Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PC Gamer)   "Call of Duty has almost ruined a generation of FPS players." Boom. Headshot   (pcgamer.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Call of Duty, FPS, collective responsibility, Great Basin Desert, training wheels, knee-jerk reaction, Infinity Ward  
•       •       •

5165 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2013 at 3:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-14 06:05:28 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I like how the comment thread for an article discussing how nobody will play a game which does not look, move, and function like Call of Duty has been completely derailed by discussion of stealth and medieval FPS games.


I like that I'm reading this comment while waiting for Firaxis to announce new content for XCOM at pax east.
 
2013-03-14 06:05:32 AM  

log_jammin: thamike: they don't build momentum, they lose it.

They do both.

going from standing still to top speed takes times.


Not really.  Especially when the motivation is to not get killed.  Going from prone to a sprint?  Sure, but CoD takes care of that.

and staying at top speed only lasts so long.

CoD takes care of this just fine too.
 
2013-03-14 06:08:37 AM  
I should also mention that mount & blade was, at least, available as a full free demo until level 7. Idk if they still do that. But either way, it's a cheap digital download from amazon, and a purchase most medieval nerds won't regret.
 
2013-03-14 06:11:21 AM  

thamike: Not really. Especially when the motivation is to not get killed.


I'm not saying it takes a few minutes, but a person isn't at top speed in a 2 steps either.

without playing the game, I don't know if it works in that sense, but it does in real life.

thamike: CoD takes care of this


what eves console kiddie!!
 
2013-03-14 06:11:34 AM  

HotWingAgenda: log_jammin: My son plays CoD a lot. I tried to get into the World at War one, but the whole "hide for a minute to regain health" thing was a bit much for me. That and the way it jumped between stories annoyed me.

But anyway, one thing I've noticed, and I don't know if it's him, the way the game plays, or if I just play FPS differently, but he always runs from place to place, turning and shooting without really looking. when I play games like that I always go slow and try to peak around corners, take careful aim, etc.. I just get the feeling that CoD encourages/rewards the way he plays. maybe, I don't know.

That's pretty much why I gave up on CoD (MW3).  One time I was doing a group game, sniping targets... and one of my own teammates kept hunting me down and shooting me in the back of the head, because he wanted me to run around in the open like a farking retard.

I have Borderlands 2 now, and haven't looked back.


I used to play CoD and loved it, but everyone was always pissed at me because I was a good sniper. I would kill 3 or 4 players and relocate slightly so that when my victims respawned and came back expecting me to be in the same spot, I would get them again. Rinse and repeat. The hate mail/messages were hilarious.
 
2013-03-14 06:13:45 AM  
How could we have guessed mike lowell would be a COD player, and on top of that one who is convinced being 'good' at that POS makes him a strategic genius?
 
2013-03-14 06:14:34 AM  

casual disregard: FTFA: "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)."

I'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around the term "standalone expansion." Didn't we used to call that a sequel back in the day?


It generally implies no major changes to the engine, and cheaper than a full game, as you would expect with an expansion, but not needing the original game to avoid locking out people that didn't get the previous one.

/of course that has been blurred a bit by doing the same, except add a couple of extra maps and call it a full price sequel instead
 
2013-03-14 06:15:10 AM  

Mike_LowELL: I like how the comment thread for an article discussing how nobody will play a game which does not look, move, and function like Call of Duty has been completely derailed by discussion of stealth and medieval FPS games.


But we're all old guys. I never liked Call of Duty. It was too much money(ie more than $0.00 USD) for "just another FPS"

We're not the kids in the article. We didn't cut our teeth on CoD, so we know better games are out there and getting good takes time.
 
2013-03-14 06:20:15 AM  

log_jammin: Alphax: I tried a Deus Ex prequel the other week.. looks great.. but got stuck early on with a room with 3 enemies in it, and couldn't find a way to pick off one at a time.

The cover system threw me off. I need to give it another try.


I highly recommend you purchase the Explosive Map Pack for it, if you haven't already.  It's only a few bucks, but it gives you one of the most useful items in the game: the Grenade Launcher, or as I call it, The Stupid Forced Boss Fight Easy Button.  When you're playing as a stealthy hacker and (as Penny Arcade puts it) the game "locks [you] in a room with a robo-bully and his fully automatic arm-cannon", you just take out the Grenade Launcher and spam explosions in his face until he's dead.  Takes maybe 10 seconds, tops.  Works on all four of the godawful "no you have to play this like an on-rails console FPS now" boss fights.
 
2013-03-14 06:28:42 AM  
The problem with the COD franchise is that the maps have gotten smaller. Back in the United Offensive days, maps were huge and sprawling and allowed for a high variation in successful strategy to win game modes (cause only tards judge a multiplayer experience by way of 'death match only'). capturing a point involved good use of scouting, approach routes and vehicle cooridination depending on the map (looking at you Foy).

Now, the maps are these cluster farked apartment rooms trying to squeeze 12 players into them where the longest you go before encountering an enemy is no more than 3 seconds. Often times less. At these kind of ranges, spastic reflexes, hipfire and full auto spray and pray will defeat ANY kind of team work. The only way to combat that is by complete map awareness. The unique situation you get when you've played the same game type on the same map 100 times. You instinctively know where people hide and where you are most likely to get shot from. So you react accordingly, pre-firing favored camping spots and bunny hopping around corners likely to hold an enemy presence.

I dont much like the way the game has evolved to that point but there you go. It says a lot about the environment where the game has upwards to 6 different sniper rifles but not a single map where the maximum line of sight exceeds 75 meters...

PS. Blops II doesnt have a lag problem, it has a floating hit box problem. The hit box around your character extends quite a bit beyond your model frame so YES, there will be times where you die from shots that by all accounts should have missed you because you werent in the room anymore or behind cover. This is what happens when titles designed for consoles gets ported to PC....poorly.
 
2013-03-14 06:50:18 AM  
There was a time when being an FPS didn't mean being caught in the mainstream where all titles were practically indistinguishable.
COD started on the "Wouldn't it be nice to play war like in the movies" theme, Battlefield was "Wouldn't it be nice to play with friends". You had mods like day of defeat and red orchestra which took an interesting run at the weapons and time period thing. Offerings like infiltration or Rogue spear would put your tactics to the test.

After shooters evolved onto the console, the drive became sales rather than gameplay.
COD and HALO became sales leaders and now everything tries to mimic them in the hope of similar success.

The mainstream is so far removed from the old games that tactics aren't understood or appreciated.  You've got voice communications but no one says anything that isn't either a four letter word or a question of their opponents sexual preferences.

I don't think we're talking "almost' anymore.
Mainstream console players are so far removed from the roots of FPS games that you'd only scare and confuse them if you offered something that wasn't a watered down clone.
The old way was mazes, challenges, and variety.  The new way is hand holding players through an action movie set.
 
2013-03-14 06:53:55 AM  

way south: You had mods like day of defeat and red orchestra which took an interesting run at the weapons and time period thing. Offerings like infiltration or Rogue spear would put your tactics to the test.


Oh back in the good old days where random strangers would actually work in teams and squads.
Voice communication was a rarity and a bit of a privilege so it was used well.

I also blame the leader boards and record keeping. People are so goddamn worried about their K/D ratio.
 
2013-03-14 06:57:15 AM  

log_jammin: speaking of strategy...I finally decided to build a computer after several years of not having one. So the first thing I buy is Empire Total War. I sunk hundreds of hours into shogun and medieval total war so I couldn't wait to get back into the series, but holy shiat...I'm having a hard time getting back into it. Either I got dumber(very possible) or they really upped the complication.


I love the Total War series, and I also recently got into Empire.  I'd say it's the most complex in the series on the turn-based side.  Your empire sprawls so much and there can be so much going on that it gets very interesting, especially early on before you have established dominance.  It is definitely a ramp up from Medieval 1 and Shogun 1.  I care about the turn-based strategy side more than the real-time battles, so I'm really liking it.

That said, prepare to be annoyed by the victory conditions.  For some reason they set it so you have to play out till the designated year to win.  In my first game as the Dutch, I took my time and had the other victory conditions at around 1848, and had to play over 50 years to get the win.  I ended up conquering the world and hitting 'end turn' a bunch.

/Shogun 2 is even better.  I think it's the best in the series, by quite a way.
 
2013-03-14 06:59:32 AM  

Nezorf: These are inherently tied together.
There is no consequence for taking a few bullets.
You get hit, screen goes red, and 4 seconds later you are peachy.
You get shot, and your squadmate can revive you back to 100%

It's playing on "Can I Play Daddy?" plus regenerative health.


That's actually one of the reasons I like Mass Effect 3: you have a shield that regenerates after a few seconds but your health is divided into various sections. If you lose 3.5 sections of health, that half-section will "grow back" after a few seconds but the remaining 3 won't regenerate unless you use a medkit. I find this strikes a good balance: you can take a few hits to your shield without any real consequence, but you still need to manage cover and medkit inventory well.

I recall being annoyed with certain older games that didn't do regeneration and required that you pick up medkits to heal. It was a real pain when you were down to 6% health, faced with tons of enemies, and there weren't any medkits in sight. The shield+partially regenerating health helps keep the game fun (rather than swearing and reloading a previous save) but still presents a challenge, particularly on harder difficulty levels.
 
2013-03-14 07:12:15 AM  
I miss the Call of Duty games from World War 2. Granted, CoD basically killed that genre by having so many sequels. Then they killed the modern warfare genre by creating and spawning many similar games. I also miss the old Medal of Honor games.

FPS military shooters are too similar today and basically filled with annoying brats who think they so awesome because they have the 'dopest' achievements or play the game by running around and knifing people.
 
2013-03-14 07:13:13 AM  

heypete: Nezorf: These are inherently tied together.
There is no consequence for taking a few bullets.
You get hit, screen goes red, and 4 seconds later you are peachy.
You get shot, and your squadmate can revive you back to 100%

It's playing on "Can I Play Daddy?" plus regenerative health.

That's actually one of the reasons I like Mass Effect 3: you have a shield that regenerates after a few seconds but your health is divided into various sections. If you lose 3.5 sections of health, that half-section will "grow back" after a few seconds but the remaining 3 won't regenerate unless you use a medkit. I find this strikes a good balance: you can take a few hits to your shield without any real consequence, but you still need to manage cover and medkit inventory well.

I recall being annoyed with certain older games that didn't do regeneration and required that you pick up medkits to heal. It was a real pain when you were down to 6% health, faced with tons of enemies, and there weren't any medkits in sight. The shield+partially regenerating health helps keep the game fun (rather than swearing and reloading a previous save) but still presents a challenge, particularly on harder difficulty levels.


Back in the day I really enjoyed Day of Defeats bandage aspect.
You had health numbers, but if you got hit in a certain place (body or upper arm/leg) you started to bleed out. You had to find shelter and patch yourself up, but never gained that health back.
If they made you actually patch yourself up and never fully regain when your screen got all red, I would be far more into it.

Mass Effect did their health stuff pretty well.
The whole, take a break, eat a candy bar and have a smoke and your back up to 100% always feels so fake to me.
I just took 3 bullets to the chest and now I can stand up and take 3 more?

The whole 6% health, stuck in the corner, pinned down was some of my favorite parts of older games.
Makes you take it easy and not do dumb things as much.
Yeah you can abuse save/checkpoints but what is the fun in that?

It seems that they used to create games with the legendary difficulty in mind, but then dumb it down for the kids.
Now the legendary difficulties just seem cheap achievement quests.
Most games are nigh impossible to get through the first time on legendary, as it seems legendary is just a 100% completion kind of thing nowadays.
 
2013-03-14 07:14:59 AM  

Subtle_Canary: I dont much like the way the game has evolved to that point but there you go. It says a lot about the environment where the game has upwards to 6 different sniper rifles but not a single map where the maximum line of sight exceeds 75 meters...


This. Pretty much everything you said in your post. It's fine for a while, if you're really wasted, if you're a teenager, or if you need to vent by just running around blowing shiat up, but let's not conflate this with good and in-depth gameplay. These games should've been a small mod (call it...deathmatch, or something) on a much larger and objective oriented game, not their own beast.

I'll admit that the muscle memory and map memorization required to play these games at a high level is a sort of skill, but it's my opinion that...well, it's stupid. It has its place of course, but it is most certainly not at the forefront of the genre. We have the computing power to accomplish so much, and yet I think most phones could handle the complexity of the shovelware fps's they're throwing out. I blame consoles. <insert standard disclaimer about how this is my opinion and I'm aware I don't get to dictate how other people enjoy their gaming>

I wouldn't mind seeing things like randomized maps. That is, the maps themselves are generated, not rotated through a static list, so that you can never memorize a map, because you'll never see it more than once. And also that the battles take place in a much larger scheme of an on-going war. So if the battle is being fought in France, you get randomized hills, roads, bunkers and a random collection of a specific set of buildings to make up a small town. Could have a static map for Paris and other large notables, if the overall campaign dictates a fight for control of it taking place. Then if you're down in Africa you get different buildings and ground textures, and again it's all randomized for the actual terrain, with perhaps weights given to dictate the likelihood of fighting on flat land, hills, mountains, a coastal invasion, etc. You know what game they did that with? Mount and Blade.

That is an awesome game. Listening to Amon Amarth and building up my own kingdom from nothing, with just an axe a shield and a horse (and a small cadre of dedicated companions, and maybe a bunch of soldier cannon fodder, because I'm not going first up that ramp onto 500 pikes, fark you...I'll send your widows a few gold though, and make sure your sons grow up big and strong by building a new mill at your town...I'll need more soldiers eventually, after all).

They've been promising Mount and Blade 2 forever, but there's still absolutely NO information about it, except that it exists. With the introduction of multiplayer in the Warband expansion, and the subsequent changes that necessitates, I've become fearful for the fate of any future titles. I've heard War of the Roses is pretty enjoyable, but I just don't care about being a faceless soldier in a horde. I want to be the hero from humble beginnings who goes on to conquer the world and bend it to his will.

Not sure why the faceless soldier thing works when you have guns, but not when it's swords. At least for me. Anyways, I spent way too long making this post that's entirely too long. I am truly sorry for your lots.
 
2013-03-14 07:21:41 AM  
I've owned every CoD game since MW1 (with the exception of World at War).  I understand some of the hate the game receives, but at the same time, I don't think the proliferation of games like CoD, Halo, Gears of War, etc., have diminished the quality of other games that are released.  To me it's more or less just a matter of the mood you are in when you want to play.

Right now I'm cycling between Borderlands 2, Gran Turismo 5, BOps 2, and NBA 2k13.  Each game satisfies a certain taste for different times.  There have been so many unique games released in the last two years that defy the structure of a "run-and-gun" game like CoD.  The Uncharted series, Assassin's Creed, Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, the two fantastic Batman games.  I just don't see why anyone really complains that CoD has ruined gaming.
 
2013-03-14 07:28:37 AM  

BurningMan03: L.A. Noire


That game had so much promise, but the gameplay got a bit repetitive and the sandbox felt a little empty.

Also, why the ever-loving fark did Rockstar not put a merchandising deal in place with Hot Wheels to sell a line of LA Noire cars?
 
2013-03-14 07:33:53 AM  

BurningMan03:  I just don't see why anyone really complains that CoD has ruined gaming.


I don't see it either, who is saying CoD has ruined gaming as a whole?

TFA and the posts here have been about the casualization of the *FPS genre*, not sure why you're talking about Gran Turismo 5.
 
2013-03-14 07:39:26 AM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: I wouldn't mind seeing things like randomized maps. That is, the maps themselves are generated, not rotated through a static list, so that you can never memorize a map, because you'll never see it more than once. And also that the battles take place in a much larger scheme of an on-going war. So if the battle is being fought in France, you get randomized hills, roads, bunkers and a random collection of a specific set of buildings to make up a small town. Could have a static map for Paris and other large notables, if the overall campaign dictates a fight for control of it taking place. Then if you're down in Africa you get different buildings and ground textures, and again it's all randomized for the actual terrain, with perhaps weights given to dictate the likelihood of fighting on flat land, hills, mountains, a coastal invasion, etc. You know what game they did that with? Mount and Blade.


I would play the hell out of that if it was bigger than COD maps.
Randomized urban area combat?
Randomized beachhead invasion?
Parachute and sweep of a Randomized building?
It would completely eliminate the boring old choke-points of most maps and destroy the knife/shotgun runners favorite 400m laps they typically do.

Although it would burn up the computers it was running on but I'm sure it could totally be built. All you would hear about though is how "unbalanced" every map is.
 
2013-03-14 07:40:15 AM  
Played MW3 and Bo and yet I always go back to UT99.
 
2013-03-14 07:40:22 AM  

thisiszombocom: looks down on those whose first thief experience was 3


As many things that were wrong about that game (why did you get rid of the rope arrows and replace them with freaking Spider-Man gloves?  That only worked on very few, select walls?), they did a couple things right.  They got the original voice actors back, which was appreciated, and the Shalebridge Cradle level was right up there with the creepiest moments in the original series.  And it was still better to run and hide than it was to fight, when they could have easily made it a Steampunk combat game.

Which is unfortunately what it looks they're doing with the newest game.  According to the video, making him more "action" oriented.  No.  Just... Just no.  Now, if you gave him some parkour moves like in Mirrors Edge to go along with his sneaking abilities, I think I might be able to roll with it.  Something to get away from guards and dodge arrows with.  But I have the feeling they're going to make him a combat expert.
 
2013-03-14 07:44:50 AM  
All games that use hitscan suck.

/mil-sim master race
//the worst of all master races
 
2013-03-14 07:45:20 AM  

BurningMan03: I've owned every CoD game since MW1 (with the exception of World at War).  I understand some of the hate the game receives, but at the same time, I don't think the proliferation of games like CoD, Halo, Gears of War, etc., have diminished the quality of other games that are released.  To me it's more or less just a matter of the mood you are in when you want to play.

Right now I'm cycling between Borderlands 2, Gran Turismo 5, BOps 2, and NBA 2k13.  Each game satisfies a certain taste for different times.  There have been so many unique games released in the last two years that defy the structure of a "run-and-gun" game like CoD.  The Uncharted series, Assassin's Creed, Heavy Rain, L.A. Noire, the two fantastic Batman games.  I just don't see why anyone really complains that CoD has ruined gaming.


Reading between the lines I would suggest the problem is COD sells lots of copies (especially at launch/full price), and that other FPSes want to sell lots of copies too, without just making another COD clone, so they experimented with generic COD players and couldn't find a way to do that. So the problem is you either have to make a relatively cheap game, or a COD clone, or you risk going out of business if you get unlucky or mess up - basically with so many potential players already ruled out, the risks for non COD-like games (and their developers) is much higher than making a COD-like game.
 
2013-03-14 07:49:03 AM  

balisane: Feh. I find that Mass Effect fulfills all my possible FPS jones; all I really want to do is lay traps and snipe the deepest field possible, anyway, and that only between juicy story chapters. If it were at all possible to completely forget your arsenal and get though every situation with your stock pistol, I would do.


Import your character through all the games. I beat ME3 (with my biotic from ME1), replayed ME3, and I'm level 55 a third of the way in the game. 

At such levels, your stock pistol, and the unholy power of your singularity+warp combo, is all you need.

/playing on Insanity
//Vancouver burns brightly
 
2013-03-14 07:54:37 AM  
Slightly off topic question.
Played Quake, doom, castle wolfenstein, ect on pc.

Trying to play Borderlands on Xbox, the controller just feels wrong.  I suppose it takes time but it feels less accurate then the keyboard.

Do I need to give it more time, or are PC gamers really the master race?
 
2013-03-14 07:58:09 AM  
Different games require different skill sets. You might argue that you don't like what a particular game emphasizes or what skill set they define as needed to "win" or get whatever game rewards there are, but that doesn't change the fact that part of a games inherent rules and logic has win conditions and ways to achieve them.

For me, I either adhere to that game's system rules (whether knuckling under to it or falling into it), learn to enjoy the game in other ways, or if the game simply isn't fun for me, move on. Criticizing a game for what it rewards seems a bit hyperbolic and pedantic - two words that I just used incorrectly on purpose the way a good poet will change the mundane exercise of a difficult bowel movement into a sublime work of art.

Being in game design, you don't want to design your game to turn people off, for sure, and you always have an audience target in mind, so what makes a good game is... does your target audience feel rewarded in what you made and like the final product enough to invest their dollars and encourage others to do so? This guy in the article complaining that there aren't enough people in his intended demographic that enjoy what he offers... it exhibits wishful thinking. Arguing that memorizing maps and game information to become a better player makes you less skilled as a player means you miss the point. Every game has their set of intended skill mechanics. If that's not your cup of tea, move on. If enough gamers piss and moan that the game they want to see and play isn't out there, start a farking petition with game companies and let them know what you want. You think they wouldn't listen? I mean really. They spend millions of dollars trying to figure this shiat out.
 
2013-03-14 08:00:08 AM  
They say that but we all know that Half-life 3 will outsell that years installment of COD if valve manges to release it on consoles as well as PC.

Developers need to stop putting in more RPG elements to shooters or any multiplayer game really. They were fun in COD:MW and it didn't take long to get everything. Now when I start up multiplayer and see how long it's going to take me to get all the stuff I usually don't feel like playing multiplayer anymore. I know that I don't have enough time to grind that out before some.12 year old with no responsibilities unlocks it all then uses it to ruin my night.
 
2013-03-14 08:00:26 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: BurningMan03:  I just don't see why anyone really complains that CoD has ruined gaming.

I don't see it either, who is saying CoD has ruined gaming as a whole?

TFA and the posts here have been about the casualization of the *FPS genre*, not sure why you're talking about Gran Turismo 5.


I mention GT5 just to give some insight into my varied taste.  In the TFA he mentions how CoD has essentially made people impatient, which I agree with to a certain extent.  I've read other articles that speak to the same concept as this one and basically state that CoD has ruined games in general, not just FPS, because it does sell so many copies with each release, and it pushes game devs to match the success by simplifying the games they create and to follow that formula for a generation of gamers with short attention spans.  I have personally never owned a gaming PC, I've been console my whole life, so I'm not familiar with some of the other games that have been mentioned upthread, but I don't think FPS's are necessarily meant to be super in-depth like the other games I listed.  It fulfills a certain niche, so to speak.

I just fail to see how FPS's have really changed all that much compared to some of the first ones that any of us ever played.  How is Doom 2 all that different from CoD?  Or Goldeneye for the N64, which basically started the FPS craze?  Aside from the graphics, the point remains the same.  Run around, shoot, hide/find health pack to restore health, repeat.
 
2013-03-14 08:09:32 AM  

BurningMan03: I just fail to see how FPS's have really changed all that much compared to some of the first ones that any of us ever played.  How is Doom 2 all that different from CoD?


Because we'd advanced greatly since those days, and Halo/CoD was a huge step backward in game design.
 
2013-03-14 08:11:21 AM  
The only FPS I played that wasn't about map memorization or just being amped up on Mt Dew fast twitch was Operation Flashpoint.
 
2013-03-14 08:12:00 AM  

BurningMan03: Goldeneye for the N64, which basically started the FPS craze?


This sort of thing is why PC gamers think that console gamers are unworthy.

Goldeneye was neither revolutionary nor the beginning of anything. It was a lackluster game on a lackluster system. I should know I owned the MFer and my stupid friends were always bugging me to come over and play it. I had to keep explaining to them how shiatty the game was. Whatever less than  year later half-life came out and I just let them play it while I was on the computer.
 
2013-03-14 08:14:57 AM  

Eddie Ate Dynamite: I wouldn't mind seeing things like randomized maps. That is, the maps themselves are generated, not rotated through a static list, so that you can never memorize a map, because you'll never see it more than once.


Thing is in most cases you'll wind up with something scattershot.  An extra tree being here or there doesn't change the situation much.  There's a fair bit of skill involved in making terrain interesting, and battlefields are anything but organic.  Anything combustible in a contested area will be inevitably charred, and combat engineers will set up various defenses to make getting from here to there as painful as possible.  But of course, the purpose of these games is anything but realism.  Oh, they should feel real, but there's nothing fun about walking three steps up an open field and then getting cut down by a pillbox, inhaling nerve gas or stepping on a land mine.

As for CoD, I understand it's intended to cater to a simple-minded market, but to some extent might the limitations of the game experience be precisely because the participants are simple-minded?  I never played it so I don't know, but it seems more frustration here is leveled at the multiplayer brats than anything else.  I remember the first Team Fortress being a conventional, if enjoyable, FPS until my then-college roommate (who is an effin' genius and went on to get an MD) took that game places.  He really didn't play that much, but when he did he'd innovate something nasty (and I was basically his Padawan).  There were plenty of brats then, but we didn't mind them because we ate them for lunch.  We only entered sessions where we'd be outnumbered 2:1 because otherwise we'd get bored.  Just one example among many dozens -- he set up a sentry gun near the bottom corner of a central moat.  It took him a couple of drowning deaths, but the resulting hilarity was well worth it.  The thing had line of sight to the opposing sniper's nest (and everyone played sniper, even back then) but was obscured by the water, so snipers kept getting annihilated by a gun they couldn't see.  He'd name himself the furthest thing from macho crap, like "a Totoro", so you'd get to see messages flashing on screen like, "AceSniperKillshot dies of a Totoro's mysterious tropical disease."  I think he did more to push the level of play in that game than anything in the game itself; I seriously doubt the developers predicted even half the stuff he thought of.
 
2013-03-14 08:15:05 AM  

BurningMan03: Or Goldeneye for the N64, which basically started the FPS craze?


Holy crap, what?  Don't get me wrong, it was a great game.  A DEFINING game in the genre.  But it hardly started the craze.  If any one game can get that laid at their feet, it would have to be Doom, and even that stood on the shoulders of the original Wolfenstein and the like.

BurningMan03: Aside from the graphics, the point remains the same.  Run around, shoot, hide/find health pack to restore health, repeat.


I think I'm seeing teh problem here.  You obviously have terrible tastes in games.  There are a ton of shooter games that require objectives to be captured/defended, structures to be built or destroyed, or captured and decoded, transmitted...  You just seem to play the brainless ones that never advanced beyond "See Movement, Shoot Until Movement Stops."

/the original Red Orchestra was amazing
//played the hell out of Unreal Tournament and UT2004 back in the day
///ok, ALL the shooter games back in the day
 
2013-03-14 08:15:45 AM  

hubiestubert: I think that he's right, that the hybrid FPS-RPG is going to be where a lot of traction is found to produce some fun games.

Mind you, I don't think that Bioshock: Infinite is going to change that--all the Bioshock games are pretty much on rails, and the "exploring" portion of the show has been simply which area you'll explore first, and how many goodies you'll pick up along the way--nor has Borderlands really changed all that much, save increase the Skinner Box effect of having players looking for loot, constant streams of loot, and comparing new loot to old loot.


meh, trends come and go, 5 years ago everybody was predicting that call of duty would create a huge shooter market of copy-cats

what actually happened is that call of duty ate up all of the shooter dollars, even the halo franchise lagged behind despite the 360 being the better selling HD console in the highest-demand markets

it was inevitable that call of duty would peak somewhere and then start to slowly slide in sales, while the day 1 sales continue to impress the tail-end sales aren't - meaning everybody who loves this type of games loves it so much they have to have it day 1, but a lot of people are growing tired of it

either way, we live in a media world dominated by the lack of attention for things, it's why every analyst thinks every device must be a convergence device, it's why financially fewer and fewer AAA games can be made in the future, it's why there's always so many failed copycats, but i think in the long run even the fps will suffer at the hands of adhd, and that more games like quake live will popularize
 
2013-03-14 08:16:43 AM  

Egoy3k: This sort of thing is why PC gamers think that console gamers are unworthy.

Goldeneye was neither revolutionary nor the beginning of anything. It was a lackluster game on a lackluster system. I should know I owned the MFer and my stupid friends were always bugging me to come over and play it. I had to keep explaining to them how shiatty the game was. Whatever less than  year later half-life came out and I just let them play it while I was on the computer.


I wouldn't say that.  I was the kind of guy that was designing Duke Nukem 3D levels back in the day, and I loved Goldeneye.  It wasn't revolutionary in any way, but it was well done and rather genre defining.
 
2013-03-14 08:17:04 AM  
I miss old Day of Defeat.

Wasn't it v1.3 that had the bleeding still? It was awesome.

I picked up the first Mass Effect a while ago because everybody recommended it to me, to get me into the story for 2 and 3, but I'm not quite sold on it yet. It feels like a railway shooter that's heavy on the dialogue right now.

/new gaming PC building this summer
//yay!
 
2013-03-14 08:21:05 AM  

Egoy3k: BurningMan03: Goldeneye for the N64, which basically started the FPS craze?

This sort of thing is why PC gamers think that console gamers are unworthy.

Goldeneye was neither revolutionary nor the beginning of anything. It was a lackluster game on a lackluster system. I should know I owned the MFer and my stupid friends were always bugging me to come over and play it. I had to keep explaining to them how shiatty the game was. Whatever less than  year later half-life came out and I just let them play it while I was on the computer.


But it was ridiculously popular and single handedly grew the FPS genre platform from us indignant master gaming racers to the masses, hence the word Craze.
 
2013-03-14 08:22:00 AM  

Shadowknight: Egoy3k: This sort of thing is why PC gamers think that console gamers are unworthy.

Goldeneye was neither revolutionary nor the beginning of anything. It was a lackluster game on a lackluster system. I should know I owned the MFer and my stupid friends were always bugging me to come over and play it. I had to keep explaining to them how shiatty the game was. Whatever less than  year later half-life came out and I just let them play it while I was on the computer.

I wouldn't say that.  I was the kind of guy that was designing Duke Nukem 3D levels back in the day, and I loved Goldeneye.  It wasn't revolutionary in any way, but it was well done and rather genre defining.


I found it unplayable due to the systems lack of a second analog stick, the floaty feeling and the jarring sound. Compared with what was available for the PC during that time period it was not really a great game.
 
2013-03-14 08:23:58 AM  

log_jammin: ticed, and I don't know if it's him, the way the game plays, or if I just play FPS differently, but he always runs from place to place, turning and shooting without really looking. when I play games like that I always go slow and try to peak around corners, take careful aim, etc.. I just get the feeling that CoD encourages/rewards the way he plays. maybe, I don't know.


That's my issue with online FPS games now.  The only strategy is to run around a map as fast as you can and kill as many before you are killed, spawn and start again. Run and Gun gets boring after...5 minutes.  If you try to use any other strategy everyone on the maps starts pissing their wheaties about the "camper".  "Camper? You've seen me at nearly every point on the map.  How is that camping?."

Playing a lan game with my boys was pretty fun but those days are done, oldest is off playing with uncle sams real toys and the younger two have moved on from FPS games. We'd spend two-three hours on a weekend, giving each other crap about getting to an achievment first and just general trash talking.

/oh, plus, i hate how every single map is "one level".  there's very little vertical elements, everything is clipped so you can't do any exploring to find other areas than the predefined paths.
 
2013-03-14 08:24:30 AM  
fark y'all. I just want to shoot zombies.
 
2013-03-14 08:30:11 AM  
Most military shooters are boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring
 
2013-03-14 08:31:30 AM  
I have to agree with the guy. CoD multiplayet us annoying as hell and requires no aiming skill. Hell it's so broken that if you try, you die. I don't like to spray and pray. Just like I refused to nade spam in Q2. I loved all rails wod7 the best. Tarzan hook and a railgun. Now that took skill and twitch aim mastery, and it was a hell a lot of fun and I got very good at it. Unfortunately it was way late, around 2002-2003 and the servers were starting to drop like flies...
 
2013-03-14 08:36:06 AM  

Shadowknight: Egoy3k: This sort of thing is why PC gamers think that console gamers are unworthy.

Goldeneye was neither revolutionary nor the beginning of anything. It was a lackluster game on a lackluster system. I should know I owned the MFer and my stupid friends were always bugging me to come over and play it. I had to keep explaining to them how shiatty the game was. Whatever less than  year later half-life came out and I just let them play it while I was on the computer.

I wouldn't say that.  I was the kind of guy that was designing Duke Nukem 3D levels back in the day, and I loved Goldeneye.  It wasn't revolutionary in any way, but it was well done and rather genre defining.


That's what I was getting at.  Like I said, I've been a console guy my whole life, and Goldeneye was the first game that I can remember where my friends would have get-togethers just so we could all play the game.  It grew the genre in a way that Doom or Wolfenstein never could because of them being PC based.  If you go solely off of console FPS shooters, they haven't changed all that much.  I never played UT, Half-Life, or Counter-strike, although I had friends who were really, really good at CS.

With that being said, I'm glad to have you here to diagnose MY taste in video games.  I'll be sure to re-examine everything I've ever thought about the games I like.
 
2013-03-14 08:36:49 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: God-is-a-Taco: At least we have Thief 4 to look forward to, right?

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/03/13/meet-the-n ew -garrett-from-thief.aspx

Haha just kidding.

I still believe!

Only major disappointment so far is that they didn't go with a female thief, as the ending to Deadly Shadows implied the torch had been passed to a young girl.


It seems to be a complete reboot. From what I've read they've even removed the fantasy aspects too.
 
2013-03-14 08:38:33 AM  
CounterStrike and Team Fortress 2 are the king of multiplayer shooters.   This CoD crap is just that.  Crap.
 
2013-03-14 08:43:26 AM  

Nezorf: way south: You had mods like day of defeat and red orchestra which took an interesting run at the weapons and time period thing. Offerings like infiltration or Rogue spear would put your tactics to the test.

Oh back in the good old days where random strangers would actually work in teams and squads.
Voice communication was a rarity and a bit of a privilege so it was used well.


Unless, of course, you had baaallls of steeeeeelllll.
 
2013-03-14 08:44:36 AM  
I kept trying to use FPS skills gleaned from the days of Medal of Honor and Unreal Tournament on the PC and utilize it on the Xbox, and it didn't work. On the PC I was twitchy enough to walk into a room with 3 people and instantly prioritize which one to shoot first and then take out the other two and walk out alive. That's nearly impossible on the Xbox due to the controller, and I just get killed by an 8yr old with a throwing knife from 100yds away through the open window.

And while I do enjoy CoD on the Xbox, at the same time I recognize it as a pile of shiat. It wasn't until I significantly cheapened my game did I start getting "good."

Also not showing the ping is annoying as hell. I always used it as a feedback mechanism on the PC. If I got hammered continually and someone was in my approximation of ping I knew I wasn't playing well, or conversely if they had a 10 and I was at a 100 and I was losing I knew it wasn't necessarily me.
 
2013-03-14 08:46:45 AM  
meh. I just stick to the original Halo PC multiplayer.
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report