Call of Duty ruined a generation of gamers?
- Thread starter V4NT0M
- Start date
The difference is those kills arent all you. Get 5 kills, get a kill streak bonus, get 5 more kills. That isn't 10 kills for the player, yet it makes the player think he's got 10 kills.
I was never brilliant at CoD but in things like MW2 I was often able to be high up on the server, or even top, just through cleverly managed kill streak bonuses. Putting the right sentry guns in the right place on the right map can get you multiple killstreaks in a row. I wouldn't be surprised if some of my kill totals were only 25% 'me' doing it.
Then I play something like CS and I'm poo, and I leave with a 3:1 KD ratio and feel like I'm rubbish. Play some CoD, top a server, I'm a god, pow, take that!
You can do well in CoD through one small bit of good play. To do well in a more 'traditional' FPS you need to play well for the whole round.
But at the end of the day, feeling like your doing well makes the game more fun, and if its more fun more people buy it, and as game makers are, at the end of the, businesses in it to make money, you can't really blame them.
I was never brilliant at CoD but in things like MW2 I was often able to be high up on the server, or even top, just through cleverly managed kill streak bonuses. Putting the right sentry guns in the right place on the right map can get you multiple killstreaks in a row. I wouldn't be surprised if some of my kill totals were only 25% 'me' doing it.
Then I play something like CS and I'm poo, and I leave with a 3:1 KD ratio and feel like I'm rubbish. Play some CoD, top a server, I'm a god, pow, take that!
You can do well in CoD through one small bit of good play. To do well in a more 'traditional' FPS you need to play well for the whole round.
But at the end of the day, feeling like your doing well makes the game more fun, and if its more fun more people buy it, and as game makers are, at the end of the, businesses in it to make money, you can't really blame them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
I agree with the guy to be honest, though it's not really as simple as just CoD being to blame. Games and gamers are generally moving more towards casual play and a big part of that is the ease of 'getting into' a game. I grew up on "proper" FPS games but going back to them now I often find it quite frustrating as I'm used to the easier time that I have of it in games such as BC2 and the like.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 1,749
Call of Duty scooped up all the dregs who wouldn't play Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament anyway. It's done us all a favour if anything.
it simply comes down to perception and are we talking general play or competitive play?
for instance cod 1,uo,cod2,cod4 are class.
people who say they arnt have no idea about fps!
cod 1 and uo had a good learning curve and you did need to be good with proper aiming . similar to old skool quake and early medal of honor.
The difference is are we talking about running round in a public server which is easy mode or play at a decent level comp play wise which is a whole different ball park.
cod 2 and cod 4 while not as hard to get used to as the original games bigger hitboxes and such or easier to get kills the comp scene was very skilled and i guarantee most of public every day players if not used to how it plays would probably rage quit.
go in cod 4 promod server now if you not used to cod and say its not skilled youll get wooped.
so i dont agree with a lot of what is said but from after say world at war was released i would agree as cod became a churn out anything to sell every year. just like bf series has after bfbc2.
cod 4 was that good that i dont know how that could have been bettered. its almost perfect in every way. the hit boxes the guns the animations the maps . everything is very fluid.
this is why bf3 fails ! great looking game but doesn't have that perfect reg doesn't have fluid quick animations its a mess. so while it looks epic some times from a pure fps perspective its a console mess and should be included just as much as mw3 for eg. its just its prettier to look at.
the basic mechanics of fps games have been forgotten over glamor and good looks.
how many times you get a fps now and its lets do that as big and bold as possible but in function doesn't work.
bf3 for eg again how many instances is there for just running down a street and you just die
you are unlucky how lame is that ! lets release a good looking game with many unfinished un-fixed bugs and instead of fixing we will just stick a piece of text in the game saying unlucky 
worst , most idle piece of crap i have ever seen in a big budget title.
thing is the big budget titles are easy to pick up and play though and simple to get to terms with. so they are successful sales wise but because they have this simplistic approach they never last any great period like earlier classics. this does help the next game EA or Activision brings out though.
as for the person from tripwire haha red orchestra 2 could have been immense but.. they failed miserabley because they didn't listen to people. i know 110 percent about this as i even pmd the head person in charge on this project and suggested a few things about changes that would make the game a lot better and good. it was ignored and i told him it would be a dead in the water game which it was
thing is with how the games industry is now and geared towards consoles in 90 percent of sales what can they do? they are businesses they need to make products that sell. this is the true reason why cod and bf are how they are now. for the casual masses they just want run and gun simplistic features and have odd hr at weekend. we are not the masses so the games are not developed for us.
mods are the bridge for us to get what enthusiasts want in pc gaming and because of how cod and bf are now with little if no support for mods you are left with a casual console playing fps. which no pc enthusiast wants.
for instance cod 1,uo,cod2,cod4 are class.
people who say they arnt have no idea about fps!
cod 1 and uo had a good learning curve and you did need to be good with proper aiming . similar to old skool quake and early medal of honor.
The difference is are we talking about running round in a public server which is easy mode or play at a decent level comp play wise which is a whole different ball park.
cod 2 and cod 4 while not as hard to get used to as the original games bigger hitboxes and such or easier to get kills the comp scene was very skilled and i guarantee most of public every day players if not used to how it plays would probably rage quit.
go in cod 4 promod server now if you not used to cod and say its not skilled youll get wooped.
so i dont agree with a lot of what is said but from after say world at war was released i would agree as cod became a churn out anything to sell every year. just like bf series has after bfbc2.
cod 4 was that good that i dont know how that could have been bettered. its almost perfect in every way. the hit boxes the guns the animations the maps . everything is very fluid.
this is why bf3 fails ! great looking game but doesn't have that perfect reg doesn't have fluid quick animations its a mess. so while it looks epic some times from a pure fps perspective its a console mess and should be included just as much as mw3 for eg. its just its prettier to look at.
the basic mechanics of fps games have been forgotten over glamor and good looks.
how many times you get a fps now and its lets do that as big and bold as possible but in function doesn't work.
bf3 for eg again how many instances is there for just running down a street and you just die
you are unlucky how lame is that ! lets release a good looking game with many unfinished un-fixed bugs and instead of fixing we will just stick a piece of text in the game saying unlucky worst , most idle piece of crap i have ever seen in a big budget title.thing is the big budget titles are easy to pick up and play though and simple to get to terms with. so they are successful sales wise but because they have this simplistic approach they never last any great period like earlier classics. this does help the next game EA or Activision brings out though.
as for the person from tripwire haha red orchestra 2 could have been immense but.. they failed miserabley because they didn't listen to people. i know 110 percent about this as i even pmd the head person in charge on this project and suggested a few things about changes that would make the game a lot better and good. it was ignored and i told him it would be a dead in the water game which it was
thing is with how the games industry is now and geared towards consoles in 90 percent of sales what can they do? they are businesses they need to make products that sell. this is the true reason why cod and bf are how they are now. for the casual masses they just want run and gun simplistic features and have odd hr at weekend. we are not the masses so the games are not developed for us.
mods are the bridge for us to get what enthusiasts want in pc gaming and because of how cod and bf are now with little if no support for mods you are left with a casual console playing fps. which no pc enthusiast wants.
Last edited:
as for the person from tripwire haha red orchestra 2 could have been immense but.. they failed miserabley because they didn't listen to people. i know 110 percent about this as i even pmd the head person in charge on this project and suggested a few things about changes that would make the game a lot better and good. it was ignored and i told him it would be a dead in the water game which it was
Arrogant paragraph Dg, ever thought the amount of messages they get means they can't view them all? You're speculating 110%, you don't know 110% that's the case, just like MMO's ask for community feedback and ideas, not everything get's reviewed and noticed, so your message is more than likely along that pile of messages that weren't viewed.
wasnt viewed i had lengthy convo with him he disagreed with what i put and said it didnt matter in short .
basically i suggested to him with how the game is it would be dead within one month and even made a video on what would happen on release. i think this video while not great sums it up and did happen eg as i said it would on red orc 2 launch. everyone just tossed red orc 2 in bin and played bf3
and said it didnt matter in short .basically i suggested to him with how the game is it would be dead within one month and even made a video on what would happen on release. i think this video while not great sums it up and did happen eg as i said it would on red orc 2 launch. everyone just tossed red orc 2 in bin and played bf3
The thing is i think there is very much a place for games like COD and the like, i enjoy playing cod over now and then, i treat it like the computer gaming equivelent of the trashy action film, that as a film is utter garbage, but it's a few hours of good brainless entertainment, there is sod all skill and effort involved in playing it and it's just a good laugh, but for me i treat COD as a distraction from playing strategy games like FM, and the hearts of iron and total war series and FPS like Arma, Dayz etc, which actually require me to have my brain turned on, and think about what i'm doing and actually try to get better.
People now don't want to work at their leasure activities, everything must be instant, people must be able to pick up a game and be instantly decent at it, for some reason for most gamers that is better than the feeling of achievement when you finally do something decent, I much prefer a game that i have to work at, it's probably taken me a good 10 hours of playing on ARMA 3 to now know i at least have a chance if i meet someone else wondering around on the wasteland server, whereas before i would see someone else and then promptly die. I like that, COD doesn't give me that, BF3 doesn't give me that, i was the last of my group of mates to pick up BF3 and they were telling me it was much harder than COD and things and i'd probably die lots, first game i was top of the leaderboard, and i'm nearly always there or there abouts, and that leaves me somewhat underwhelmed, when i get a new game which ive never played any in the series (bf2 i don't feel counts as its actually good) and end up near the top of the leaderboard consistantly.
I have no beef with COD and it's ilk of games, but they will for me never be as good as the games i actually have to work at, it took me hours and hours of practice to get good at quake 2 and that is still my favourite FPS.
People now don't want to work at their leasure activities, everything must be instant, people must be able to pick up a game and be instantly decent at it, for some reason for most gamers that is better than the feeling of achievement when you finally do something decent, I much prefer a game that i have to work at, it's probably taken me a good 10 hours of playing on ARMA 3 to now know i at least have a chance if i meet someone else wondering around on the wasteland server, whereas before i would see someone else and then promptly die. I like that, COD doesn't give me that, BF3 doesn't give me that, i was the last of my group of mates to pick up BF3 and they were telling me it was much harder than COD and things and i'd probably die lots, first game i was top of the leaderboard, and i'm nearly always there or there abouts, and that leaves me somewhat underwhelmed, when i get a new game which ive never played any in the series (bf2 i don't feel counts as its actually good
) and end up near the top of the leaderboard consistantly.I have no beef with COD and it's ilk of games, but they will for me never be as good as the games i actually have to work at, it took me hours and hours of practice to get good at quake 2 and that is still my favourite FPS.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
I've never played Spearhead. Well, maybe a bit of the single player at a friends house but never bought it myself.
Wait... what are you... oh, aww... NO DADDY NO!
COD 2 was last game i thoroughly enjoyed for pc from that series.
can you imagine if they released the next cod for consoles as an update of COD 2 and players have to aim a lee enfield rifle and make a good headshot or find themselves dead moments later. Would be funny watching a bunch of kids running round unable to hit jack **** as they can no longer hold a trigger down at someones chest and watch them fall.
can you imagine if they released the next cod for consoles as an update of COD 2 and players have to aim a lee enfield rifle and make a good headshot or find themselves dead moments later. Would be funny watching a bunch of kids running round unable to hit jack **** as they can no longer hold a trigger down at someones chest and watch them fall.
Ah thankyou, much better worded than I could manage!
The thing is i think there is very much a place for games like COD and the like, i enjoy playing cod over now and then, i treat it like the computer gaming equivelent of the trashy action film, that as a film is utter garbage, but it's a few hours of good brainless entertainment, there is sod all skill and effort involved in playing it and it's just a good laugh, but for me i treat COD as a distraction from playing strategy games like FM, and the hearts of iron and total war series and FPS like Arma, Dayz etc, which actually require me to have my brain turned on, and think about what i'm doing and actually try to get better.
People now don't want to work at their leasure activities, everything must be instant, people must be able to pick up a game and be instantly decent at it, for some reason for most gamers that is better than the feeling of achievement when you finally do something decent, I much prefer a game that i have to work at, it's probably taken me a good 10 hours of playing on ARMA 3 to now know i at least have a chance if i meet someone else wondering around on the wasteland server, whereas before i would see someone else and then promptly die. I like that, COD doesn't give me that, BF3 doesn't give me that, i was the last of my group of mates to pick up BF3 and they were telling me it was much harder than COD and things and i'd probably die lots, first game i was top of the leaderboard, and i'm nearly always there or there abouts, and that leaves me somewhat underwhelmed, when i get a new game which ive never played any in the series (bf2 i don't feel counts as its actually good
I have no beef with COD and it's ilk of games, but they will for me never be as good as the games i actually have to work at, it took me hours and hours of practice to get good at quake 2 and that is still my favourite FPS.
spud are you talking after cod 4 as in " there is sod all skill and effort involved in playing it and it's just a good laugh, "
are you playing compwise as in promod ? or you talking about general public run and gun ? its vastly different skillwise. any low to med players can do okay or come top in many public servers but in smaller higher skilled like promod for eg if you are not say med plus or above you go home with minus score every round.
this is similar in many fps games.
anyone can run round in a big tdm or conquest in bf3 for eg do pretty well but in say a small game of higher skilled players its totally different again.
do like quake though
arma is no harder than playing a normal comp game or pub game its just different. its not more skilled.Not always though. Things like UAV still require the player to actually get the kills.
I have tried most of the COD's since COD 4, when steam has a free weekend.
I usually uninstall them after 30 minutes. Why?
Well because it is all about selfish gameplay. No teamwork worth mentioning seems to happen.
Having played all the Battlefield series since 1942, i became used to playing as part of a squad and as a team.
My KDR in rounds might not be the best but i usually finish in the top half or better because the beauty of BF is you get plenty of points from playing your class and helping your squad / team.
COD is the McDonald's of FPS, whilst BF3 is a pub lunch and Arma is a 5 course meal
I usually uninstall them after 30 minutes. Why?
Well because it is all about selfish gameplay. No teamwork worth mentioning seems to happen.
Having played all the Battlefield series since 1942, i became used to playing as part of a squad and as a team.
My KDR in rounds might not be the best but i usually finish in the top half or better because the beauty of BF is you get plenty of points from playing your class and helping your squad / team.
COD is the McDonald's of FPS, whilst BF3 is a pub lunch and Arma is a 5 course meal
CoD didn't ruin a generation of gamers. Gamers, publishers and developers did the damage. Everyone gamer had the opportunity to send a clear message of what they wanted at the release of MW2 and 99% failed to do so. CoD had its place in the genre and was contained by other available FPS at the time (BF42/JO/BFV/DoD/BF2/2142). The problem was those other titles failed to progress and CoD capitalised on a massive gap in the market and gobbled up every FPS starved gamer available.
The only reason we got BC2 and BF3 was due to EA seeing how much money Activision were making and rather than tasking DICE to compete with CoD by using the strengths of their own IP's they told them to emulate what appeared to be the only successful model out there.
Its all well and good Gibson blaming CoD for the situation that we are in now when TWI played their part in the "chase game" rather than concentrating on expanding their own fan base they as (it seems) everyone does tries to grab the CoD market. The fact remains that the way to get back the player base it to capitalise on your own strengths, you cant beat CoD at its own game because the people who want to play CoD will play CoD and the people who dont want to play CoD would rather play CoD than play a game trying to be it.
The only reason we got BC2 and BF3 was due to EA seeing how much money Activision were making and rather than tasking DICE to compete with CoD by using the strengths of their own IP's they told them to emulate what appeared to be the only successful model out there.
Its all well and good Gibson blaming CoD for the situation that we are in now when TWI played their part in the "chase game" rather than concentrating on expanding their own fan base they as (it seems) everyone does tries to grab the CoD market. The fact remains that the way to get back the player base it to capitalise on your own strengths, you cant beat CoD at its own game because the people who want to play CoD will play CoD and the people who dont want to play CoD would rather play CoD than play a game trying to be it.
spud are you talking after cod 4 as in " there is sod all skill and effort involved in playing it and it's just a good laugh, "
are you playing compwise as in promod ? or you talking about general public run and gun ? its vastly different skillwise. any low to med players can do okay or come top in many public servers but in smaller higher skilled like promod for eg if you are not say med plus or above you go home with minus score every round.
this is similar in many fps games.
anyone can run round in a big tdm or conquest in bf3 for eg do pretty well but in say a small game of higher skilled players its totally different again.
do like quake though
Yea after COD 4, it took me a fair amount effort to get decent at COD 4, but since that one, i've just picked them up and played them, MW3 was the first i'd played on the PC after being purely console for the others, thought it may be more of a challenge as i've always equated Pc gamers with being more competent than your average pad basher
but it seems to be populated by people who were just the same as the majority of console players.Yea there is a big difference between public servers and private more competitive groups, i was talking about public servers as they are in my expirence the majority, i'd hazard that the people playing organised BF3 at a good level are likely to be the type of people who would appreciate more "complex" games like Arma etc, and are much less likely to charge around a BF3 map in the open like they are playing COD
but in my expirence they are a very small (comparatively) niche of the FPS playing market, compared to the run and gun majority.I would say in terms of the mechanics games like ARMA are no different to any other FPS (point and shoot) i would say that general play is much more nuanced and more difficult (not beacuse of the game but the other players) i could hop on a random ARMA 3 server playing PvP, and i know I will probably die a huge amount more than i kill at the moment, on BF3 that is unlikely unless i stumble upon a server with a decent clan playing together. So i suppose i should change my view to i believe the general standard of player in the likes of ARMA is higher than in say BF3 or COD, but at the top end i agree there will be little difference in difficulty. For me though i can jump into a co-op or PvP game of arma and at least expect some of my team to be working together, in COD and BF its quite likely you will get everyone running around on their own.
Lots of BC3 talk here, though I can't say I agree with everything in BF3 it is still a wildly different game... If you want to play the CQ mode it's very much like COD without the killstreaks but other than that it's completely different.
More than anything Jets destroyed BF3 for me. Rock, paper, scissors, Jet
Again I do enjoy playing COD, there is a lot of fun stuff in there and most of it is the whole leveling up and unlocking payoff that makes me come back for more. The major problem I actually have is the price of COD, it's never on offer ffs... I bought BF3 and BF3 premium for about £35 - £40, the game and all the expansions. BOPS 2 still costs £40 just for the game.
More than anything Jets destroyed BF3 for me. Rock, paper, scissors, Jet
Again I do enjoy playing COD, there is a lot of fun stuff in there and most of it is the whole leveling up and unlocking payoff that makes me come back for more. The major problem I actually have is the price of COD, it's never on offer ffs... I bought BF3 and BF3 premium for about £35 - £40, the game and all the expansions. BOPS 2 still costs £40 just for the game.