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 22
    More: Unlikely, Call of Duty, FPS, collective responsibility, Great Basin Desert, training wheels, knee-jerk reaction, Infinity Ward  
•       •       •

5161 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Mar 2013 at 3:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-14 04:42:40 PM
1 votes:
Well this seems as good a place as any to ask, so forgive itf it ends up TL; and you DR.

I used to like FPSes, but quit them ages ago. Right when Quake came out. Partially at the time it was because they went full 3D keyboard and mouse instead of keyboard alone, which I found awkward but mainly because every shooter I saw was another dark, po-faced, increasingly realistic game. Over time it became worse, all I saw were games with real weapons, real locations, real soldiers.

Not for me at all. I like my shooters ridiculous and cartoonish and completely over the top with varied locations to explore, with bizarre and fantastic weapons and with colours as bright as a Sega arcade racer.

I like Duke Nukem 3D and Rise of the Triad and Shadow Warrior, games filled with absurdity and pop-culture references, ideally games with a sense of humour about them or at least a distorted, unreal atmosphere.

I thought that Postal 2 would work for me, as it had a lot of promise. I like the mundane missions, the odd weapons and the comical set pieces. I didn't even mind the loading times, but what killed it for me is that

A) the whole premise is that you play a maniacal killer who goes on a rampage while doing ordinary things, but the fact that you spend most of the game being attacked without provocation and thus defending yourself from killers instead of being the killer totally undermines that and

B) most of the time you can't even defend yourself without the polis creeping up on you and putting an immediate stop to the game by throwing you in jail.

It utterly ruined it for me to the point where even being able to pish on Gary Coleman until he vomits wasn't worth it.

So, Farkers, is there something out there that might work for me? I have a laptop that was a pretty good gaming machine seven years ago, a PS2, a PSP and a DS. Also an iphone but I'll be damned if I'm going to play an FPS without any hardware controls. I'd prefer to go with the PC as I think I'll more easily grow accustomed to keyboard and mouse than flailing around trying to aim with a wee thumbstick. But that's me.

In short, I want more of this:

www.duke4.net
 resolution-magazine.co.uk
media.giantbomb.com
YAY, FUN!


and less of this


i199.photobucket.com
pcmedia.ign.com
BOO, NOT FUN!
2013-03-14 03:17:21 PM
1 votes:

theurge14: TNel: Is this the thread where all the people with slow reaction times blame lag for the reason for their deaths and low K/D?

Hi, Vonderhaar.  You are correct, despite mountains of evidence of killcams not showing the same thing as in-game action, it's all the complaining noobs fault for being noobs.


Who is this Vonderhaar?  I've played for 10 days and some change according to my combat record and there has been very few killcams that I would say are different than in game.  Lag has a part in it but most of the time the game will host migrate to level off the field.  If you have a crap connection or a bunch of people are streaming when you are playing then that's not the games fault.
2013-03-14 03:03:13 PM
1 votes:
Is this the thread where all the people with slow reaction times blame lag for the reason for their deaths and low K/D?
2013-03-14 10:02:58 AM
1 votes:

sxacho: I know you can change up your method at that point and do it all over, but I think I'd like to see more randomization of enemies every time you replay so that skill and overall strategy really are more important than just memorization. Then again, I'm not a game designer and I don't know if that kind of thing would really play out very well in the end.


Aside from all the other shiat that developers have to put up with, the toughest problem to tackle is reconciling a game's potential for fun vs. how people will actually play it, which makes randomization risky.  On the contrary, the easiest way to make a game "safe" is to make it extremely linear, because you can exert complete control over how it's played.  Which sucks, at least for me.

The best games, in my opinion, can be "broken" because the developers didn't put in any overly restrictive limitations on how the game was played.  They just threw up a challenge and let everyone sort it out.  Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is a prime example of that.  I watched my friend (an old school RPGer) play through it and he really bought into the role of the protagonist being a slimy guy working his way up the crime ladder, so when it came time to do the stupid "race through town" minigame he got out of his car and tossed a few grenades under the other cars during the countdown, to hell with the consequences.  He wasn't trying to be cunning, wasn't using any guide and half expected to lose by default; he was just role-playing.  The other cars all blew up and, to our astonishment, the minigame continued.  So he hopped back in, completely unopposed, and (both of us laughing the whole time) started running errands en route to the most hilariously bad 1st place finish in the history of driving games.  In my opinion, this is how all games should be made.  Not necessarily sandbox so much as throwing up challenges and daring the gamers to figure them out.  It's boring when a level, mission or boss has one blatantly optimal path to completion.

The problem with these games, which gets back to FPS, is twofold:  One, they make the worst multiplayer games because their inherent flexibility makes them easy to "break".  Unless the developers are VERY good, invariably some asshole who takes gaming waaaaay too seriously will find some unstoppable combination.  To me, having grown out of my FPS phase, on-line multiplayer is a kiss of death for a game not because I'm antisocial so much as it completely changes the scope of the game -- it has to be painstakingly playtested to nerf any sort of creative combinations.  Second, and ironically, just because the game allows gamers to be creative doesn't mean gamers will actually be creative.  An extreme example was The Sims.  I heard that the vast majority used it as a sort of virtual suburbia simulator.  It's a pity, because the code in that game was robust and WIDE open.  I guess it was successful, but I had to teach others how enjoy that game.  This is a legitimate risk; if gamers don't figure out how your game is supposed to be enjoyed they'll think it's a bad game and congrats, creativity is rewarded with red ink.  Some studios are good at encouraging creativity but that's not the aim of FPS creators.
2013-03-14 09:21:27 AM
1 votes:

theurge14: Every day I keep telling myself this is the last day I play Black Ops 2. The lag is terrible, half the time is spent "migrating hosts", the hitmarkers are awful, the guns are inconsistent, the quickscoping is ridiculous, nobody plays objectives they just camp and boost their KD, everytime I join a Ground War game it's already in progress and some goober on their team is 76-2 with every single scorestreak up at the same time. And yet I still keep popping in the disc and playing it... I don't know why.


Same here.  It's because it's designed to take advantage of the non-thinking, primeval, pleasure parts of your brain.  And after a long stressful day, I kind of need that.

I kind of want it, too.  It lets me shut out all the other crap.  I may only get a few minutes before I'm interruped with a real world obligation, so I can't play anything deep or complicated.  It's a bad habit.

And I'm currently playing Borderlands 2 and God of War Ascention with someone, but since they go to bed early I can't finish them up to start another story game.  So I'm kind of stuck with the cheap thrills of Black Ops 2.
2013-03-14 08:56:55 AM
1 votes:
Arma III laughs at call of duty

media.pcgamer.com
2013-03-14 08:09:32 AM
1 votes:

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 07:54:37 AM
1 votes:
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 07:21:41 AM
1 votes:
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 06:03:49 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-14 06:02:44 AM
1 votes:

Gordon Bennett: Reading through TFA I'm a bit confused as to what the point is. It seems to me that it's a foregone conclusion that if you assemble a group of people who exclusively play Call of Duty and have them try a game in the same genre but with different mechanics, they'll dislike what is different from CoD. It would make more sense to test it with a more varied audience.


I suspect it's because he actually is trying to "name names" and make a point, and that his game is probably mediocre.
2013-03-14 05:11:19 AM
1 votes:
Reading through TFA I'm a bit confused as to what the point is. It seems to me that it's a foregone conclusion that if you assemble a group of people who exclusively play Call of Duty and have them try a game in the same genre but with different mechanics, they'll dislike what is different from CoD. It would make more sense to test it with a more varied audience.
2013-03-14 05:10:12 AM
1 votes:

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. The PR guys themselves can't hide how awful they're making it.
There are key words to pay attention to in the video, like "modern audience", "console market",  "mainstream".

"We took a game many people enjoy, and we changed everything good about it so that no one will enjoy it."


Why?  Why did you show me that?  The Thief series was my all-time favorite series in my long history of gaming (followed closely by Starsiege and the Tribes games up to Tribes 2).  They already got dangerously close to killing it with "Deadly Shadows" (why are there so many load screens, that prompt me to push a green A button to continue, when I'M ON A PC!?).  But now this?  Damn it so much...
2013-03-14 04:29:04 AM
1 votes:

doglover: There needs to be more medieval FPS stuff. Recreate the Fall of Rome or something like that. Crossbows and swords and slings and daggers....


Ahhhh, Heretic. I loved that game.
2013-03-14 04:27:08 AM
1 votes:
I'm amazed so many FPS gamers still enjoy deathmatches. That's so early 90's. They don't want to think about objectives, and defending is "camping". They just want to mindlessly bunny-hop around a small map taking potshots at eachother.
2013-03-14 04:25:48 AM
1 votes:
I worked on Modern Warfare 1 and can honestly say that that was the best game ever with the best devs ever. Worked on several AAA titles later and they still don't matchup.
2013-03-14 04:21:08 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-14 04:03:36 AM
1 votes:
24.media.tumblr.com
2013-03-14 03:31:49 AM
1 votes:

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.


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.

Health kits are all over, you heal like mad, your shields replenish and you re-spawn instantly.
Even on hard difficulties its the same dynamics, you just have to be better or memorize the game better.

It has killed all aspects of teamwork, stealth, or actually taking your time.
2013-03-14 03:10:01 AM
1 votes:

Nezorf: "I know this map like the back of my hand" and "I always put a bullet in that window every time I pass it" are statements I've heard over and over.


Games which require mastery and understanding of specialized information (usually based around individual concepts and mechanics) usually appeal to weaker players because you can get better by simply learning the game, not demonstrating comprehension and mastery.  You don't have to develop a certain mentality or create a mental investment within a game to become better.  You can simply get better by learning all of the specialized information.  This is one of the reasons that the DotA clones (with their dozens upon dozens of champions, items, abilities, and incredibly nuanced map design) are so popular, and I laugh my ass off when they're characterized as some kind of haven for hardcore multiplayer.

While map memorization may be important in games like Quake and Unreal Tournament, those games demand that you understand concepts.  And then in order to master those concepts, there's a high enough degree of depth (as built around various action and aiming mechanics) that you have to maintain some degree of commitment and practice to continue being good at those games.  Which, predictably, is why they don't appeal to the average moron.

But tying back to the original point of the article, you can also thank "e-Sports" for this nonsense.  I have no problem with people playing select, excellent games in an organized and tournament format.  But you now have communities (StarCraft II, DotA 2, League of Legends, Call of Duty) who think they're the cream of the farking Earth and that anything which deviates from their select, preconceived notion of their favorite game is "stupid".  And since you have people who are getting played to play these games and gaining minor celebrity status for their exploits, and gaining "expert" reputation for playing one video game ten hours a day, people will listen to them.  But the problem is, none of the games I listed are the class of anything.  StarCraft II is an average RTS.  Call of Duty (outside of some exceptions) is mostly putrid shiat.  DotA clones are by-and-large RTS for babies.  But who are you to tell Random Pro Gamer X that his game sucks?  He could totally kick your ass at that game.  So not only has there been a standardization of mechanics as they involve console first-person shooters and DotA clones, but these communities have largely embraced that standardization, and will defend it to the death.
2013-03-14 03:07:45 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-03-14 02:06:02 AM
1 votes:
I don't get why CoD is so popular.  The single player games are fun, but not worth $60.  The last 3 titles (BOPS 1 and 2, MW3) have serious lag issues.  MW2 got taken over by cheaters so I can't go back to that.

Seriously.  What's most important to you in a multiplayer FPS:  1) your skill; 2) strategy  3) tactics  4) teamwork.  If you answered 1-4 then CoD isn't for you because the number 1 factor is lag.  If you're on the wrong end of the lag curve (which I seem to always be) then your hosed no matter what.

/ Didn't get BOP2
// Forums are full of people biatching about lag, I got Borderlands 2 instead.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report