So what is about about ironsights and a fast time to kill in fps that appeals?

Warbie

Warbie

Warbie

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
6,189
So what is it about ironsights and a fast time to kill in fps that appeals?

Having grown up with PC fps since the very first, I honestly don't get it. It seems all you have to do these days is breath in the rough direction of someone to get a kill. The most obvious examples are CoD and BF - where a few body/limb shots will do - and there's even modes in these games to make killing quicker! The guns are pretty damn spammy too, which combined with the low health/short time to kill adds a great big lottery, who sees who first wins, element to the majority of encounters. And every fps seems to be borrowing these mechanics. Take Titanfall - a shooter that would be so much better suited to TFC/RTCW/ET style gunplay, yet it gets CoD mechanics bolted on instead. And why? It's obviously popular with ppl. Is it because it makes getting kills pretty easy? Or because the randomness factor it adds lowers the skill ceiling and allows ppl to relax, sit back and simply have a laugh? Do people just like the sensation of aiming down ironsights? All of the above? Stuff I haven't thought of? What is it? Why are games like Counter Strike, Team Fortress, RTCW/ET dying out and versions of CoD flourishing? I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Counter Strike is the worst for 'who sees who first wins', way worse than CoD or BF but you have a point still. I think it is because the average joe down the pub can go home and look like they have skill when playing something mindless like CoD, and that put together with it requiring little to no concentration obviously makes it quite a relaxed game. This is why games like Titanfall are semi ruined by it too, they want the entry level of skill to be at a minimum to broaden the audience and the skill ceiling to be extremely low to keep an active fanbase and prolong sales. Lowest common denominator will always win in gaming, Call of Duty proved that and caused the influx of crap fps games we have today. Sadly it's leaking out of the genre and into others now, and the majority of gaming is heading downhill fast.

All you have to do is look at MLG tournaments of CoD players to see what constitutes as skill these days, they'd **** bricks if they tried out Unreal or Quake (wtf did I put Halo for. :confused: ).
 
Murray said:
Counter Strike has an insanely fast time to kill compared to most fps games I've played.
Click to expand...

It's certainly no quicker than CoD or BF, and requires a good deal more precision. But yeah, not the best example and a relatively fast ttk compared to the other games I mentioned.

Omaeka said:
Counter Strike is the worst for 'who sees who first wins'
Click to expand...

OK, perhaps I shouldn't have included CS in the list :) Replace it with Quake or UT.

Omaeka said:
they want the entry level of skill to be at a minimum to broaden the audience and the skill ceiling to be extremely low to keep an active fanbase and prolong sales. Lowest common denominator will always win in gaming, Call of Duty proved that and caused the influx of crap fps games we have today. Sadly it's leaking out of the genre and into others now, and the majority of gaming is heading downhill fast.

All you have to do is look at MLG tournaments of CoD players to see what constitutes as skill these days, they'd **** bricks if they tried out Unreal or Quake (wtf did I put Halo for. :confused: ).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Halo on the PC was pretty decent in multiplayer btw.

So this is it - simple game mechanics that appeal to the most possible ppl in order to drive sales?
 
Last edited:
spray and pray doesn't rely on central hosted servers and is better suited to controllers.

You can still be murdered by a fast "bolt rifle" user but they are so rare these days.

Back when i played DoD and later DoD source it was all about the 1 shot kill or you were pretty dead but everygun had an acurate first bullet at least, not the spray.

I dont mind ironsights, but i played dod as mentioned so find it good that all games use it now.

Infact i think CS looks stupid without

Also, and you might not like this, you are getting old! Your reactions are getting worse = you die faster
 
Cod 1 and Cod2 were excellent. I used to love rifle ironsight on Cod2. It was actually pretty hard to get a kill long distance - how it should be.

For this exact reason I only really play MOHAA now and occasionally SOF2. Do people still play Cod2? If so I might install it.

I think BF2 was my all time favourite multiplayer game, but I was in a clan (50 klicks) for about 6 months and everyone actually helped each other. It wasn't a 'spray and pray' which almost all FPS games now are. Or where you can get 6 kills in a row and call in a nuke or some crap

Used to love taking up a good sniper position in MOHAA or Cod2 and getting 30 kills / 0 deaths because no-one could see you
 
Warbie said:
It's certainly no quicker than CoD or BF, and requires a good deal more precision. But yeah, not the best example and a relatively fast ttk compared to the other games I mentioned.



OK, perhaps I shouldn't have included CS in the list :) Replace it with Quake or UT.



Yeah, I'm with you on that. Halo on the PC was pretty decent in multiplayer btw.

So this is it - simple game mechanics that appeal to the most possible ppl in order to drive sales?
Click to expand...

This in a nutshell, let average joe gamer think they are good, reward them with perks, upgrades etc = more sales!!
 
Warbie said:
OK, perhaps I shouldn't have included CS in the list :) Replace it with Quake or UT.
Click to expand...

CS is still quite skill based, because the guns are not over the top accurate and you have to nail somebody to kill them. Just mentioning it's awful for being flanked and having no way to defend yourself, not like Quake where you can 360 and give them 2 rails to the face for their trouble. :p

Warbie said:
Yeah, I'm with you on that. Halo on the PC was pretty decent in multiplayer btw.
Click to expand...

Halo is good for multiplayer because bar the sniper and spartan (both take abit of skill) nothing will rip you to pieces, you have to be persistently accurate with most guns to drain shields and kill. The burst fire rifle in particular when used by somebody who can nail headshots with precision (especially on pad) is very skilful. Players are agile too which adds to the skill required. Let's put it this way you could tell who the kids were in Halo because they sucked, whereas in CoD they can be at the top of the K/D leaderboard just as easily as a 40 year old who plays every night like a religion. That says a lot about fps games nowadays.

The reason I was confused I put it instead of Quake was because Quake was what I was thinking about when typing. :D

Warbie said:
So this is it - simple game mechanics that appeal to the most possible ppl in order to drive sales?
Click to expand...

That is it for pretty much everything; film, tv, games, even consumer products. Simplify everything and the masses will love it. Not to say there aren't proper films/games out there anymore because there are, but long time gamers are just going to have to suck it up if they are to enjoy some of the better games that come out. Gaming has been hit the hardest though, from the AAA standpoint at least.

Every game series near enough is being simplified massively (and sell more and more copies each time they do so). Elder Scrolls, Battlefield, Total War, even Tomb Raider & Hitman have been massively streamlined and made more generic to appeal to more people. The latest TR/HM games were good fun but so far from what made both series great, and both feel very similar too (maybe because they have the same engine though).
 
Last edited:
better people will do better regardless.

you should always in fps learn with basics first and avoid addon scopes and the like. scoping up takes more time also.so in short range fast fps hipfire and quick relex normal wins.
 
Last edited:
Warbie said:
Having grown up with PC fps since the very first, I honestly don't get it. It seems all you have to do these days is breath in the rough direction of someone to get a kill. The most obvious examples are CoD and BF - where a few body/limb shots will do - and there's even modes in these games to make killing quicker! The guns are pretty damn spammy too, which combined with the low health/short time to kill adds a great big lottery, who sees who first wins, element to the majority of encounters. And every fps seems to be borrowing these mechanics. Take Titanfall - a shooter that would be so much better suited to TFC/RTCW/ET style gunplay, yet it gets CoD mechanics bolted on instead. And why? It's obviously popular with ppl. Is it because it makes getting kills pretty easy? Or because the randomness factor it adds lowers the skill ceiling and allows ppl to relax, sit back and simply have a laugh? Do people just like the sensation of aiming down ironsights? All of the above? Stuff I haven't thought of? What is it? Why are games like Counter Strike, Team Fortress, RTCW/ET dying out and versions of CoD flourishing? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

As you've already discussed, dumbing down of games is primarily the reason. A lot of people want to feel like that sitting around camping for three hours to get a 10:1 K: D means that they're great players. They're not wrong - they're great at the terrible game that they play.

Unfortunately, high skill games that reward good movement, item control and map/spawn awareness don't have mass appeal and as such we end up with CoD and the like becoming the thing to aim for when making a new game. It's not too dissimilar to how you would design a Facebook game such as Farmville and the like.

You can still excel at these games if you decide to play them how they are designed. I just personally do not have the desire to do that to myself.

~>Dg<~ said:
better people will do better regardless.
Click to expand...

Better people will indeed do better at games whether or not the games suck - I'm not sure of your point here.
 
Last edited:
WarRock is the only FPS I've had any real fun on...















Shame idiots want to ruin it through cheating though, as with all other FPS's it's unavoidable though.
 
Depends on the game mode - military shooters obviously ADS is part and parcel of that - arena type modes it typically didn't use to be.

Neither is any more or less skill dependant than the other just different types of skill required there is far more to it than just who sees someone first in quick time to kill games as a highly skilled player for instance will use their movement and other game events to engage from a good position.

No matter how much you spray and pray in a short time to kill game you won't win against someone who has good reaction times and fast target acquisition even while using a single shot or similiar weapon if they are a higher skilled player its a common fallacy levelled at "hardcore" modes.
 
Last edited:
COD 1 gimme my Garrand & I'll Rape the Lot of ya. :D & that German rifle I've forgot the name of.
BF2 was my game for 6 years solid & nothing has come close since because of exactly what the OP is on about. With BF2 a decent player on single fire would always take out a sprayer. Give me infantry only 64 man BF2 maps till I die but no water it down for the masses & make it like a throw away lighter or an episode of some **** soap.
In my opinion just like everything once the Masses are involved it gets diluted down to please them.

Maybe we should all instal COD 1 & start a Mass movement of Real FPS playing. :D
 
^^ I've been playing BF4 with M98B and canted iron sights to get a little of that old bolt action flavor - its a bit frustrating though as the game is engineered in a way that gives low skill pray and sprayers an even easier ride than normal i.e. LMG supression spam - which on its own isn't that big an issue but mixed with the poor "netcode" means a lot of the skill difference gets cancelled out.
 
Rroff said:
There is something about that bolt action style thats so rewarding when it works.
Click to expand...

'Cause you have to work harder for your kills, somebody who isn't very good can grab a thompson or an STG (not a BAR though, those things were pretty dreadful) and be as effective as a decent player with a bolty.

No idea about COD though, I played MoHaa. :cool:
 
4T5 said:
COD 1 gimme my Garrand & I'll Rape the Lot of ya. :D & that German rifle I've forgot the name of.
BF2 was my game for 6 years solid & nothing has come close since because of exactly what the OP is on about. With BF2 a decent player on single fire would always take out a sprayer. Give me infantry only 64 man BF2 maps till I die but no water it down for the masses & make it like a throw away lighter or an episode of some **** soap.
In my opinion just like everything once the Masses are involved it gets diluted down to please them.

Maybe we should all instal COD 1 & start a Mass movement of Real FPS playing. :D
Click to expand...

cod 1 uo was all about Kar98, mosin, BAR, garrand . skilled people with those ruled. bar was a monster but a lot didnt use as recoil was a kicker.

thing was a lot of people would always go german for kar rifle or the monster mp44 another great weapon.

thing is i play most of my games crosshair quake twitch style so people assume you spraying cause you don't aim up :p that split second earns you many kills.

also play arma this way and it makes no difference even in sims.
 
Omaeka said:
Pfft, you garrand n00bs were easy pickins ;) semi auto rifles are for women! Closing the breech after a kill is the only damn way to do it.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Loved that German rifle as well but best round score I ever got was with my Garrand, Can still hear the ping of an empty clip. :p

FPS games are miles away from where I wanted them to go, I like the feel of an impact with a kill, single shot should Always beat spray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom