What I think we need is games that start off accessible, train the players over time, and then reward removing the training wheels over time.
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).
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.
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.Yes, but the question is how?
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.
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.
Not liking this idea that making something accessible is automatically a bad thing.
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.Halo was the original zero-skill shooter. 'Nades everywhere, banshees and warthogs and scorpions (if a teammate didn't blow it up and call you a fag for 'stealing' it from him), etc. etc.
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?
Halo has a metagame. Your limited knowledge of the game betrays you in this discussion, it is clear to see. Despite what your honed local-level skills may have allowed you to think, you are out of your depth on this one.
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.
It's actually the most popular game mode on Black Ops 2 if it's any consolation.
I don't think it ruined anything. Call of Duty reached an entirely new audience that wouldn't have played any other game. You can't assume that these player would have played something like RO or ARMA.
They were ruined from Quake 3 already.
edit:![]()
Fixed, we outta go all the way back.
'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.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.
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.
'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
So wrong. It may not be quite as high as some others, but my friend you are really off on this one. Putting it and CoD in the same league is impossible.the skill gap in halo is pretty small compared to other competitive games
'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.
When is there ever enough? You're either the largest slice of the pie or else you're irrelevant.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.
I blame the bean counters and myopic investors. COD is fine and earned its place. I think devs are trapped for the most part.Is he blaming CoD though, or the devs who can't be bothered to try something else?
one of the things that Call of Duty does, and its 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 doesnt 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
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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, etc....can continue without being the largest sellers on the block but its not possible for numerous types of shooters to exist?
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.
"Stop liking what you like, you're wrong." - Tripwire
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.
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.
This.
Seems like it would be less risky and have a better upside than trying to steal COD's lunch.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.
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.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 that's offensive.