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

The Quake 3, RTCW, UT ETA ended years ago...

Such a great read! A post from Red Orchestra regarding CoD on Planetside forums, kinda funny but I like it!

I used to play Call of Duty, but stopped after they stopped truly supporting PC. The skill crunch was ridiculous in the later games. If anyone still has a copy of Call of Duty 2 lying around, boot it up and check out multiplayer these days. The people that still play are some of the greatest players I've ever seen. Pure infantry machines, point and click to the max. That's what it should be. Pure, 100% skill. Not sitting in corners waiting for an unlucky sap to walk into your view to get mowed down, not waiting for someone to trip a claymore. It should be about outshooting someone.

BTW I seriously can't wait until Rising Storm. I wish I could join the Beta but my schedule might not allow it...

Got a link? I wanna both laugh and cry at the same time.

wertyuityrewq

-Quake 3 engine's movement system is a superior base.

Lol, so what, were we magicians back in the days to be able to raid those places successfully?

And do not tell me it did not increase, I remember back in vanilla people had blues and some purples for the most part if not greens and blues, then suddenly they decide to add an expansion that turned everyone purple with 0 effort, the reason? hell... go check out the first installation, nax 25 man was a joke to raiding, they followed that concept like a doctrine, result? the game dumbed down for the masses of newbs who could not get gear before, if you want endgame gear, you must earn it, I sure as hell earned mine in PvP arenas and BG's, when I felt like earning my PvE gear, I made the effort in vanilla WoW.

Just admit that those 2 games are CANCER to the industry.

People ******** about COLOR are just as bad as these "COD ruined gaming!" people.

I would disagree and say that the first 5 call of duty games were great. World at war was not a big seller, but I had more fun in that call of duty than modern warfare, modern warfare 2, and black ops combined (though black ops single player was pretty good, just not overly repayable). Just something about killing large amounts of enemies equipped with 2-hit kill mp40s with a scope less bolt action rifle that made me feel good (but man some of those spawns were bad, but was made up for by being one of a few games that had a bayonet attachment). Then when I run out of ammo I get one of the dozens of extended mag mp40's littered about the ground (was my 15 kill kill streak), sigh.. good times. don't get me started on panzer tanks with coaxial machine gun and deep impact.... oh and the BAR/Garand with deep impact shooting through just about everything.

Ahhh! look what you started! I'm reminiscing!.


Well back to topic. I agree with the article. Most players I have met do not really think a lot and are not only predictable, but also inflexible. Thankfully PS2 has a large player base, and I have found that with enough people the difference between skilled and unskilled is mitigated by sheer numbers. Now is a skilled player still more effective, yes, but there is only so much space for people to occupy before fire lanes prevent easy movement.

Do I think call of duty has ruined some players, yes. Do I only blame call of duty, no. I also blame halo for turning halo 3 beta of varied awesomeness into battle rifle 3: one weapon to rule them all (BTW you start with it).

I just mean the past generations of first person shooters are indeed being dumbed down. Look at original halo vs halo 3 or modern warfare vs modern warfare 2. The originals had their crutch weapons (human pistol, m-16, and arguably the m-60 respectively), but that means that most other weapons were par for the course and at least close to balanced. The games that came after got continuously easier and easier. gone were the odd weapon quirks (excluding f2000 for MW2 and the spiker does not even constitute a weapon) and many more weapons were put into play that were decidedly overpowered. This ended up with players only using certain weapons (like the battle rifle or whatever glitched/vastly overpowered weapon would get people angry or allow them to get "cool" killstreaks). At least call of duty did not continuously update the game to ruin it more (even got rid of mongoose race, my last bastion with frag grenade oil slick, punching an enemy mongoose to have it slowly flip, and winning the game using an elephant (that was so fun))

I am glad SOE is continuously balancing things, because it means that if something is a power weapon it will change before the community as a whole ends up using it and kills a part of the game. I am also now much more respectful of certain game developers and have had the question of why so many games lack the subtle details of the old days somewhat answered. (they want to make money and the target audience is overall weak from lack of challenge).

Well I say to you brave game developers out there, I salute your efforts to bring mentally stimulating, visceral, and fair(through imbalance please) games to the public. Games can have many positive effects, so don't give up and make that next one a work of art that makes the player a better, stronger person.

(P.S. that means stop giving crutches and make people work (not grind) for a satisfying goal (like capping indar, NC will be victorious))

Doombro and Jaquio

Nice to see some other Paradox players on here!

Took me an age at first to understand the mechanics completely, but when you do...well, no other strategy games compare really.

Here it is (MW3 actually):

Skillz.

Maybe, one thing is clear though, people who think the current state of CoD or WoW are good by any gaming standards is nothing but gaming trash though.

Tribes 1 rules them all. 1998!

Spinfusers, jetpacks, skiing, no mics, no squads, no platoons, huge open maps with crappy graphics (compared to today)

Had vehicles (ground and air), make your own class structure, no stats, no kill boards, capture the flag, shoot the other team....64 vs 64 back in 1998!

Tribes's pet chihuahua craps out COD remains!

Skill required!

That's pure Elitist talk, though. Who are you to tell people what they should enjoy?

Yeah I really liked World at War too! By the way, if you get on nowadays you can find several populated tactical realism servers, those are really fun.

I sometimes wish Planetside had more semi-automatic and bolt action weapons. After using the battle rifles in VR, I thought man, these would be usable guns if they didn't take five hits to kill someone. An unscoped bolt action rifle would be awesome! I think we should have the ability to remove scopes on the sniper rifles too. That'd make me want to play infiltrator more. Something about the power of a battle/bolt rifle really turns me on.

We have short range bolt actions and semi's already.

I think Paradox games are the only true strategy games remaining. Lots of other games mention 'strategy' in their advertisements, but don't have any.

---
Having a Hex grid does not a strategy game make, btw. But I think that's the reason PS2 wanted to have hexes and still clings on to them after they no longer consitute a hex grid.

---
Speaking of strategy and tactics, I'm ever so slightly annoyed at RTS games. Real-time Strategy? What? They barely have tactics..

It's not saying what people should enjoy. It's saying the game is terrible. There's a difference. I've enjoyed CoD... well I use to. The new ones are just TOO terrible. But I had fun with MW2. I acknowledged it as a terrible game that required absolutely no skill, but it was dumb mindless fun. I wouldn't play it for long, but for a couple hours it was amusing. Didn't change the fact that it is an objectively bad game.

There is a fine line between elitist and earned rewards, see, a supermarket tycoon is not as paid as "Pop's" who owns the little corner store and obviously an FBI agent is not a donut sucking cop, there are differences, being elitist would be to discriminate those people, what we want is just a fine line of skill/handouts vs rewards, that is all.

Who am I? the guy who started playing videogames before them and first contributed to the exponential growth of the industry, that's who, if people do not want to play videogames because they are too dumb, unskilled or whatever, there are always 100 other hobbies to pick from, including watching movies and collecting them, if people want to ruin gaming for the rest in their self deluded/self esteem injection or "lack of balls" to vent your raging while killing people in FPS games, they should find a psychologist to help them, not a game.

Fun is subjective, and given the popularity of those games, you're in the minority. Your reasons for calling them bad games is subjective. The purpose of a game is to provide enjoyment, and for tons of people that's what they do. WOW isn't a bad game, but after 10 years it's stale. COD is exactly what people expect it to be, but it's criticized for not trying to reinvent the wheel. COD and WOW aren't the problem, the market is.

Actually, my reasons for calling them bad aren't subjective. Some things are just bad when looked at from an objective point of view. Just because they're enjoyable or make a lot of money doesn't make them good. I enjoy crap scifi B movies, that most certainly doesn't make them good. They have poor production values, weak actors, corny plots. They are objectively bad movies. But I still enjoy them.

You are trying to make the argument that just because something is fun or successful that it has to be good. They are not the same thing. CoD is an objectively bad game. It has an exceptionally short campaign which relies heavily on generic tropes like the, now default, shock value scene where you're placed in the body of someone who dies. It has been running on the exact same game engine since CoD2 with no updates. It's gameplay has remained largely unchanged since MW. It removes all form of skill from the game as the original post points out. It is an objectively bad game. Just because a lot of people find it fun does not change this fact. From a game design standpoint, it is a bad game.

The market is a product of the games. As I already stated in one of my posts. These undesirable personality traits have been in gamers since the start. But they were frowned upon. Gamers despised other gamers with those attitudes and even game developers themselves refused to cater to them. But when game developers started to cater to these undesirable players, those personality traits ceased to be undesirable, and indeed became the new normal. WoW and CoD are responsible for breeding a generation of gamers who are entittled, needy, selfish little ***** who couldn't care less for engaging, thought provoking, stimulating gameplay. As long as they get an endless stream of explosions and +5 XP delivered on a silver platter with gold plated "You're awesome!" trim, they're happy. These games are directly and solely responsible for teaching gamers that this sort of behavior is acceptable, when it most certainly is not.

So no, these games are the problem. We never had these problems within the gamer community until games started REWARDING this undesirable behavior.