The Changing face of Gaming: Pros and Cons

Fouloleron

Biggest con that I have noticed lately is how all multi-player games have leveled game play and classes.

While CoDMW2 started this, games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Dead space 2 and Red Dead Redemption are just as much to blame in implementing this in their multi-player.

I have been playing online multi-player games since Doom2 and the idea that I have to unlock basic gear to play with is just repugnant.

I have less time to invest in gaming as I would wish and if I wanted to level up in a game, I would go buy an RPG.

By forcing me into this type of game mechanic when I just want to pick up a game and play, is wrong.

TLDR: Modern multi-player mechanics force players to spend time on unlocking instead of having fun.

Fnz

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's the old mario kart blue shell syndrome. What's the point in being really good throughout the whole game and race the perfect 3 laps only to get blasted back to last place in the last few seconds but something that requires absolutely no skill to use. There's absolutely no incentive to get better when there's no level playing field and all a player has to do is grind levels for perks to get an unfair advantage and there's no level playing field.

I think CoD is even worse and goes in the opposite direction where somebody doing well is granted even more power.

I think you may have mis-interpreted my post, as I'm only asking Hercule to clarify his post. It reads as though there is something inherently wrong with improving the experience for new, and less skilled, players. Whereas I feel it all comes down to the implementation of such systems.

The way Mario Kart works would be a terrible implementation of efforts to make a game 'fun for all'. While it may make things more enjoyable for some, random bullsh1t must sour many 'skilled racing game aficionados' on the experience - therefore it's not a case of "everyone" having fun.

Hank Scorpio

Think quakelive is the only fps game thats really active nowadays that I would would say has "skill"

Hercule

Fnz wrote: »

I think you may have mis-interpreted my post, as I'm only asking Hercule to clarify his post. It reads as though there is something inherently wrong with improving the experience for new, and less skilled, players. Whereas I feel it all comes down to the implementation of such systems.

The way Mario Kart works would be a terrible implementation of efforts to make a game 'fun for all'. While it may make things more enjoyable for some, random bullsh1t must sour many 'skilled racing game aficionados' on the experience - therefore it's not a case of "everyone" having fun.

Well the "blue-shell" elements are not all I am referring to (the grenade launcher in Call of Duty 4 is another example) They are certainly true in a lot of cases - I would go further to specify that the elements in games which require more skill/practice to do have been taken out of games systematically - to the point where nowadays you get told exactly where to go and are given a tool that requires minimal control to use correctly and effectively. In previous FPS games you did not have a map/radar - you were not told if you had hit or missed and you had to rely on your wits, the games' sound and smaller visual cues to understand what needed to be done.

(Insert dork analogy here)
The best way I can describe it is to say that for someone who wants to play a game for longer then 15 minute spells its the equivalent of "painting by numbers" instead of just "painting".

Sure your painting might be **** when your first start but if you put the time in u can create something better. Whereas if you paint by numbers you are restricted to producing only the one image - which would be better then your early "just painting" work but could never match the final products of someone who put in the time to do painting.

^its a bit flowery I know, and I am by no means claiming I am a "master painter" when it comes to FPS - but in a lot of ways the mp games that are made nowadays are designed to be "played by direction"

As I had said "being better" or "getting better" has become redundant in most games as there seems to almost always be an out of the box "leveller" of some sort if not an overpowered/easy to use weapon it will be some sort of gameplay element allowing newer players to "catch up".

I would not specify that games these days are designed with only the casual/lower skilled player in mind , but it would be understandable as that is the market where the vast majority of gamers are - developers want for the optimum amount of players to get maximum enjoyment out of the game with minimal effort. Accordingly the games become less fun for people who want to differentiate themselves from the herd and actually feel like they are accomplishing something (not just earning a silly badge of some sort)

This means that once you get through the early initial thrill of using the best guns/specials/vehicles there is little incentive to take the game any further other then some different coloured logos around your name.

In many ways its designed/deliberate redundancy on the part of the developer who do not want people playing MP for more then a few months as it may hurt the sales figures of sequels when they inevitably arrive.

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

Well the "blue-shell" elements are not all I am referring to (the grenade launcher in Call of Duty 4 is another example) They are certainly true in a lot of cases - I would go further to specify that the elements in games which require more skill/practice to do have been taken out of games systematically - to the point where nowadays you get told exactly where to go and are given a tool that requires minimal control to use correctly and effectively. In previous FPS games you did not have a map/radar - you were not told if you had hit or missed and you had to rely on your wits, the games' sound and smaller visual cues to understand what needed to be done.

(Insert dork analogy here)
The best way I can describe it is to say that for someone who wants to play a game for longer then 15 minute spells its the equivalent of "painting by numbers" instead of just "painting".

Sure your painting might be **** when your first start but if you put the time in u can create something better. Whereas if you paint by numbers you are restricted to producing only the one image - which would be better then your early "just painting" work but could never match the final products of someone who put in the time to do painting.

^its a bit flowery I know, and I am by no means claiming I am a "master painter" when it comes to FPS - but in a lot of ways the mp games that are made nowadays are designed to be "played by direction"

As I had said "being better" or "getting better" has become redundant in most games as there seems to almost always be an out of the box "leveller" of some sort if not an overpowered/easy to use weapon it will be some sort of gameplay element allowing newer players to "catch up".

I would not specify that games these days are designed with only the casual/lower skilled player in mind , but it would be understandable as that is the market where the vast majority of gamers are - developers want for the optimum amount of players to get maximum enjoyment out of the game with minimal effort. Accordingly the games become less fun for people who want to differentiate themselves from the herd and actually feel like they are accomplishing something (not just earning a silly badge of some sort)

This means that once you get through the early initial thrill of using the best guns/specials/vehicles there is little incentive to take the game any further other then some different coloured logos around your name.

In many ways its designed/deliberate redundancy on the part of the developer who do not want people playing MP for more then a few months as it may hurt the sales figures of sequels when they inevitably arrive.

What in ze hell are you talking about !!!

I agree that the skill cap is lower on games like black ops for the consoles but there is diffinately a huge difference between the weak players and the best players.

If you play cs for the first time against good players ofc you'll get pooped on, but its the same with cod/halo. My first time playing MW2 on the PS3 i was pretty ****e.. it took me alot longer to get to a decent level in cs but you have to remember that alot of the popular PC games have been around for a long time.. consoles have only really started to get popular 3 or 4 years ago.

Im not too sure how Black ops handles on PC but i'd imagine its the same as all the other CoDs in terms of skill ?

Magill

nuxxx wrote: »

Think quakelive is the only fps game thats really active nowadays that I would would say has "skill"

Dont be stupid.

Hercule

Im not too sure how Black ops handles on PC but i'd imagine its the same as all the other CoDs in terms of skill ?

I can't think of any other series then CoD where the point I am trying to make is displayed so much - the skill gaps in Cod1/2/4/W@W/MW2/BO differ greatly and have been on an ever decreasing decline. Its far too easy to be good at the newer CoDs.

In the competitive cod scene we often find that the "mid skilled" portion of the scene will always jump to the newest CoD (and quickly go to the top of the scene). The kind of teams that win cups/ladders in W@W PC/MW2 PC get absolutely pissed on in the CoD1-4 PC competitive games. I am sure you recall the same kind of situation if you were around when the top 1.6 teams didnt jump to source as it appeared to be less complex. The only difference in CoD is that the game has been bastardized 6-7 times in the past decade to become far too simple


CoD1 mp was one of those "put a few hundred hours in before you can compete" type of games - you did not have hit markers, UAV/red dots when someone shoots, you couldnt wallbang and the weapons themselves had to be aimed (fairly aggressive recoil on all guns) - you had to rely on sound to get an understanding of where your opponent was - a skill which is almost non-existant in modern games.

In CoD2 and onwards mp was similar but has consistently and frequently added a load of noob-friendly features to help facilitate new players and in some cases console gamers into MP - namely regenerating health, hitmarkers, wallbangs, bigger hitboxes, red dots on radar, dramatically reduced recoil, perks, killstreaks and nuclear powered grenades by the dozen - anyone with half a brain can and will kill you in CoD4+ on the PC - there is nothing about the game that is difficult to learn as the hitboxes/recoil from the console version of the game is far too generous for people with keyboards + mouse

These features heavily detract from the game at a high level as they are inherently designed to level the playing field and stop the 10%-20% of "good" players in the server from having more fun then everyone else - heck the helicopters in CoD4+ are designed to blue-shell the guys at the top of the scoreboard only - they make your life a misery if you are good but ignore you if you are crap

Overheal

Suddenly theres a little nudgel in my brain somewhere longing for Steel Batallion again.

That game pissed me off sooo much. But thats what I loved about it. Shame it wasn't my own setup The deliberately limited maneuverability of your walker, coupled with ace enemies and a persistent career attrition system meant I usually wiped out by the third mission.

It's not that god-like power isn't fun at all but you need to match it appropriately with massive odds against you.

Nerdkiller1991

I think one of the biggest casualties in this day and age is probably SOCOM 4. Back in the day, they were kind of like CounterStrike for consoles. It punished new players, but gave you the determination to carry on and master the multiplayer. But lets see what it has removed and what it's added.

Removed features:

• D-pad lean
• Lobbies, in favor of matchmaking
• Grenade arc
• Pistols
• Majority of classic game modes, like demolition

Added features:

• Dual primaries
• Cover based system
• Regenerating health
• BLOODY SCREEN...so real!
• Matchmaking (as said before)

I was actually considering buying this, but seeing as its becoming more and more like CoD, I have officially passed on getting this.

Just goes to show that the influence of CoD can fell the mighty.

deathrider

krudler wrote: »

gving people extra reasons to play games is bad? Overpriced DLC yeah, but in general extra stuff a few months down the line for a few bucks isnt a bad thing.

Mandatory (and I use that term loosely) DLC is pretty bad in my eyes though. I love the whole achievements fiasco, and if I think that gaining 1000Gs from a game is within my ability as a player, then I'll work my ass off to get it.
But nothing sickens me more that finding out a month or two later that the game has released DLC (with gamerscore in tow) and has increased the games maximum G-count from 1000 to 1250 on my played list. Now, after already beating the game quite a while ago, suddenly I've been relegated to only 80% complete... And whats more, they want me to pay another 8quid to finish it.

That bugs the hell outta me!

richymcdermott

Pros:
Cinematic experience: games like uncharted and mass effect with great script writing you feel like your playing part of a movie in a world.

Graphics improvements : when done well you can have game characters look real like heavy rain and la noire you can see emotion and and feel for the characters


Cons:

Dlc: Companies like Activison Capcom and ea are using this as ransom to get more money IT MUST BE DESTROYED


FPS: Too many titles are fps an majority of them are crap , there are a handful of good ones like bioshock, fallout and half life.


Metacritic: dont know bout you guys but im getting the feeling that companies only care these days for good metacritic score than listen to the consumer. especially in the last few days hearing bout developers trying to get scores up like with bioware and the things that go on with eidos and kane and lynch

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

I can't think of any other series then CoD where the point I am trying to make is displayed so much - the skill gaps in Cod1/2/4/W@W/MW2/BO differ greatly and have been on an ever decreasing decline. Its far too easy to be good at the newer CoDs.

I would say thats more to do with how long people have been playing the game, although i'd imagine all the best players are still playing CoD4 ? At least the competitive ones. But the skill gap isnt really what im talking about.

In the competitive cod scene we often find that the "mid skilled" portion of the scene will always jump to the newest CoD (and quickly go to the top of the scene). The kind of teams that win cups/ladders in W@W PC/MW2 PC get absolutely pissed on in the CoD1-4 PC competitive games. I am sure you recall the same kind of situation if you were around when the top 1.6 teams didnt jump to source as it appeared to be less complex. The only difference in CoD is that the game has been bastardized 6-7 times in the past decade to become far too simple

The 1.6 to css thing is funny, i played both at a decent level and although i know that 1.6 has the best players and that when some of the good teams switched they went straight to the top.. i'd be more inclined to say it was because of how much experience they had playing cs and not that the game was "Easier" to play, the core of the games are the same. one of the best Irish/UK 1.6 clans went to a midlans css tournament a few years ago and although they beat the noob teams we destroyed them when we played(twice).

CoD1 mp was one of those "put a few hundred hours in before you can compete" type of games - you did not have hit markers, UAV/red dots when someone shoots, you couldnt wallbang and the weapons themselves had to be aimed (fairly aggressive recoil on all guns) - you had to rely on sound to get an understanding of where your opponent was - a skill which is almost non-existant in modern games.

When you say put a few hundred hours in before you can compete... are we talking about competitive or public gaming ? Surely its the same with the rest of the cods. I doubt some newbie could just stroll into a competitive cod team... Sound is pretty heavily used in MW2, especially in SnD. Wallbanging adds another level to the game, i wouldnt say it makes it less skillful. I've never played cod1 so i cant really judge recoil etc.

In CoD2 and onwards mp was similar but has consistently and frequently added a load of noob-friendly features to help facilitate new players and in some cases console gamers into MP - namely regenerating health, hitmarkers, wallbangs, bigger hitboxes, red dots on radar, dramatically reduced recoil, perks, killstreaks and nuclear powered grenades by the dozen - anyone with half a brain can and will kill you in CoD4+ on the PC - there is nothing about the game that is difficult to learn as the hitboxes/recoil from the console version of the game is far too generous for people with keyboards + mouse

These features heavily detract from the game at a high level as they are inherently designed to level the playing field and stop the 10%-20% of "good" players in the server from having more fun then everyone else - heck the helicopters in CoD4+ are designed to blue-shell the guys at the top of the scoreboard only - they make your life a misery if you are good but ignore you if you are crap

Isnt radar / hitmarkers/ Health Regen / perks / killstreaks etc all turned off in competitive games... so its not really detracting from the game at a high level ? Even on the console version it is turned off.

I do agree tho, that perks/killstreaks etc do make the game more noobfriendly.. but not to the point were a newb can come into a lobby and come even close to a good player on the leaderboards.

Hercule

With regards the differences from 1.6->source they might be just community things or the time spent playing but there is an element that the game has been made less complex too - also as I had mentioned this isnt just a single sequel like 1.6->source imagine if we were now on CS 6/7 - how would the community have split?

I meant cod1 required a couple of hundred hours before you start to not be at the bottom of every scoreboard (even in pub) - being in a comp team and having fun with it would have required even more

Fairplay on the wallbanging point - if you compare to the earlier CoDs it changed the gameplay - making it faster, not necessarily made it easier - it does however assist bad players when u get hitmarkers through walls which has simply never made sense.

also

in competitive cod2 onwards radar / hitmarkers (excluding hitmarkers through walls) / Health Regen are not turned off in competitive games - perks are either completely restricted or usually set to bandolier/stopping power/ and then deep impact/left blank - killstreaks are disabled as they are wtfimba - eg helicopters only chase players at the top of the scoreboard - UAV elimates the need for gamesense etc.

Magill

Hercule wrote: »

I meant cod1 required a couple of hundred hours before you start to not be at the bottom of every scoreboard (even in pub) - being in a comp team and having fun with it would have required even more

Nah, the only thing that suggests is that there were very few people playing the game that were and that everyone else had been playing the game for so long, not that it required more skill to be the best. Even with cs(Which imo has a bigger learning curve than any of the cod games) you could go onto public servers and unless you're a complete noob to FPS games in general then it'll not take you that long before you're getting some kills because there was always new players coming into the game. Newbie UK2 servers were also great for introducing people to the game and allowed them to learn.

Because cod is so popular now, there are always lots of new players coming into the game so you'll find lots of people with as much experience as you.

in competitive cod2 onwards radar / hitmarkers (excluding hitmarkers through walls) / Health Regen are not turned off in competitive games - perks are either completely restricted or usually set to bandolier/stopping power/ and then deep impact/left blank - killstreaks are disabled as they are wtfimba - eg helicopters only chase players at the top of the scoreboard - UAV elimates the need for gamesense etc.

Ahh im not too familar with it, i know radar etc is turned off on for console clan games and i was pretty sure health regen is off on hardcare. Either way, im sure whatever promod does it makes it as competitive and skilled based as possible.

Magill

fooksake, cant even edit my posts from this PC

Nah, the only thing that suggests is that there were very few people playing the game that were new to the game and