CoD Has Ruined A Generation of Shooter Players

This is WHY the old Desert Combat mod for Battlefield back in the day was so completely awesome. The weapons would kill your ass at very long range. You cannot withstand fire. Tank cannons, machine guns and rockets REACH OUT THERE. Machine gun fire kills you in 2-3 hits.

The only reason you never felt frustrated is because Battlefield respawns you all the time and you can change your kit or get a different vehicle and change the vector of your attack or defense. If something didn't work, adapt. But it sure as hell didn't spoon feed random kills. Spamming kills was really only bad when chopper pilots would camp bases.
 
Jaerb4 said:
CS slowed down FPS gaming, but it included a much more in depth team and strategy element than TDM or CTF had before it
Click to expand...

oh please.. Rush rush point, camp door, wait.. Zoom door wait.. or the flip side rush rush point, plant bomb, camp that OTHER door, wait.. zoom door, wait..

Keep in mind I'm not saying that some sort of just CS hater. I started playing that game when it was one lone test server and the game was in more or less beta. I also spend hours watching top level teams play at a LAN we had out here in California (we filmed that Cheater vid that ripped around the net way back in the day at the event) as some sort of anti-cheating ref being it was a qualifying LAN for whatever the big esport group was back then.

even then, top teams, all yelling orders at each other, best of the best in theory it was still just rush rush, camp door..

and this line from the article linked in the news post might as well have CS replacing COD back in the day. "“What don’t you like?” and “It doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” Almost every element boiled down to “it doesn’t feel like Call of Duty" ..

We would get a new game for a LAN, people would try it, bitch it was not 100% like CS, go back to rush rush camp door for hours and hours.. Of course throw them into any sort of game with out a cone of fire, where your aim is 100% "your aim" and you have to do to it while *gasp* moving around a map at the same time they could not even come close to being competitive.

COD might of finished off a lot of the basic nerd twitch skills in modern gamers but CS set up the body for that final blow. Of course with CS did come a larger focus on team play over all, with almost every game since then being team vs DM.. Then again that also started the whole "me first, team second" sort of game play we tend to see being you were forced to play a team game vs choosing to play a team game.. That alone had a dumb down effect on the over level of "good team play" by a pretty large factor. IMO of course
 
I think all his points are great. At least make the single player FPS's more like the realism he describes, momentum system, etc.

For the multiplayer, i can see why the skill gap is compressed like he says. Something in the middle is probably the best balance for multiplayer. But it totally sucks that real skill doesn't get you much.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right? I'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed this. A standard rifle at 100 yards, given perfect conditions, will have a grouping of about 1". In CoD, at 25 yards, you have a grouping of ~1'.
 
DeadLamb said:
oh please.. Rush rush point, camp door, wait.. Zoom door wait.. or the flip side rush rush point, plant bomb, camp that OTHER door, wait.. zoom door, wait..

Keep in mind I'm not saying that some sort of just CS hater. I started playing that game when it was one lone test server and the game was in more or less beta. I also spend hours watching top level teams play at a LAN we had out here in California (we filmed that Cheater vid that ripped around the net way back in the day at the event) as some sort of anti-cheating ref being it was a qualifying LAN for whatever the big esport group was back then.

even then, top teams, all yelling orders at each other, best of the best in theory it was still just rush rush, camp door..

and this line from the article linked in the news post might as well have CS replacing COD back in the day. "“What don’t you like?” and “It doesn’t feel like Call of Duty.” Almost every element boiled down to “it doesn’t feel like Call of Duty" ..

We would get a new game for a LAN, people would try it, bitch it was not 100% like CS, go back to rush rush camp door for hours and hours.. Of course throw them into any sort of game with out a cone of fire, where your aim is 100% "your aim" and you have to do to it while *gasp* moving around a map at the same time they could not even come close to being competitive.

COD might of finished off a lot of the basic nerd twitch skills in modern gamers but CS set up the body for that final blow. Of course with CS did come a larger focus on team play over all, with almost every game since then being team vs DM.. Then again that also started the whole "me first, team second" sort of game play we tend to see being you were forced to play a team game vs choosing to play a team game.. That alone had a dumb down effect on the over level of "good team play" by a pretty large factor. IMO of course
Click to expand...
You're basically describing a pub. I'm not going to compare playing in CAL-i to screwing around in RA3 because they're totally different settings with different goals. The actual metagame of top level CS has been much, much higher than that for quite a while.

Plus being an admin/ref, I don't exactly expect you to understand the game. :p
 
I agree and disagree, COD has done a great disservice with the fast food FPS, but at the same time help bring it into the main stream so people know it exists. What needs to happen now, is someone needs to introduce these people to what a shooter can truly be (a new game, with new graphics, but old school values). If you cite a 10+ year old titles to people who take one look at the graphics and laugh at you, you're not doing anything beneficial (they will never touch it).
 
This thread makes me wish people still played Shattered Horizon. :(
 
My friends and I wanted to play some FPS on a private server. We were debating which one to play. A couple of us were UT99 payers and wanted to play that again, the rest were more or less FPS noobs. Lets just say it didn't go very well. We absolutely destroyed them. It wasn't even fun. We ended up playing...COD. UT skill still came in handy and made a difference, but much less so and COD was playable for all. I think that says it all about modern shooters.
 
Not like before all the anti-cheat, everyone and their mother would throw on an aim bot to blow off some steam or troll (they may deny it, but it doesn't mean that they didn't try it back then). And high contrast skin packs and small hit box player models were the norm. Now a days, I don't know why people cheat, it just seems pointless with no humor behind it.
 
Jaerb4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well you say I don't know what I am talking about but then you go on to essentially point out just a few of the arguments I have. So apparently I do know what I am talking about lol, BTW I agree with you CS was about timing more than anything. Dot com bubble, plus lots of crappy video cards and 56k combined with tons of people who didn't even know how to type didn't go over well for ultra fast games with players with high established skill.

Had it not happened that way though some other game would have come along, some realistic shooter with a low skill ceiling and it would have been just as popular. And I will point out that early on it was teams from games like HLDM that sat at the top of the CS ladders.

The part I disagree with you on is the strategy, if you think just knowing maps and angles well in CS and coordinating a mere 5 guys in football like plays that you get to do over every round is strategy you never sat in a teamsound with 16 players in tribes 2 trying to mobilize players to the other base, take down a gen, then clear the flag stand and escort the player back home. And you never played in good games with organized teams in quake, HLDM etc... trying to control the weapons, power ups and spawns. No the game that was played was once again just easy strategy for people who cant think on their feet. Its the same way you see ignorant people say that there is no strategy in a game like basket ball or soccer. But the strategy there is just that much more intense and it has to constantly adapt. Pro teams in football have plays with small alterations and reactions, pro Hockey teams have giant trees of plays that constantly evolve and its so intense I personally know of 1 guy who had the raw talent to play in the NHL and was removed because he was unable to memorize all the play trees of the tampa bay lightning.

The only difference is that the skill ceiling was just so much higher in these games that it was possible for 1 guy to take out a whole team, and because these games were developed early when there were so many less PC gamers we never saw their strategy publicly, but had any one of those games had 2.4 million players like CS the games we might be watching now days would be mind boggling.

Was CS more competitive, yes, because it had more players that it, the only reason, the skill potential was not there.
 
All you guys gotta ask yourself is simple, what skill in CS exists that is lacking in games like HLDM, quake, Unreal, tribes etc...

The answer is only 1, burst fire. That's the only one I can think of.

But what skills are lacking in CS, or numbed down to the point of having little to no effect on play at a high level? The answer is plenty. There are no projectile weapons in CS, players die in 1 second when you have decent aim so there is no dueling or learning to aim hard for long periods of time. This is ironic because it is CS more than the older games that was only about twitch shooting, first guy to drop a xhair on a head wins. Not the other way around.

All the other skills and excuses for strategy in CS are either way simpler or so strait forward anyone who reads some tutorials can memorize them.
 
Well.. they did destroy what made Battlefield fun. It's all spray and pray, lockon, and zero skill mechanics now.

That's one thing I liked about WW2 shooters, the weaponary took some level of skill to operate. Bolt actions, less capacity mags, single fire, slower reloads, etc.
 
Yes, because the lock-ons in BF2 worked so well. I remember when they accidentally made the AA in BF2 OP (before AA just didn't work) shortly after Special Forces came out, taking out a chopper taking off from the enemy base across the map from your own base, good times. BF3, well that is another story, it seems like everyone else can lock onto me then I can onto them.
 
I group of people didn't like his game so he threw a hissy fit and blamed other people. Sounds about right these days.
 
I think people are just bitching and moaning about COD making FPS games more mainstream with the "get off my lawn!" attitude.

You know what the current generation of FPS gamers would have been without COD? A hell of a lot smaller.

COD isn't the best game if you want to refine your skills to the nth degree and play competitively, I agree with that, that's not what the majority of people want in a "game" and COD is meant for the majority of people, not the minority who enjoy spending 1000 hours honing their reaction to the burst pattern of a particular gun.

The idea that COD doesn't require skill is also stupid IMO. Of course it requires skill, if it didn't, why am I consistently a KDR of 2-3 in most public games and then against a more "skilled" player I'm consistently 0.5-1? It may not require the particular skill of having the mouse control to hit someone in the head multiple times to kill them, but it still takes skill. The fact an unskilled player can still get a couple of kills doesn't take away from the fact a skilled player will still curb stomp them in the long run.

My personal feeling is that people who like non-COD-like games are just sore that COD caters to the majority and what the majority wants isn't what they want and surprise surprise, what the majority wants makes the most money.
 
Props to this man. CoD is the reason shooters have gotten stale, and my favorite franchises got butchered with 'skill compression'. I mean, what's the fucking point in going tryhard with extreme accuracy and twitch if it get's negated by suppression(BF3), or can lose to a win button(Gears3), or, hell...just want a new game to come out that worth trying in....
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would think it had made the difference between KB/M and Dpad more obvious when they ported it over to the PC and it turned out that the pistol was the most powerful weapon in the game if you were using a mouse.
 
rudy said:
All you guys gotta ask yourself is simple, what skill in CS exists that is lacking in games like HLDM, quake, Unreal, tribes etc...

The answer is only 1, burst fire. That's the only one I can think of.

But what skills are lacking in CS, or numbed down to the point of having little to no effect on play at a high level? The answer is plenty. There are no projectile weapons in CS, players die in 1 second when you have decent aim so there is no dueling or learning to aim hard for long periods of time. This is ironic because it is CS more than the older games that was only about twitch shooting, first guy to drop a xhair on a head wins. Not the other way around.

All the other skills and excuses for strategy in CS are either way simpler or so strait forward anyone who reads some tutorials can memorize them.
Click to expand...

Recoil control requires more than just burst fire. There are projectile weapons in CS, and players don't just die in one second. There's so much more going on than aiming, the truth is that your aim gets better the worse your opponent is. That is, the more confident and aggressive you are, the easier aiming gets. When you're not confident in your advantage over an opponent such as in top level competition, aiming becomes much, much harder and it is more technical (outside of the AWP) than what you'll find in Quake.

Even for AWP users, they also have the task of firing without a crosshair, which is another thing you don't find elsewhere. Tribes was faster, but the strategy and tactics were remedial compared to CS today and even five years ago. That's in large part due to the lack of popularity and lack of serious competition (after all, competition is what makes people better) but we're not discussing theoretical limits or you'd perhaps say some frame perfect fighting game makes Quake look casual (and there are harder games than Quake and Tribes, they're just not very good and are hard due to stupid design.)

It's like complaining about Starcraft/BW, because you're allowed to have control groups of 12 instead of 8 like in WC2, or that movement commands were easier. WC2 players still complain that Starcraft/BW takes less "skill", but their scene is weak and the relative skill of their players is much lower because they don't have serious competition. Professional CS teams used to train 6 hours a day, some systematically, to get better. A casual, semi-competitive Tribes clan didn't do that.

I think Quake and Tribes required more physical ability (primarily speed) than CS. I think CS required more cognitive ability than Tribes did. I think Quake required slightly more cognitive ability than CS, but it never had a serious teamplay scene to incorporate the teamwork aspect. As a spectator, CS also builds a lot more tension, which helped its popularity. There are some amazing Quake moments like Lexer vs. cha0ticz or fat vs. ZeRo4, but on average CS moments have more tension and are more spectator friendly.

My biggest problem with what you're saying is that the difference between a Q3 pro and an average Q3 amateur is 10x larger than the difference between a CS pro and an average CS amateur. I was in CAL-i (the top North American league) and teams like Rival, coL or 3D could make us look like brand new pubbers. It'd have been even worse if we'd played the top European teams. And likewise, we could do the same and shut out CAL-M/P teams, without much effort. I think the skill gaps between Quake and CS were very similar. If you tweeted at fat or dkt (UT, not Quake,) I bet they'd agree.
 
Rix said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. Modern FPS games are for noobs, plain and simple. SP gameplay is generally very restrictive as we're talking interactive movies here, not games per se.

In MP, especially last few years, experience is very limited in order to get progression monetized. This shit is wrong on so many levels and needs to stop, yet I know it's only going to get even bigger.

RPG scum had it their way and now personal skills are irrelevant. Character progression and "perks" are the norm :facepalm:
 
Sly said:
I would think it had made the difference between KB/M and Dpad more obvious when they ported it over to the PC and it turned out that the pistol was the most powerful weapon in the game if you were using a mouse.
Click to expand...
Pistol was the most powerful weapon in the game on Xbox as well. :p

I think the bigger differences are slower movement speeds, larger target areas, autoaim, and lack of recoil.
 
...COD2 there were plenty of servers that banned the Pistol because it was OP.
 
Jaerb4 said:
Pistol was the most powerful weapon in the game on Xbox as well. :p

I think the bigger differences are slower movement speeds, larger target areas, autoaim, and lack of recoil.
Click to expand...

Dunno, the weapons really seemed dumbed down. First time I switched to the assault rifle, it felt like a really wide shotgun, you just needed to look at the general direction to clear a room. *f* it! Switched to a pistol so I can actually kill what's in front of me.

Went up against the ones with the shields. Grenades? Sniper rifle? Nope, just take out the pistol and shoot through the gap.

Those differences you mentioned also contributed to why the pistol got so powerful and every other weapon got messed up to favor someone that can't aim.
 
Yeah, I just mean that the pistol was super overpowered on console as well. I think they supernerfed it when Halo 2 came out.
 
Everything is so dumbed down these days. FPSs today are simplified for the lowest common denominator + gamepad aim assist .

I wish for someone to make a TFC like game with modern graphics, with the same high learning curve and variety. There was so much to learn before you were even ready to play competitively. Movement skills like bunny hopping, ramp sliding, water skimming, aiming while under the effects of a concussion grenade, leading targets, rocket jumping, conc jumping all with 9 completely different classes that move at different speeds. And no TF2 is nowhere near TFC in terms of learning curve and complexity.

I think that was also its downfall. You could take a good TFC player and he could be good at CS in a short time, but most CS players could never do the same in TFC which eroded the playerbase as more CS like copycat games started popping out.
 
the original crysis started a [H]ardware bench mark race thats difficult to compare to any game series or game however i like gf3 premium quite a bit and i would like to see games that push pixal performance with a minimum hardware expectancy
 
Cod 1 and 2, BF1942 and mods like Desert Combat and POE was/is the shit. Reason, they both could be MODDED into games that actually were better than the original. Let the community improve/tweak the product and man will we be happier.
 
dgz said:
Yup. Modern FPS games are for noobs, plain and simple. SP gameplay is generally very restrictive as we're talking interactive movies here, not games per se.

In MP, especially last few years, experience is very limited in order to get progression monetized. This shit is wrong on so many levels and needs to stop, yet I know it's only going to get even bigger.

RPG scum had it their way and now personal skills are irrelevant. Character progression and "perks" are the norm :facepalm:
Click to expand...

WHOAH, don't blame RPG fans for this "progression" shit in FPS games these days. Hell, most RPG games I've seen over the past few years are hell bent on making character level, perks, etc. irrelevant via scaling "oh no, we can't let the lvl 1 newbie walk into the lvl 20 area, gotta dumb all the mobs down to player level so they don't get their ass kicked". While I liked skyrim as an overall game, the sad reality was that 90% of the character "progression" was completely irrelevant. I could choose to do something a different way in skyrim, but the most efficient route was simply running around smacking things in first person with a sword.

Heck, CNC4 is an RTS and tried that progression crap and it failed horribly.

If anything, this progression crap in FPS games seems to be nothing more than publishers forcing devs to include a system that encourages the player to not give up and move on to something else after a week.

I was an RPG fan long before I was ever a FPS fan(and I'm not particularly thrilled with the cookie cutter FPS offerings these days either), and I certainly don't like the idiotic "lets jam some rpg "progression" elements into the FPS games" garbage either.
 
COD Has led to the break down of actual games with tactics.. Can be seen in may games that require you to take points and hold them, most of the time you'll find majority go rouge to stack up kills vs actually caring what the entire team is doing to try and get the points to win.
 
Jaerb4 said:
Recoil control requires more than just burst fire. There are projectile weapons in CS, and players don't just die in one second. There's so much more going on than aiming, the truth is that your aim gets better the worse your opponent is. That is, the more confident and aggressive you are, the easier aiming gets. When you're not confident in your advantage over an opponent such as in top level competition, aiming becomes much, much harder and it is more technical (outside of the AWP) than what you'll find in Quake.

Even for AWP users, they also have the task of firing without a crosshair, which is another thing you don't find elsewhere. Tribes was faster, but the strategy and tactics were remedial compared to CS today and even five years ago. That's in large part due to the lack of popularity and lack of serious competition (after all, competition is what makes people better) but we're not discussing theoretical limits or you'd perhaps say some frame perfect fighting game makes Quake look casual (and there are harder games than Quake and Tribes, they're just not very good and are hard due to stupid design.)

It's like complaining about Starcraft/BW, because you're allowed to have control groups of 12 instead of 8 like in WC2, or that movement commands were easier. WC2 players still complain that Starcraft/BW takes less "skill", but their scene is weak and the relative skill of their players is much lower because they don't have serious competition. Professional CS teams used to train 6 hours a day, some systematically, to get better. A casual, semi-competitive Tribes clan didn't do that.

I think Quake and Tribes required more physical ability (primarily speed) than CS. I think CS required more cognitive ability than Tribes did. I think Quake required slightly more cognitive ability than CS, but it never had a serious teamplay scene to incorporate the teamwork aspect. As a spectator, CS also builds a lot more tension, which helped its popularity. There are some amazing Quake moments like Lexer vs. cha0ticz or fat vs. ZeRo4, but on average CS moments have more tension and are more spectator friendly.

My biggest problem with what you're saying is that the difference between a Q3 pro and an average Q3 amateur is 10x larger than the difference between a CS pro and an average CS amateur. I was in CAL-i (the top North American league) and teams like Rival, coL or 3D could make us look like brand new pubbers. It'd have been even worse if we'd played the top European teams. And likewise, we could do the same and shut out CAL-M/P teams, without much effort. I think the skill gaps between Quake and CS were very similar. If you tweeted at fat or dkt (UT, not Quake,) I bet they'd agree.
Click to expand...


If you think CS requires more teamwork than UT, then you are wrong.
It is just that in UT, you (and/or your team) can play mindlessly and have fun/win etc as long as someone else (or some team) is not using their brains.
As soon as one party starts using brains, the other one loses, every time. Coordination, communication, prediction, game-plan, precise aiming, timing, knowing when to jump in and when to fall back ... everything counts. Try warfare next time.

Anyways, this dude is right. Current gen FPS games are literally shit. I still feel more adrenaline rush playing UT rather than shit COD (omg! level up! sergeant sergeant major to the extreme whatever).

And being a dota player, I also agree about his comment about compressing skill gap. Old gen FPS didn't do it. Dota, even though Action-RPG, expanded skill gap like crazy. The difference between a bad player and a good player is so much that you literally can not measure it unless you are/become a good player too.
On the other hand, current gem FPS are all about compressing skill gaps.
 
Tudz said:
I think people are just bitching and moaning about COD making FPS games more mainstream with the "get off my lawn!" attitude.

You know what the current generation of FPS gamers would have been without COD? A hell of a lot smaller.

COD isn't the best game if you want to refine your skills to the nth degree and play competitively, I agree with that, that's not what the majority of people want in a "game" and COD is meant for the majority of people, not the minority who enjoy spending 1000 hours honing their reaction to the burst pattern of a particular gun.

The idea that COD doesn't require skill is also stupid IMO. Of course it requires skill, if it didn't, why am I consistently a KDR of 2-3 in most public games and then against a more "skilled" player I'm consistently 0.5-1? It may not require the particular skill of having the mouse control to hit someone in the head multiple times to kill them, but it still takes skill. The fact an unskilled player can still get a couple of kills doesn't take away from the fact a skilled player will still curb stomp them in the long run.

My personal feeling is that people who like non-COD-like games are just sore that COD caters to the majority and what the majority wants isn't what they want and surprise surprise, what the majority wants makes the most money.
Click to expand...

My feelings exactly... It really must suck for these people. While I'm having fun playing these games, they are having fun? complaining about them. I'd rather play them. I'm relatively old school and I just shake my head at all these other old man yelling at the younger kids to get off his lawn.

Some of these bellyachers need to be glad that COD has captured the attention of these "casual fps'ers". Once their perfect game is released, those COD fans will hate it and stick to COD leaving their perfect game un-ruined by the "cod noobs" so that all 1000 members of that community can play in peace. :D
 
Bring back the original TF and TFC! I miss bunny-hopping, flag capping goodness :(
 
Alright, I'm going to come in from a completely different angle on this one, as an extremist camper of CS as the infamous "Archibald the Koala" (ask any Australian CS_assault addict, they've probably heard of me.) What kills FPS's for me, is people who dictate how others should play the game. People should play how they want, and it's up to an enemy to figure out how to counter that. One of the ways this can be organised, is through quality level design. Being able to hear doors open, climb ladders or hold your ground effectively based around your location, helps compliment all forms of game style and offers a solid balance, while still catering to those with skill.
 
havent read any of this thread, but compare a game such at ut2k4 to CoD and look at the difference.

ut is FAST paced, frantic action with crazy weapons (C-C-C-C COMBO WHORE). everything else is slow and boring compared. a noob cod player can do OK when playing on online, you chuck a noob in a ut server and watch the rage quit as he gets blown up 30 times in about 3 mins.

Different skills required to become even slightly good at ut compared to being able to do OK right off the bat

yes, i have a hard-on for ut, but it was just such an awesome team game
SHOUTOUT TO ANY FRKS here!
 
SoAndSo said:
ut is FAST paced, frantic action with crazy weapons (C-C-C-C COMBO WHORE). everything else is slow and boring compared. a noob cod player can do OK when playing on online, you chuck a noob in a ut server and watch the rage quit as he gets blown up 30 times in about 3 mins.
Click to expand...


I would like to see some of them play UT w/ Low Gravity, InstaGIB CTF @ 155% speed and a 55% air control. :D:D

I do think they having such a large skill gap between news and good players is what kills games. It's hard for a newb to enjoy UT when he's playing against skilled players. Dying 30+ times in single match while only getting 1 - 2 kills doesn't make you want to keep playing, especially when you don't even see the killer and/or you die as soon as you spawn because you're not fast enough to move.
 
Lorien said:
Everything is so dumbed down these days. FPSs today are simplified for the lowest common denominator + gamepad aim assist .

I wish for someone to make a TFC like game with modern graphics, with the same high learning curve and variety. There was so much to learn before you were even ready to play competitively. Movement skills like bunny hopping, ramp sliding, water skimming, aiming while under the effects of a concussion grenade, leading targets, rocket jumping, conc jumping all with 9 completely different classes that move at different speeds. And no TF2 is nowhere near TFC in terms of learning curve and complexity.

I think that was also its downfall. You could take a good TFC player and he could be good at CS in a short time, but most CS players could never do the same in TFC which eroded the playerbase as more CS like copycat games started popping out.
Click to expand...
No love for Fortress Forever?

TFC was a great combination of twitch, movement, thinking and spam.
Concussion grenades, Frag grenades, MIRV grenades, Napalm Grenades, Gas Grenades, EMP Grenades, Nail grenades.
Spies able to disguise as any friendly/enemy class (but you can tell them apart because they still move at spy-speed).
Engineers building upgradeable automatic sentry guns and ammo/armor dispensers. I'm not a particularly big fan of Teleporters, they screwed up the balance of a lot of the assault style maps.
I miss TFC.
 
I'm honestly surprised smoke grenades have never been considered for TF2. Being able to confuse a sentry would finally stop the brutality of some sentry hubs. Not just the ones in 2fort either.
 
Turn back the emphasis on winning and player skill and competition will increase.
Today's games aren't focused on winning. Players ares till rewarded when they lose.

In Q3A, winning was everything.

I didn't log off until I won a match, lots of 3rd and 2nd places finishes. It was hard to win.
And when I did win, I felt a true sense of joy.

In modern games, you need about two more C4 kills to get another medal, meh, and move on to the next useless challenge.
Meanwhile your team is losing but it doesn't matter, because you'll level up anyways.
 
I was gifted a copy of BF:BC2, played for a while and no matter what I did, I could not get my expectations for a shot to match what I did and what I got. Perfect headshots ended up missing, random sprays with nobody nearby would sometimes get a kill. It just never made sense.

Then I'd hop into TF2 and get 14 headshots in a row as soon as I joined or play a nearly perfect round of Left 4 Dead.

At least with the latter, I can see and understand why I missed. Not with BF:BC2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top