To the Call of Duty players ruining this game..here's your wake up call..

the age of lazyness and the decline of the human species has already begun, well atleast more so in america

TBH I was being sarcastic about those who seem to think that PS2 is some deep tactical shooter rather than the arcade game it really is ( as it stands )

BTW the COD like zerglings are the ones more than likely spamming the spawn point as well as the ones who keep spawning

Hay, not all pot smoking adults work minimum wage jobs...

And not all of us like call of duty, though I did in highschool...

COD got there fast pace type of style of shooting from Unreal tournament.
COD is basically a arena shooter.

Will be seeing this sound effect soon...

You can't be serious... Call of Duty is nothing like an arena shooter. All the good arena shooters died years ago.

It's a shame really, because when an arena shooter is done right, the gameplay is superior to today's "modern" shooters. They're much less realistic, but they play better.

Yeah I wish they'd stop and approach slower.... it really effed up my BouncingBetty to HSK Snipe ratio... got probably 2x as many mine kills b/c so few rushers ever slow down long enough to get headshot through this game's hilariously bad hit registry when you're equipping the Suppressor.

Call of Duty is not your enemy. The real boogey man that changed the nature of shooters is Tom Clancy. Starting with Rainbow Six and moving through Rogue Spear to Ghost Recon and Raven Shield, Tom clancy games made the move from arena style long TTK games to tactical cover-based low TTK games. Call of Duty is just a watered-down version of these games. The natue of shooters has changed, I think, for the better. Getting shot is a traumamatic experience. Without immediate aid , the recipient usually dies or is at least incapacitated. Tactical shooters reflect this reality. Modern weapons are accurate and deadly. If you die in one of these games you don't respawn you wait for the end of the match. The skill set of the modern shooter player is not less than his deathmatch predecessor. It's different. ' Twitch' style gameplay had it's emphasis on reaction speed and mobility. The modern tactical shooters emphasize battlefield awareness and teamwork. I've never played a more difficult game than SWAT 4. It was complex and emphasized awareness and teamwork. It's the only shooter I've ever played that the goal was not to kill the bad guys but rather to 'force compliance' . The bean-bag shotgun was awesome at that task.
The deathmatch one-man army with 'mad skillz' is a thing of the past. That deathmatcher was a warrior. Today's tactical shooter players are soldiers. The warrior fights for himself, the soldier is but one part of a larger whole. Historically soldiers have always beaten warriors. From the Spartans at Platea to Julius Caesar's Gaul campaign to the End of the Empire of Japan in WW2, the soldier culture is the one left standing. Once in a while we still encounter a deathmatcher, usually when we're moving in two-by-two cover formation we learned in Raven Shield, or breaching a room the way we learned in SWAT 4. He's the one who tries to bunnyhop and kill us all himself. We don't need to jump in the air and do a 360 headshot, not with six of us to turn him into paste.

So, where is that causation between popularity and quality? You really didn't answer the question. Not surprising, considering the side you've taken on this, can't really expect too much from you.

How on earth do they do that?

Faster paced gameplay.

There are other games out there that are faster and have significantly more competitive potential than Call of Duty does. By far the biggest reason you even see it in MLG is due to it's immense popularity and something console gamers could be interested in watch instead of something like LoL or Starcraft(since they don't have access to those games on consoles) in my opinion. Fast gameplay is irreverent when you realize that the franchise is designed to be extremely accessible to a "core" gamer.
In other words fast isn't correlated to difficulty, and you usually need both to have a satisfyingly competitive game. It is almost universal opinion(at least in the PC gaming community) that Call of Duty doesn't really have any difficult gunplay or mechanics integrated in it.

When most people think competitive gaming I don't think they usually think of Call of Duty.

You have no clue about fast paced games if you think cod is fast paced.

Okay, big deal, it's another person's views and opinions, as if everyone doesn't have any. And while his perspective is different and sounds unique, it doesn't mean any other game is not made correctly or isn't enjoyable or any good.

Final verdict: Okay. I'm about as impressed with his opinions as I am in Planetside 2.

It was a great read, but I am not sure what this is doing in the Planetside 2 forums. The Planetside 2 Infantry game play is very COD- like in the sense that there is no acceleration and you ADS instantly. It's just not as smooth. But if you think about PS1 then you know that the gun play is hardly the reason you play Planetside. It's the sensation of mass and importance in the things you do. You take the base to keep it, not because you get kills out of it.

Sadly that's the part where SOE hasn't quite succeeded yet. Right now you go first for the kills and second for the base, unless you're playing with an outfit.

But anyways, I can totally relate to Gibson, because you have to appeal to a greater audience to create sales but still have to have some faith in the product you're making. Personally, the only thing I really like in PS2 game play wise is flying an ESF. You can get really good at it, the skill ceiling is much higher than infantry combat. Everything else is too easy to get good at.

Yes, successful because they got a lot of sales. I'm gonna admit right now that i own mw, mw2, bo and mw3. I have 650+ hours in mw2, the others are like 100h. When mw2 came out I was 15 and had no idea about video games.

What makes these games so popular is that they are very easy to get into, are highly addicting and reward the player often. A video game is like training a dog. You need to keep giving treats so the player or dog doesn't lose interest. What is up to debate is how much treats you should give for a certain action.

Now, the thing is that COD gives too many treats to the dog, making it lazy, and presenting a harder challenge to what it's used to just makes it bark.

As I said before I have played my fair share of COD games, so i don't want to sound like a hypocrite, but I grew out of those games. They became too easy. No matter how good you are, it's still entirely possible for a first timer to kill you. And now i'm having trouble to find a current gen fps to play that makes me feel like my skills and progression are rewarded, because either the publisher goes for reward per skill level or simple sales. And that's why people say Call of Duty has ruined our generation of FPS's.

COD ruined warfare FPS games. WoW ruined MMORPG's.

Ruined = forces the majority of new developers to emulate their game mechanics since they think that's what people want and they themselves want just a tiny bit of the success these games had.

Even Battlefield emulated it with BF3 and the ridiculous TTK. PS2 has emulated it since then.

/me wish devs grew some balls to make something of their own...but they all have people to answer to. These people all want money...

So in conclusion: GREED ruins games!

One of the reasons i quit CoD franchise (used to play it religiously until CoD WaW came out), it basically ruined it and he's right, it has become a noobs paradise there, people just run and gun with SMG's that require no aim (hipfire is more accurate than ADS, especially Black Ops2), nuke everything with explosives, choppers, NUKES, everything that gets kills in your place. Basically, camp your way until the first killstreak and let them do the rest - l33t SKILLz!
I loved CoD4 - custom modded servers and maps with all the noob-stuff disabled, just plain skill, nothing else, now THAT was competitive when only thing that kills is your gun and knife and basic tactical grenades. After CoD4 the franchise went for the casual and non-skilled noobs and making everything in their favour, thats when my CoD days were numbered and i returned to the old titles, which surprisingly were just as active as when i left them years ago (all competitive players remained there).

Sorry but the Tom Clancy series didn't ruin the arena shooter. If you go back to the Rogue Spear series (Black Thorn was the last one and my first FPS as well as online FPS game), you'll find that you could die ALMOST as easily to a pistol as you could an assault rifle. Damage was much more variable based on where you hit the body and then throw in a dice roll multiplier. You could get shot in the leg and then limp around, bleeding all the while (eventually you'd black out). However, with things like the AR's you couldn't make more than 2-3 shots before you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at point blank range. SMG's and pistols were the only reliable full auto weapon and there was no "hip fire" or "ADS" back then. You also had much clunkier movement mechanics which is much more realistic than what you see in CoD.

The ORIGINAL CoD wasn't a bad game. In fact all the CoD's up until MW1 were pretty good because each one had improvements on various mechanics and the game was good. MW1 is where they made a bad turn by including airstrikes and helo's. What it really boils down to is the rise of the console gamer and having to deal with a controller vs Mouse/Keyboard. They had to dumb the games down for a simplified control platform which meant the game ended up being for a much lazier and terrible gamer. Then you cater to making them feel like they "can" play by decreasing the learning curve, and you get the formula for a very crappy game.

Simple games aren't necessarily bad. A VERY simple game out there that's doing quite well is called King Arthur's Gold (KAG) by the developer that made Soldat (a very popular online sidescroller shooter from 10 years ago). It's EXTREMELY simple in it's gameplay and objectives but the way each match ends up rolling out is different incredibly different each and every time.

No, what I think destroyed serious gaming is consoles and their catering to the 8-15 age group. I was lucky to grow up in a golden age of gaming where mapping and modding tools were included with EVERY non-MMO game. So you got to have a game that would last for years because community created content would drastically increase the game's lifetime and you didn't have to pay for this content either. Now you have games flipping new maps for $5 each every 3 months and then throwing out a reskinned version of the game you bought last year every 12 months. Sports games like Madden and basketball games did this in the 90's and everyone lost interest in those games because each succeeding game was not really any different from the last so people would quit buying them. CoD's revenue growth is projected to be near zero this year and hopefully start to fall next year (meaning people quit buying CoD causing sales to shrink). I'm hoping in another 3-4 years CoD will have died off and the next era of gaming to begin, hopefully with community created content to be the center of it.