Vustadumas
Banned
It should kill you in one shot. lol I think all snipers should tbh
CoD has almost ruined a generation of shooter players - Tripwire
- Thread starter Dave Meltzer
- Start date
It should kill you in one shot. lol I think all snipers should tbh
I've watched mlg matches between top teams over the years and wasn't very impressed. Certainly not like I am with Quake/UT, CS, Starcraft, and practically all fighting games. I'd put COD and Halo about the same as far as average-to-pro skill gap goes.
The CoD games are the equivalent of a dumb, loud summer blockbuster like Transformers. Makes lots of money, is highly shallow and made for mass appeal, etc.
The difference is the CoD games gets massively high scores from the mainstream gaming press, the likes of Transformers gets generally bad reviews from critics, audiences just don't listen to them and look at the flash whizbang adverts instead. You don't see Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen touting "5 Stars from Roger Ebert!" "The best movie yet! - Empire" "It's shit - Armond White". But you do see "10/10 I loved the very full bag with dollar sign that came with it" plastered on every CoD advert.
Which more speaks to the gaming media, but they also have far more sway over the gaming playing public then movie critics do over the movie going audience, so it's a problem.
The difference is the CoD games gets massively high scores from the mainstream gaming press, the likes of Transformers gets generally bad reviews from critics, audiences just don't listen to them and look at the flash whizbang adverts instead. You don't see Tranformers: Revenge of the Fallen touting "5 Stars from Roger Ebert!" "The best movie yet! - Empire" "It's shit - Armond White". But you do see "10/10 I loved the very full bag with dollar sign that came with it" plastered on every CoD advert.
Which more speaks to the gaming media, but they also have far more sway over the gaming playing public then movie critics do over the movie going audience, so it's a problem.
it's not about improvement, it's about subtlety. learning nuanced yet ultimately rewarding mechanics is off of most people's FPS menu and while it's the easiest thing to lay all your burdens on the big dog, it's hard to argue that CoD didn't coerce this particular lack of sensation through hyper sensation.
it's like this: once you were an advocate of many forms of sexual adventure, you had a whole litany of toys, creams and techniques for achieving the greatest blast your physical form could offer. then daddy CoD came along, he's not sensitive, he has no technique and even less imagination: what he does have is a clenched ball of knuckles, the best part of a forearm and the arm strength to make it count.
now we have a whole generation waddling around with their gaping plugholes, grabbing all manner of household implements and ramming them on home attempting to emulate the sensation that they've come to expect.
they need to rediscover subtlety.
Trickster
Member
He's definitely right about the compressed skill gap. It was one of the things that struck me the first time i played cod4 multiplayer. I didn't really have any experience with the series and was essentially a beginner, and I was still able to go on big killing sprees constantly, and have a good k/d ratio.
People simply die so easy in CoD, you run around a corner, see an enemy, press the fire button, and they die in a split second.
People simply die so easy in CoD, you run around a corner, see an enemy, press the fire button, and they die in a split second.
Night_Trekker
Member
Except for the godawful driving controls that seemed to be copied in every other shooter after that.
Poimandres
Member
Or it could be that the reviewers actually enjoy these games...
A summer blockbuster film that is well done will get plenty of good reviews. A pop CD that is well done will get plenty of good reviews. Maybe COD falls into the same category?
I say this as someone who doesn't really enjoy COD and certainly hasn't payed for one since COD4.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Dingdingdingdingding.
There's nothing wrong with its existence, it's the race to copy all of its hooks that bothers me.
Trickster
Member
I can't recall a single fps game that has vehicles that reminds me of the ones in the halo games. Could you give me some examples?
Sapphire Dreams
Member
Call of Duty didn't ruin this generation, those who try to copy Call of Duty are the ones who ruined it.
NullPointer
Member
Borderlands and... uh,...
Not to the clockwork extent the reviews go. I mean, COD is not done well, at all, that's the problem. It's unambitious, stale, with short, weak singleplayer offerings and the ever problematic multiplayer. The campaigns in CoD now tend to be a load of balls; stupid, nonsensical plots that just lead you down corridors to the next set piece in place of any kind of real pacing or storytelling. I refuse to believe every mainstream game critic loves all these and truthfully gives them all 9s and 10s. Hell, sites like IGN sometimes outright sound like PR talk in their own reviews.
Tomb Raider has received great reviews, and by all accounts, it's a very well made Uncharted style action adventure. There's not much split between critics and gamers, it's been well received. So I do see a problem with CoD. I remember, I think it was MW 3, where Gametrailers had their video review, and the story section pretty much straight bashed the plot as being stupid, covoluated and lacking in length. Except at the end, the score for that section was an 8 or a 9, and the game got a very high score anyway, despite a very mixed review.
phosphor112
Banned
I don't understand how or even why you're trying to sell off Halo as something extremely complex when it isn't. It's not hard to learn how the melee system works (greater health wins, unless reach changed that haven't played that), how much "lunge" you can get from the melee, how the spread works, the weapons, the maps, how high you can jump, how crouch jumping can get you onto higher spots, the how to deflect things with grav hammer, I mean.. you can learn this stuff in one sitting. Watching MLG halo matches is nothing amazing because it's all stuff one can EASILY learn from observation and experience. The only difficult part of the game is getting to the point where you "naturally" pull off these exploits and bits of knowledge, that and the skill of being able to nail a player with your bullets, plasma, whatever.
You seem to have some personal attachment that makes you think it's an extremely complex shooter, when comparatively speaking to other competitive shooters, it's not.
Good points.
The leveling/upgrade system is a far worse offender though, since they dilute most multiplayer games and even the odds regardless of time invested. The basic point of getting better gets slightly lost as well in the middle of all the upgrade options - and now every game copies it into their own multiplayer.
I think that, along with map design and spawn points contribute to what CoD is. I haven't played any of the recent ones online I think.
Momentum and fire-spread could potentially even the odds, but it depends on the game as well I think. Delta Force 1-3 didn't have any momentum (I think.) and it was certainly not very realistic, but great players could devastate the opponents and dominate the leaderboards. There was very little randomness to it. Same with Quake.
Beyond the mechanics, map design, spawn points -- the basic game systems -- developers shouldn't interfere with multiplayer, by, for example, staging scenarios, or QTE's, or whatever. The various modes should just offer a sandbox, or playground, along with an objective.
The leveling/upgrade system is a far worse offender though, since they dilute most multiplayer games and even the odds regardless of time invested. The basic point of getting better gets slightly lost as well in the middle of all the upgrade options - and now every game copies it into their own multiplayer.
I think that, along with map design and spawn points contribute to what CoD is. I haven't played any of the recent ones online I think.
Momentum and fire-spread could potentially even the odds, but it depends on the game as well I think. Delta Force 1-3 didn't have any momentum (I think.) and it was certainly not very realistic, but great players could devastate the opponents and dominate the leaderboards. There was very little randomness to it. Same with Quake.
Beyond the mechanics, map design, spawn points -- the basic game systems -- developers shouldn't interfere with multiplayer, by, for example, staging scenarios, or QTE's, or whatever. The various modes should just offer a sandbox, or playground, along with an objective.
CoD is fucking horrible for the industry. It's lead to casual gamers not buying anything or playing anything else but rehashed CoD sequels, killing third party sales. And it's lead to other companies fucking up their own games in an attempt to capture CoD's crowd. The sooner casuals get sick of CoD the better. Sadly, at this rate, it might not happen for another decade.
Sounds a lot like when people rant about Madden.
Rice-Eater
Member
You can put me in that camp. I'm so use to COD movement and controls that I can't stand any other FPS(on console, I don't play PC). I tried Killzone 2 and 3 and was so turned off by movement and controls. Same went for the newest MOH and Crysis 2. Nothing will probably ever feel right again as long as I don't really put in the time into another shooter. As I'm a casual shooting fan, I don't care that much for the genre. I just want to get online and play MP for a bit. With anything but COD I feel like I have to learn how to ride a bike all over again. Sure it may not take that long, but like I said I don't care enough for the genre to want to put in that time.
computers putin'
Member
Everyone likes to pretend that CoD is easy to pick up and excel at, but that hasn't been true since CoD world at war, (and even then Cod4 and WaW were still kind of brutal to new players). In addition the instilled player base getting better each iteration, killstreaks have become more powerful (favoring the good players), mechanics have become more complex, and maps have become condensed and more chaotic; thus becoming harder. Sure the controls are very intuitive, and movement is fluid, but there is such an extreme focus on positioning, movement, cover, anticipation of spawns, and killstreaks that it's hard for any newcomer to do good at it.
I've tried getting several friends who've never played CoD to play the last few titles, and they just get CRUSHED every match, they don't even get a chance to get there bearings and figure out whats going on because they die so fast. They can't even camp properly because the last two CoD's mechanics punish passive gameplay so much. They all have an easier time with Halo for some reason, they don't get punished as hard for their mistakes there and all weapons outside of some of the precision rifles are even easier to handle than the weapons in CoD. So yeah, at this point, Halo is probably the more accessible title, it's still no where near as gratifying as CoD though so that probably explains the disparity in popularity; That and 60 fps.
Also, as far as skill goes, no matter how accessible a shooter is, it takes skill to excel at anything; and if you progress far enough and come up against the right team, you'll find that there is some sort of metagame present.
CoD reaches a much larger crowd and hooks people for much longer (all year) than a Madden game does.
Madden has its niche, it's a big niche, but it's a sports niche nonetheless. CoD is everywhere, getting center stage at E3, marketing covering every type of media around launch time, and generally taking over.
Red Orchestra II was abysmal at launch. Yeah, now it's fine but back then they shat themselves at the prospect of being released after BFIII and they decided to release the beta pretending that it's a final release. So they did what Hammerpoint did with WarZ.
If they needed money that bad they could release it as alpha in Arma III style and have not only additional feedback to polish the game buy also a good word of mouth. But I guess charging for alpha was still too novel in 2010.
If they needed money that bad they could release it as alpha in Arma III style and have not only additional feedback to polish the game buy also a good word of mouth. But I guess charging for alpha was still too novel in 2010.
I don't really get it either, no one defending Halo has made a valid argument. Halo takes skill and talent, and practice to get good at, but so does every other shooter. I am a huge fan of Halo CE, one of my favorite games of all time, and a great 2v2 Competitive shooter to boot. But, it's still essentially just a slow to medium paced Quake with less map and movement complexity, and easier aiming. Great for consoles, but no where near the stratosphere of competitive merit of Quake 3 or Tribes.
Reading things like, map knowledge, team coordination, or knowing weapon drop times as an argument for Halo's competitive merit is a joke when I see someone land an amazing Disc shot at a pixel 100's of yards away, while skiing down a hill in Tribes, and they do that while doing all and more of the "unparalleled teamwork" that the Halo series has.
I think Halo 2 ruined Halo, the way people think the Halo and CoD franchises ruined FPS overall, so the hole goes even deeper. What I consider to be the most skill based and competitive console shooter ever, Shadowrun, got played by hardly anyone and then was buried under Halo 3 and then CoD4. Ever since then, its been the same shitty CoD games and its clones and whatever Halo has been trying to do since. Even the shitty original Xbox ports of PC shooters like Counter-Strike, RTCW, and Unreal Championship, have more competitive merit than the current Halo and CoD titles.
Can I blame COD for the recent COD games as well then? cause I felt like those were pretty lazy bad games..
*thumbs up*
Right or wrong, I always assume people who make those arguments have only played two shooters in their lives: Halo and CoD. I don't understand how someone can be so unaware how important those elements are in almost every shooter ever made.
I'd say COD is fine for the kind of cheap (in the relative gameplay quality, it is an expensive game), fast and effective fun generating game.
Like angry birds in a way. (yeah, in my opinion it is THAT casual.)
There's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of game existing, the problem arises whenever anybody thinks they are any good/skilled at fps games just because of their sick K/D ratio.
CoD does not make anyone good, expecially on consoles. The game makes you feel good about yourself. Skill is mostly unceremoniously thrown out of the window in order to keep the playing field leveled.
Yes, I hate the players, not the game itself. In particular, I can't stand people who belive CoD is the high echelon of TACTICAL REALISTIC gameplay. Seriously now...
Like angry birds in a way. (yeah, in my opinion it is THAT casual.)
There's nothing inherently wrong with that kind of game existing, the problem arises whenever anybody thinks they are any good/skilled at fps games just because of their sick K/D ratio.
CoD does not make anyone good, expecially on consoles. The game makes you feel good about yourself. Skill is mostly unceremoniously thrown out of the window in order to keep the playing field leveled.
Yes, I hate the players, not the game itself. In particular, I can't stand people who belive CoD is the high echelon of TACTICAL REALISTIC gameplay. Seriously now...
It ain't the gameplay style that's ruining it for me, it's the current push for season passes, dlc, exclusive preorder bonuses, in game purchases, pay to win, single player and co-op against bots being forgotten about and more commonly handicapping against new players by giving perks and weapon upgrades to longer playing people. I fucking HATE where the industry has been going in the last couple of years.
As much as people say "it's not sour grapes" when they start ranting about how CoD 'ruined' games or gamers, it sure sounds a lot like it. It's like other MMO devs used to bemoan WoW 'ruining' the MMO market.
Give people what they want and 99 times out of 100 you'll be successful. That's what CoD and WoW both did. They eliminated a lot of the things people tolerated but didn't really like from games that came before and added in elements that kept those people playing.
What really seems to have "ruined" things is other games rushing to try and be the next CoD instead of offering a solid alternative that was worth playing.
Give people what they want and 99 times out of 100 you'll be successful. That's what CoD and WoW both did. They eliminated a lot of the things people tolerated but didn't really like from games that came before and added in elements that kept those people playing.
What really seems to have "ruined" things is other games rushing to try and be the next CoD instead of offering a solid alternative that was worth playing.
I won't say whether CoD ruined a generation or not...but sometime during this gen, if you made a shooter (especially at the start), if you didn't map the buttons like Halo or CoD, you were doing it wrong. I remember hearing alot about this in the media and on forums.
Maybe I'm just old, but I remember when gamers would just adapt. Adaptation wasn't a bad thing. Variety wasn't a bad thing. A different take, a different goal, a different feel, was acceptable. It didn't matter what the controller's button layout was or where the buttons and d-pad were placed. It didn't matter whether your platformer had the Mario jump feel. It didn't matter if it was linear or open, you adapted.
I'm not saying following tropes or standardizations are bad. But it feels like folks have become cynical, close-minded, and maybe entitled. Folks make claims like "why did studio A make game B when we already have Halo or Call o f Duty." As if no one should try anything in the same genre. Sad as it is...I'm not ready to say CoD is the sole creator.
Maybe I'm just old, but I remember when gamers would just adapt. Adaptation wasn't a bad thing. Variety wasn't a bad thing. A different take, a different goal, a different feel, was acceptable. It didn't matter what the controller's button layout was or where the buttons and d-pad were placed. It didn't matter whether your platformer had the Mario jump feel. It didn't matter if it was linear or open, you adapted.
I'm not saying following tropes or standardizations are bad. But it feels like folks have become cynical, close-minded, and maybe entitled. Folks make claims like "why did studio A make game B when we already have Halo or Call o f Duty." As if no one should try anything in the same genre. Sad as it is...I'm not ready to say CoD is the sole creator.
Night_Trekker
Member
You can't think of a single example of another shooter where you press up on an analog stick to go forward (leaving you with zero camera control independent of turning the vehicle left and right)? Off the top of my head, the vehicles in all of the Far Cry console spin-offs controlled the same way. The Borderlands vehicles control the same way. Advent Rising's vehicles controlled the same way.
I can't think of any more at the moment, but I know there are more. I remember bitching every time I was faced with the same awful control scheme. "Why does every game have to copy Halo now?!"
Phife Dawg
Member
Good read, he makes valid points.
But it is kind of sad that he is voicing his discomfort about these types of gamers when TW was trying to cater to them with RO2 (XP, action mode with crosshairs and everything etc.). And thus alienating lot of the RO1 fanbase and of course not attracting the CoD crowd. RO2 has gotten better and is one of my favourite games but I could have done without proximity indicators, xp for classes and weapons and the like. I know there is classic mode now which fixes most of these problems but all these different modes just split up a small userbase, they should have stuck to their strengths and deliver one hardcore mode. And yeah the initial bugginess/issues didn't help, drove away a lot of players.
But it is kind of sad that he is voicing his discomfort about these types of gamers when TW was trying to cater to them with RO2 (XP, action mode with crosshairs and everything etc.). And thus alienating lot of the RO1 fanbase and of course not attracting the CoD crowd. RO2 has gotten better and is one of my favourite games but I could have done without proximity indicators, xp for classes and weapons and the like. I know there is classic mode now which fixes most of these problems but all these different modes just split up a small userbase, they should have stuck to their strengths and deliver one hardcore mode. And yeah the initial bugginess/issues didn't help, drove away a lot of players.
Uiki
Member
The people I played with have like 150 wins streaks easily.
So yeah...Cod helps the less skilled player to achieve a bunch of kills, maybe, in a game. But it's almost impossible to win a game against some experienced players.
But that's not the point, if you ask me.
computers putin'
Member
That's not true, how many of you play CoD regularly? These systems that are supposedly there to help new players are working against them way more then they're being helped by it.
yes and yes, the article is bs
I think the COD games that came after 4, are to blame for the stagnation of FPS'. MW2 tried to enhance what COD4 offered and flopped, but each game after that seemed to think that was the way to go.
soundscream
Member
I have been playing FPS since Wolfenstein 3D, and I have enjoyed the current generation of shooters more than the latter.
And I totally disagree that it doesn't take skill to be good at these games, because I more often then not get my ass handed to me by players who have more time to invest into the game than I do.
And I totally disagree that it doesn't take skill to be good at these games, because I more often then not get my ass handed to me by players who have more time to invest into the game than I do.
Mr_Appleby
Member
well, yes, the player base would likely hate it once they started having things taken away from them. I still like the idea though. It's like a handicap in sport.
It's the only point the article had.
gwynplaine
Banned
I know fps pretty well. played a decent amount of CS around beta 5.2 to the first source releases any most everything since then.
the beta for modern warfare on the 360 felt amazing because it did fps on consoles right. it did close the skill gap and made killing so much easier because we didn't have the precision that the mouse provided. i remember you could literally camp in the house on one of the russian themed maps and get onto the top of the scoreboard.
now putting that same game onto the PC makes no sense because the quick kills turn it into a quick kill clusterfuck. and partly because of that reason is why I think it's not even a popular game on the PC - MW3 had 1.5 million sold on PC when i checked the sales charts. and the PC is the only market that tripwire is developing for.
i don't think CoD has ruined anything. i think devs are now just limited by the genre conventions,and form. of course, you can say that about any genre but i think it's especially true of fps. point, click and die. that's what it boils down too. i'm not too positive you can put a spin on that.
for people who play fps, there are still so many niches and still active communities on both PC and console that i feel like i can get whatever fps kick i want. that is if i even feel like playing one.
the beta for modern warfare on the 360 felt amazing because it did fps on consoles right. it did close the skill gap and made killing so much easier because we didn't have the precision that the mouse provided. i remember you could literally camp in the house on one of the russian themed maps and get onto the top of the scoreboard.
now putting that same game onto the PC makes no sense because the quick kills turn it into a quick kill clusterfuck. and partly because of that reason is why I think it's not even a popular game on the PC - MW3 had 1.5 million sold on PC when i checked the sales charts. and the PC is the only market that tripwire is developing for.
i don't think CoD has ruined anything. i think devs are now just limited by the genre conventions,and form. of course, you can say that about any genre but i think it's especially true of fps. point, click and die. that's what it boils down too. i'm not too positive you can put a spin on that.
for people who play fps, there are still so many niches and still active communities on both PC and console that i feel like i can get whatever fps kick i want. that is if i even feel like playing one.
Uiki
Member
He talks about skill gap compression..and it's definitly there. Not to a degree that it can stop a well experienced team but it's there.
It's not "how many games you win" but it's about the amount of skill you need to do that.
In the end we stop playing because it was not fun anymore.
CoD has ruined the market for FPS games because everyone wants a piece of their success but it looks like it's hard to win over people from CoD to other games. I haven't bought a CoD game since MW2 because I can't deal with all the XP/Leveling up/customizing the shit out of your weapons. I would for once just want to play a shooter where everyone is on equal ground. I don't need a pat on the back for every headshot or melee kill, I just want to enjoy playing the game.
As long as good players dominate weaker players, it's fine. Nobody cares about what random, crazy nukes or balloons are used in the mud divisions. This is true to all competitive games.
Palette Swap
Member
I don't believe the CoD player, let alone CoD itself, is the issue. As many people have already pointed out, the issue is more that everyone else decided to go along these lines, even adding MP components when none were needed.
That mix of risk aversion, metooitis and myopia is completely endemic to this industry and the way it's run. Blaming the end user for your own broken game won't solve anything.
That mix of risk aversion, metooitis and myopia is completely endemic to this industry and the way it's run. Blaming the end user for your own broken game won't solve anything.
Uiki
Member
Uhm...I can speak for myself here...and i disagree with you. I need a skill based gameplay, not some random stuff that exists only to aid less experienced players.
What competitive games have "random, crazy nukes or balloons" to help new players?
This is the point of tripwire's interview.