CoD Has Ruined A Generation of Shooter Players

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Quote of the Day is brought to you by Tripwire's John Gibson.

On the flip side, I’m really discouraged by the current state of multiplayer shooters. I think that, and I hate to mention names, because it sounds like ‘I’m just jealous of their success,’ but I’m really, I feel like Call of Duty has almost ruined a generation of FPS players. I know that’s a bold statement, but I won’t just throw stones without backing it up.
 
Very true. Flying around on jump pads, rocket jumping, etc. was fun. Running around with a pistol that doesn't even hit where you aim it, getting tired while running, and getting shot by someone who was hiding in a trash can is not fun.
 
I think he has some good points. Unfortunately though I won't be trying RO2 because it looks too dated, no way I could get into it just based on the graphics.
 
Partially true.

I would contend that Console Shooters ruined half the generation and Battlefield 2/3 ruined the other half. Both by striving the remove any value that skill brought to the table in an artificial attempt to "level the playing field" between people who suck and those who practice and don't.
 
I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all of it. I think his biggest problem is that he's asking the wrong questions, and he's taking the wrong thing away from the conversations. I believe there's a quote from Henry Ford where he said that "If I were to ask the average person what they wanted, they would have replied 'a faster horse'."

He has some players that aren't good at explaining what their problem is. He needs to get a better study group to get feedback from. He might do better with people that have played FPS games from the 90's and on, because they have experience with games before they added in features to make them more and more accessible as the days go on so they have an idea what features are called, or they might be better at vocalizing the differences.
 
an artificial attempt to "level the playing field" between people who suck and those who practice and don't.

Please don't say that. If that's true, then I must REALLY be a crap CoD player. My kids are good, but I suck! I am good at BF3 on PC, but CoD on the Xbox, I'm just retarded. 3 kills against 30.

CoD seems to have dumbed down the FPS. The first one was amazing. I was all over that. Then, it started going down hill. BF1942/BF2 were great, but BF3 made it a bit dumber.
 
Very true. Flying around on jump pads, rocket jumping, etc. was fun. Running around with a pistol that doesn't even hit where you aim it, getting tired while running, and getting shot by someone who was hiding in a trash can is not fun.

Except he's not talking about that. In fact, the things he's complaining about were prevalent in Quake too.

Gibson: It’s the gameplay mechanics that they become used to. The way that players instantly accelerate when they move, they don’t build up speed. “The weapons really don’t have a lot of power” [in RO2]. They’re all very weak. The way they handle
Instant acceleration and powerful weapons?! *gasp*
 
Partially true.

I would contend that Console Shooters ruined half the generation and Battlefield 2/3 ruined the other half. Both by striving the remove any value that skill brought to the table in an artificial attempt to "level the playing field" between people who suck and those who practice and don't.

Mmmmm... I would argue that it's not neccesarily the Console Shooter that is to blame. Hate all you want, but just because an FPS is on a console doesn't immediately make it a sack of shit.

It is irritating, however, how some games reward a player so much for playing a lot over learning to playing well that the players with the most hours put into a game is the most likely to win, regardless of how skilled they are. Now, this does contrast with the problem of how do you convince someone to play a game multiplayer when they aren't yet skilled at it. The progression in the newer CoD games will naturally appeal to a lot of gamers because no matter if they win or lose, they will still make progress of some sort.
 
I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all of it. I think his biggest problem is that he's asking the wrong questions, and he's taking the wrong thing away from the conversations. I believe there's a quote from Henry Ford where he said that "If I were to ask the average person what they wanted, they would have replied 'a faster horse'."

He has some players that aren't good at explaining what their problem is. He needs to get a better study group to get feedback from. He might do better with people that have played FPS games from the 90's and on, because they have experience with games before they added in features to make them more and more accessible as the days go on so they have an idea what features are called, or they might be better at vocalizing the differences.

This is the difference between product features and customer needs. I'm glad you noticed it. A customer's domain is their needs, a developer's domain are the product features that meet the needs.

If you ask a customer about product features (in this case like Henry Ford and a faster horse," they can only speak to you in terms of things they're familiar with (ie. everything done previously.) Even more knowledgable customers still aren't on the cutting edge of features, so you're just lessening the delay. What you want to talk to customers about is their underlying needs, and some analysis is required because they may not realize them or articulate them completely.

In this case, why do you want movement like that? Not simply "what do you like about it?" but rather "what does it enable you to do?" Once you know the underlying needs of the customer (in the Henry Ford case, it'd be "to get to places faster") then you're able to design a product feature to meet that need/requirement, and it doesn't have to be tied into what you've done in the past.
 
Please don't say that. If that's true, then I must REALLY be a crap CoD player. My kids are good, but I suck! I am good at BF3 on PC, but CoD on the Xbox, I'm just retarded. 3 kills against 30.

CoD seems to have dumbed down the FPS. The first one was amazing. I was all over that. Then, it started going down hill. BF1942/BF2 were great, but BF3 made it a bit dumber.

Hey, I'm good at UT3 (I usually win when I set up a game against bots set to Godlike) but I still get incredibly randomized kill counts in CoD:BO2. One match I'll have 18, another I'll have 5, and yet another I'll have 8.
 
Please don't say that. If that's true, then I must REALLY be a crap CoD player. My kids are good, but I suck! I am good at BF3 on PC, but CoD on the Xbox, I'm just retarded. 3 kills against 30.

CoD seems to have dumbed down the FPS. The first one was amazing. I was all over that. Then, it started going down hill. BF1942/BF2 were great, but BF3 made it a bit dumber.

Mouse and keyboard (superior in fps) vs controller. Controllers are just bad for FPS and if you are a good FPS on PC that doesn't mean you are going to be good with a controller. I simply use BF2/3 as the PC versions because compared to FPS that preceded them, they are extremely dumbed down on skill level. There is a reason why the competitive communities for Battlefield are a shadow of what they once were.

Mmmmm... I would argue that it's not neccesarily the Console Shooter that is to blame. Hate all you want, but just because an FPS is on a console doesn't immediately make it a sack of shit.

It is irritating, however, how some games reward a player so much for playing a lot over learning to playing well that the players with the most hours put into a game is the most likely to win, regardless of how skilled they are. Now, this does contrast with the problem of how do you convince someone to play a game multiplayer when they aren't yet skilled at it. The progression in the newer CoD games will naturally appeal to a lot of gamers because no matter if they win or lose, they will still make progress of some sort.

Sorry but..yea, yea it does. There hasn't ever been a good FPS for a console outside single player story. Plenty of good ones from the single player storylines, but they all just turn to complete shit the second you go multiplayer. The reason is simple..Controllers are Garbage for twitch games.
 
Partially true.

I would contend that Console Shooters ruined half the generation and Battlefield 2/3 ruined the other half. Both by striving the remove any value that skill brought to the table in an artificial attempt to "level the playing field" between people who suck and those who practice and don't.
I would contend that HALO began the downslope, and COD made the slope even steeper. They did have the fortunate side effect of making FPS more accessible to gamers, but at the same time ballooned the market so much that all the developers saw were dollar signs as they raced to make clones.

I will agree with Battlefield 3, as it brought in more of the COD style of play. Battlefield 2 on the other hand was a lot more in depth and allowed commanders to step up and completely alter the gameplay. The battlefield series as a whole has always been a different style of play which tried (but failed sometimes) to emphasize teamplay and give players options to develop different skillsets like piloting aircraft and helicopters. It is unfortunate that Battlefield 3 blurred the lines and "leveled the playing field" more so than previous games, but at the same time it was necessary to help stop the COD/HALO juggernaut and lured gamers in with a more hybrid style to build the player base even more. I'm hoping that BF4 will bring some of the BF2 goodness back and require more teamplay and skill than BF3 ever did.
 
I agree to an extent, but to say that someones aim on COD is less than someones aim on Quake 4 is pretty stupid. Aim is aim. The genres are just different and the style of gameplay last generation has changed. With that said, I would rather play Quake 3, Live, or 4 ANY day of the WEEK than COD. But that's user preference. ;)
 
I see the same problem in the MMO market as well. When I started playing TSW, I had to unlearn so many bad habits that I picked up in games starting from SWG to the present. So much content was spoon fed that I had an almost unpleasant reaction when I actually had to think with my head or look with my eyes.

Console shooters have reached a tremendously wide audience. Part of this has been by dumbing down mechanics that could be seen as "boring" or "difficult" and by closing the skill gap. There are now millions of Console FPS players that would never have been players of any other incarnation of an FPS.

Maybe the take away is that there is a mass market, lowest common denominator, sort of FPS out there. Along side that big game, there are other, more artsy, games like Deus Ex, Jedi Knight or Dishonored.

It may not be to say that CoD has entirely ruined the FPS gamers (though I am sure some were). What is more likely is that CoD drew in many more players who would never have otherwise been (and never will be beyond) FPS players.
 
I agree to an extent, but to say that someones aim on COD is less than someones aim on Quake 4 is pretty stupid. Aim is aim. The genres are just different and the style of gameplay last generation has changed. With that said, I would rather play Quake 3, Live, or 4 ANY day of the WEEK than COD. But that's user preference. ;)

Unfortunately aim is not aim. Due to the inherit inaccuracy of controllers, console aim is more of a general area and hoping your bullet "scatter" as determined by a programmed margin of error lands on target. Where as if you go back in the Quake/Unreal and early battlefield days..Aim is you either had the crosshairs on the target or led properly or you missed. None of this cone of fire bullshit, It is especially irksome to those of us who own and actually shoot firearms as "Cone of fire" doesn't exist. Other than bullet drop for distance and factors such as wind, a bullet does not fire in a cone area. They are remarkably predictable things..which is why we have sharpshooters and gun tricks.
 
I would contend that HALO began the downslope, and COD made the slope even steeper. They did have the fortunate side effect of making FPS more accessible to gamers, but at the same time ballooned the market so much that all the developers saw were dollar signs as they raced to make clones.

I will agree with Battlefield 3, as it brought in more of the COD style of play. Battlefield 2 on the other hand was a lot more in depth and allowed commanders to step up and completely alter the gameplay. The battlefield series as a whole has always been a different style of play which tried (but failed sometimes) to emphasize teamplay and give players options to develop different skillsets like piloting aircraft and helicopters. It is unfortunate that Battlefield 3 blurred the lines and "leveled the playing field" more so than previous games, but at the same time it was necessary to help stop the COD/HALO juggernaut and lured gamers in with a more hybrid style to build the player base even more. I'm hoping that BF4 will bring some of the BF2 goodness back and require more teamplay and skill than BF3 ever did.

This is wrong too, the slope started with counterstrike and ever since then each game has taken it to a new level and the previous games have complained and yes red orchestra is one of those noob games that was just part of the big fad. That is the irony of this all, its the pot calling the Kettle black. Gaming as an amazing high skilled fast intricate sport died the day CS was born, CS showed everyone that in reality leagues and competition are completely chained to the number of people playing a game, not to skill. And with the massive popularity of CS everyone started to see how they could lower the bar and do it better. Over the years the bar just got pushed down a little more. Some stupid devs like the CS devs could not understand that and lost their dominance.

What you have to say is the COD is just better at it than all the other games and the other game devs are just jealous that it wasn't them who put it together as well.
 
This is wrong too, the slope started with counterstrike and ever since then each game has taken it to a new level and the previous games have complained and yes red orchestra is one of those noob games that was just part of the big fad. That is the irony of this all, its the pot calling the Kettle black. Gaming as an amazing high skilled fast intricate sport died the day CS was born, CS showed everyone that in reality leagues and competition are completely chained to the number of people playing a game, not to skill. And with the massive popularity of CS everyone started to see how they could lower the bar and do it better. Over the years the bar just got pushed down a little more. Some stupid devs like the CS devs could not understand that and lost their dominance.

What you have to say is the COD is just better at it than all the other games and the other game devs are just jealous that it wasn't them who put it together as well.

That's funny...because the skill gap between an Amazing CS player and a good one is absolutely huge. Where the gap between the above for any console shooter basically doesn't exist.
 
I agree with a lot of what he says, but not all of it. I think his biggest problem is that he's asking the wrong questions, and he's taking the wrong thing away from the conversations. I believe there's a quote from Henry Ford where he said that "If I were to ask the average person what they wanted, they would have replied 'a faster horse'."

He has some players that aren't good at explaining what their problem is. He needs to get a better study group to get feedback from. He might do better with people that have played FPS games from the 90's and on, because they have experience with games before they added in features to make them more and more accessible as the days go on so they have an idea what features are called, or they might be better at vocalizing the differences.

This is the difference between product features and customer needs. I'm glad you noticed it. A customer's domain is their needs, a developer's domain are the product features that meet the needs.

If you ask a customer about product features (in this case like Henry Ford and a faster horse," they can only speak to you in terms of things they're familiar with (ie. everything done previously.) Even more knowledgable customers still aren't on the cutting edge of features, so you're just lessening the delay. What you want to talk to customers about is their underlying needs, and some analysis is required because they may not realize them or articulate them completely.

In this case, why do you want movement like that? Not simply "what do you like about it?" but rather "what does it enable you to do?" Once you know the underlying needs of the customer (in the Henry Ford case, it'd be "to get to places faster") then you're able to design a product feature to meet that need/requirement, and it doesn't have to be tied into what you've done in the past.
Agreed. Good posts.

Console shooters have reached a tremendously wide audience. Part of this has been by dumbing down mechanics that could be seen as "boring" or "difficult" and by closing the skill gap. There are now millions of Console FPS players that would never have been players of any other incarnation of an FPS.

Maybe the take away is that there is a mass market, lowest common denominator, sort of FPS out there. Along side that big game, there are other, more artsy, games like Deus Ex, Jedi Knight or Dishonored.

It may not be to say that CoD has entirely ruined the FPS gamers (though I am sure some were). What is more likely is that CoD drew in many more players who would never have otherwise been (and never will be beyond) FPS players.
This was also my line of thinking.

Although, I love BF3, I loved BF2, I loved COD1,2,4,MW2. I loved UT, UT2004. I loved Quake 2,3. I loved GoldenEye. I loved Duke Nukem 3D. I loved the HL series and it's many mods/add-ons. I just don't have the same perception as a lot of you. I loved the games for that they were and didn't notice this "global decline of gaming" that some state exists. I have played so many types of FPS'es that I am loving gaming right now. My DLC for BF3 is active and I am about to have a helluva fun time on those new dirt bikes.
 
That's funny...because the skill gap between an Amazing CS player and a good one is absolutely huge. Where the gap between the above for any console shooter basically doesn't exist.

But the gap between an amazing CS player and an amazing Tribes, Quake, HLDM, or UT player is 10x the CS player gap, get it, the slope started with CS. That was the game that showed everyone how important it was to be accessible. That was the game that removed every single skill till only aim was the big one. From there on out all realistic shooters were just following the CS trend. CS players just convinced themselves that they were different just like red orchestra, and anyone else who loves to hate COD. None of them can accept the fact they they all were just a blip on the road to COD, COD just seems to have understood it better than the rest of them.
 
I would also like to throw up another example of this dumbing down. Anyone who has played Planetside 1 and now has played Planetside 2 will also tell you that the 2nd one is dumbed down, less skillful, and a hell of a lot less customizable for the end user. Customization seems to be the first thing to go because in order to be more equal you need to drastically narrow the choices down.....
 
Unfortunately aim is not aim. Due to the inherit inaccuracy of controllers, console aim is more of a general area and hoping your bullet "scatter" as determined by a programmed margin of error lands on target. Where as if you go back in the Quake/Unreal and early battlefield days..Aim is you either had the crosshairs on the target or led properly or you missed. None of this cone of fire bullshit, It is especially irksome to those of us who own and actually shoot firearms as "Cone of fire" doesn't exist. Other than bullet drop for distance and factors such as wind, a bullet does not fire in a cone area. They are remarkably predictable things..which is why we have sharpshooters and gun tricks.

It might not be cone-shaped, but when you shoot, a real bullet still has a cloud of probability of where it is going to hit.
 
But the gap between an amazing CS player and an amazing Tribes, Quake, HLDM, or UT player is 10x the CS player gap, get it, the slope started with CS. That was the game that showed everyone how important it was to be accessible. That was the game that removed every single skill till only aim was the big one. From there on out all realistic shooters were just following the CS trend. CS players just convinced themselves that they were different just like red orchestra, and anyone else who loves to hate COD. None of them can accept the fact they they all were just a blip on the road to COD, COD just seems to have understood it better than the rest of them.


Just because COD is widely played does not make it superior to CS's design. Adding unlockables is not 'better'. Kill streaks granting anything beyond the announcer yelling 'GODLIKE' are there to make mediocre feel better. In Q3 if you waltzed into a q3DM17 railgun match, you either learned how to shoot or you died alot. No coddling, no false character building. Shoot or be shot. Now get off my lawn (shakes cane at you)
 
I think he has some good points. Unfortunately though I won't be trying RO2 because it looks too dated, no way I could get into it just based on the graphics.

Really? I don't think it looks bad at all.

I find the gameplay is amazing no that many of the bugs are worked out, but my favored mode is "classic mode" which plays more like RO1 did, but noone plays it :(
 
A game with a huge learning curve and a big performance gap between new players and vets was Tribes 2 Shifter Mod back around 2000-2002 thereabouts.

A couple years ago after not having played it for 8+ years I decided to fire it up and see if anyone was still playing.
No one really was, except for one server with about 4 or 5 kids messing around with it because it was free.

We got to chatting and I was giving them tips then they said that it didn't sound so hard, especially being "CoD vets" (lol...).
So, we switched teams and they all went on one team and I went on the other team, alone.
The game was capture the flag.

Anyways, short story, I set up base defenses, capped their flag a couple times, then started literally just playing with them in game because they had no clue how to handle my cloaked base defenses.

I would grab their flag and then jet around with it so they would know where I was all the time, yet they still couldn't kill me.

I did get bored eventually, but it was a great feeling to be able to take on 5 noobs and utterly stomp them. That's the way it should be. Skill and knowledge wins the day.
 
But the gap between an amazing CS player and an amazing Tribes, Quake, HLDM, or UT player is 10x the CS player gap, get it, the slope started with CS. That was the game that showed everyone how important it was to be accessible. That was the game that removed every single skill till only aim was the big one. From there on out all realistic shooters were just following the CS trend. CS players just convinced themselves that they were different just like red orchestra, and anyone else who loves to hate COD. None of them can accept the fact they they all were just a blip on the road to COD, COD just seems to have understood it better than the rest of them.

I couldnt agree more. I always hated that piece of crap game and never understood why everyone hugged its balls so hard.
 
[QUOTE In Q3 if you waltzed into a q3DM17 railgun match, you either learned how to shoot or you died alot. No coddling, no false character building. Shoot or be shot. Now get off my lawn (shakes cane at you)][/QUOTE]

O good god that level brings back memories one of my friends was really god like on that board, the funny thing is i switched all my friends over to CS. We would LAN playing SC, Q3, and CS all in the same room people would HATE us in CS always accused of cheating because we all were playing side by side shouting at one and other god I miss LANNING so much fun back in the day.....
 
Just because COD is widely played does not make it superior to CS's design. Adding unlockables is not 'better'. Kill streaks granting anything beyond the announcer yelling 'GODLIKE' are there to make mediocre feel better. In Q3 if you waltzed into a q3DM17 railgun match, you either learned how to shoot or you died alot. No coddling, no false character building. Shoot or be shot. Now get off my lawn (shakes cane at you)

It is though because you have to ask yourself whats the point? The point of CS was to make online FPS gaming more accessible and easier for noobs, that's why all the AOL noobs of the dot com bubble turned it into the hit it was, because they got trashed in games like quake, HLDM, UT, Tribes and they found this game CS where even a day 1 noob could 1 shot a slow moving pro with an AWP.

So the point is COD just did what CS was popular for better and now CS players are jealous that it has such a huge following. CS was popular because it was easy to play and accessible to anyone , that's what COD does too.
 
Halo has a primary weapon, a pistol / secondary, a melee and a grenade, which is exactly the same load out as Counter Strike.

That's true, but every fucking game afterwards did the same freakin thing.
 
Everyone wants instant gratification and to be Rambo.

... and in a real life fire fight, they are the first to go down!

The quote from Red Dawn (2013)... "Dude, we're living Call of Duty. And it sucks!", pretty much sums up my attitude toward it.
 
it's the same with MMOs. they all reek of mediocrity and anything slightly complex is too much for most people these days.
 
Tribes 2 Shifter Mod was huge compare to current games:

9 separate classes.

Each class had an on-touch ability, Engineer could repair equipment, assassin could poison enemies for example.
Each class had a special armor ability, Scout had energy boost for jetting and Assassin had a built in close range "back stab" (shocklance) ability for example.

In addition there were the different packs you could use, energy, ammo, cloaking, repair, shield, teleport, satchel charges, etc

Several (probably 6+) different grenade types.
Several (again 6+) different mine types.

All classes had jet packs for getting around and fighting with.

TONS of weapons. From basic pistol like blasters to heat seeking missiles to mortars and laser cannon.
Heavy weapons like tactical nukes and plasma cannons that delivered a massive barrage.
Then a lot of the weapon had two or more firing modes. The mortar had standard, EMP, Concussion (bounce away and disarm enemies), a frag mode which released several smaller munitions (absolutely devastating in closed spaces)

Something like 20 or more deployables ranging from basic turrets and forcefields to sensors and repair-field generators to bunkers and vehicle deployment pads.


Vehicles, over 12 types I think. Hover bikes, tanks, artillery, air transport, air attack, air superiority, mobile base points.
Some vehicles had different abilities like boosters, cloaks, missiles depending on which vehicle module you selected with your load out.

Bases used power systems to power base equipment like sensors that extended the range of turrets.

A command screen for issuing orders and spotting enemies.

Then the basic game even strove for in game things like email, websites, chatrooms and included actual voice communications in addition to the quick chats... VGS - Shazbot!

All of this back in 2000.

CoD kids have no clue about what FPS gaming can involve.

That game had it all, in one package. (And even had no issue with supporting widescreen like so many games that came after it)

It's too bad Tribes: Ascend is barely a shadow in comparison.
 
But the gap between an amazing CS player and an amazing Tribes, Quake, HLDM, or UT player is 10x the CS player gap, get it, the slope started with CS. That was the game that showed everyone how important it was to be accessible. That was the game that removed every single skill till only aim was the big one. From there on out all realistic shooters were just following the CS trend. CS players just convinced themselves that they were different just like red orchestra, and anyone else who loves to hate COD. None of them can accept the fact they they all were just a blip on the road to COD, COD just seems to have understood it better than the rest of them.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

CS slowed down FPS gaming, but it included a much more in depth team and strategy element than TDM or CTF had before it. And it was never reduced to just aim, because there's so many things that can disrupt aim, the most underrated of which is positioning.

I think Quake is the harder game but not because of speed and movement, but rather because of timings. Item timings and how it changes strategy is by far the biggest discrepancy between Quake and CS. The rest of it is all there in some form or another, and in some cases in greater magnitude in CS.

That's not why it got popular though. I think it just got popular by being in the right place at the right time, and being different enough. Similar to LoL.
 
It is though because you have to ask yourself whats the point? The point of CS was to make online FPS gaming more accessible and easier for noobs, that's why all the AOL noobs of the dot com bubble turned it into the hit it was, because they got trashed in games like quake, HLDM, UT, Tribes and they found this game CS where even a day 1 noob could 1 shot a slow moving pro with an AWP.

So the point is COD just did what CS was popular for better and now CS players are jealous that it has such a huge following. CS was popular because it was easy to play and accessible to anyone , that's what COD does too.

Really? Because on the other hand CS uses hitboxes, which requires more precise aiming than you'll get in Quake. Tracking someone with the LG is extremely hard, but not as hard as if you'd have to track their head.

On top of that is recoil, which is also something you'll barely find in Quake weapons. You're setting up a whole bunch of false dichotomies to fill your prejudices, when you really have no clue what you're talking about. f4t and dkt made the switch, and only dkt really made it to the top of the NA scene, which meant he was around the middle of the world scene.
 
This is wrong too, the slope started with counterstrike and ever since then each game has taken it to a new level and the previous games have complained and yes red orchestra is one of those noob games that was just part of the big fad. That is the irony of this all, its the pot calling the Kettle black. Gaming as an amazing high skilled fast intricate sport died the day CS was born, CS showed everyone that in reality leagues and competition are completely chained to the number of people playing a game, not to skill. And with the massive popularity of CS everyone started to see how they could lower the bar and do it better. Over the years the bar just got pushed down a little more. Some stupid devs like the CS devs could not understand that and lost their dominance.

What you have to say is the COD is just better at it than all the other games and the other game devs are just jealous that it wasn't them who put it together as well.

I have to disagree with you. Counterstrike was precisely the opposite of what you are describing. I started playing CS in version 0.5. At the time I was a pretty good PC FPS gamer. I could pick up any FPS and within a couple days be finishing every match in the top 25%, and with a couple more weeks to learn the maps in detail I would almost always be number 1 or 2. But with CS it took me 3 months playing every single day to reach the point where I could consistently finish in the top 25%, and 3 more months to regularly be in the top 2 most of the time... and I wasn't alone. It even took pro-level players weeks to master the game at the public server level, unlike almost every other game out there.

The only game that was as challenging as CS at the time was Tribes. Quake, HLDM, UT... Those were mind-numbingly simple because they were 100% twitch fests. Fastest reactions wins, period. You never had to use a lick of brains, having good headphones didn't matter, having a plan was irrelevant, knowing the map maximized your skill, but wasn't required to be even adequate like it was in CS. Sorry, you have this all backwards.
 
Back
Top