sooooooo many people play it is because everyone is good at it. Take Battlefield for example. Someone jumps on BF for the first time and they have to run a ways to the objective, learn how to control sometimes very difficult vehicles(choppers), and in general get used to the weapon control of the game. On CoD anyone can jump in a match and get a few quick kills right away with any decent background in shooters.
SkoomaSuckinSwit
Member
The_Hitcher89
Member
I agree with the notion in general, but there are plenty of poor players who still played it a lot (or at least there were in MW2)
Its all my workmate used to talk about, the only game he used to play, and he was bloody terrible at it
StreetDisciple
Member
My problem is that every year another COD game comes out, the marketing machine starts rolling, gaming media gets behind it, best thing since sliced bread. Killzone gets announced, media crying like babies..."why are they making another one, die already". If your tired of one you should be tired of the other.
CoD is very noob friendly but the statement saying it lacks deep gameplay is false. The skill gap between an elite and noob is insanely huge. The only reason why CoD succeeds is because that kid you killed 10 times spawns immediately and is put in a position to score a cheap kill.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
So its gamers fault that the companies feel like they need to be #1 to be successful? Lets bring this back to how its gamers who are ruined.
Why is it that series like The Witcher, Bioshock, Assassins Creed, Need for Speed, etc....can continue without being the largest sellers on the block but its not possible for numerous types of shooters to exist?
Mario Kart sales destroyed the sales of every other racing game this gen yet you dont see everyone running out to make there game more like Mario Kart. Why do these companies feel like they need to be CoD?
NullPointer
Member
Time is also a factor here. I think there's less desire to learn through sheer repetition and failure, even if that brings the greatest sense of reward. And its exactly this learning curve that hardcore games seem to require. If you try to raise the skill floor by exposing information to the surface (like displaying weapon spawn locations and respawn times), people get mad that the game has been dumbed down.
Now I'm confused. I'm not saying its the gamer's fault or that different shooters can't co-exist. If it was up to me game series' would double-down on what make them unique.
The_Hitcher89
Member
The media got bored of it before MW3 came out I think. The market still flock to it though, despite the yearly 'this is the one that will flop and lead to the end of CoD' rhetoric
This.
SkoomaSuckinSwit
Member
"Insanely huge?" Like the insanely huge difference in skill between a pro and a noob in CounterStrike?
No, Call of Duty is no CounterStrike as far as skill cap goes, my friend.
I think blaming COD for ruining first person shooters is stupid. If you're going to blame anyone, blame all of the people who simply copied what COD was doing instead of innovating. COD4 took off because it was fun for people to play and it had a certain degree of freshness to it. If you wanna make tons of bucks like they did, maybe you should try to make something fresh as well instead of just playing follow the leader.
The_Player
Member
Surprisingly good and veridical article. Even though I do enjoy playing games such games I inclined to behold impact they made on nowadays gamers.
Thug Waffle
Member
Compared to Halo: CE, I agree. The hitboxes were a big controversy and there were rumblings among some in the MLG community about going back to CE. I had a feeling that's what the video was going to be about before I even clicked it.
Mr.Wreckless
Banned
Oh ok, im speaking from the perspective of gamers being "ruined" as thats what the title states. Its almost saying that gamers arent capable enough to decide on their own whats best for them and thats offensive.
What a clever and nuanced summary of his argument.
NullPointer
Member
Seems like it would be less risky and have a better upside than trying to steal COD's lunch.
When it becomes as big a trend as the attempts to capitalize on COD's success, there's less unique choices for those gamers to make. So yeah, I can't blame the gamer here. For instance, if you want your classic Halo with map control and equal player abilities, where do you go? I can't blame gamers for changing Halo's formula, and I'm sure the devs knew there would be hell to pay from their long time fans, but that's what they put out.