Realistic shooters... what's the appeal?

[cFortyfive]

Can't really believe how people can seriously discuss shooters on consoles but I'd agree on that.

I would agree that there is more skill in Reach compared to the CoD series on consoles.

Actually both types have their appeal for me - although I am not a huge fan of the current dominating franchises.

I'm not even going to pretend to speak about Counterstrike. I played so little of it that it could hardly be said I played it. I picked it up from the video game store I worked at because some friends of mine wanted to LAN it up (I believe it was on the old Xbox) and we played it for a few hours. It seemed like a fun game, but I tend to make kneejerk negative judgments about FPS games that allow players to earn perks for advantages. I'm not even really okay with having a PvP advantage because of gear in completely gear-based games, although I understand it because the game is completely gear-based. FPS games are where I go when I want my own input to be what allows me to kill or be killed. Because of that, I never invested any real time into online Counterstrike.

---------- Post added 2011-06-20 at 03:02 AM ----------



Eh, poorly worded on my part :P I just meant that it was really good for that, and... not much else...

Counter Strike on xbox...heresy.

[Laughriot]

First, both Halo and CoD are, imo, terrible. Battlefield Bad Company 2, however, is awesome.

As for the OP: What you say of others as being opinion that you see as "clearly wrong," I say the same to you. To say that CoD or BF or whatever don't require skill is silly. A lot of skill? Perhaps not. I don't think any FPS really does. Once you learn the maps, learn how to use each gun properly, there's not much room for extra skill. Except for reflexes and situational awareness. Imo, reflexes and situational awareness are two of the most important skill factors in any PvP game. If, say, Bad Company takes no skill to play, why am I usually so far and away ahead of everyone else in the game in terms of kills, kill/death ration, and/or score? Am I just getting lucky most of the time? It's really not any different from Halo. If you think getting 1 shot kills is the norm in these games, you obviously have not played them enough or have played hardcore modes.

Also, your comparison to playing a rogue in PvP is a poor one. In shooters, you aren't invisible until you shoot at someone. You can compare it to no-resilience PvP if you want, but I guarantee you that, just like in CoD or BF, the better player will still usually win.

I'm not sure you read the entire thread, and I don't really know how to respond to you. I acknowledged that everything I said was an opinion or a personal impression, and I asked for people to explain why/how I was wrong. The person you are referring to that I said had "clearly wrong" opinions was the person who went beyond what I said, and made some truly outrageous claims about what does and does not involve skill. Although that poster did not originally make the comparison to rogues (that was me), he certainly prompted it by insisting that skill consisted in "getting the drop on someone before they even know you're there."

That poster also claimed that the game which made FPSs what they are today was the worst thing that ever happened to the genre.

In other words, the opinions that he expressed were extreme and militant almost to the point of trolling. And even taking that into consideration, I admitted that his opinions being "clearly wrong" was... just my opinion...

I'm sorry that you feel offended by my dislike of modern "realistic" shooters. If it makes you feel any better, I've never even played the Battlefield games, so I wasn't specifically referring to them. I thought I made that clear in my first post, but perhaps I didn't.

I do still stand by my assertion that a FPS where every encounter ends in 2-3 shots is less likely to be a meaningful stage for displaying skill than one where maintaining aim for longer than a second or two on a fast moving, jumping target is absolutely essential for producing kills.

[holyknight3]

I was really hoping this thread was about realistic shooters, like ARMA, which does about the best job of simulating modern combat that I've come across. Still irks me that I can't shoot out of a humvee's window, but other than that I don't have too many huge gripes about that game. The appeal of that game comes from the ability to maneuver, in the strategic sense, due to the whole 10k engagement box, with realistic engagement ranges somewhere between 50 and 100m. You also are generally moving as a squad, and having to support each other with actual tactics, as opposed to running off on your own (which would get you killed 9 times out of 10) to inflate your kill count. Oh, and there are one to two hit kills, the point is just that you have to make your opponent work for their kill, because (depending on map settings, and number of AI soldiers you put in to the map) when you die, you are more or less dead. If you want a free to play realistic shooter, you could try America's Army, breathing being a big point in that game as opposed to a game like black ops which only deals with breath control as a sniper. In addressing the OP, the appeal of those games is the speed of them I think. You get into a game fast, you kills stuff fast, and you get killed fast, and you respawn fast. It's a great game for those without alot of time, or with a short attention span, or both. Sometimes I like that type of game too. Some people don't want 20 min of maneuver just to get to a 30 sec fire fight, and so close combat (engagement ranges less than 50m) becomes the norm. Hell, most games you can't even shoot some one a hundred yards off because the map isn't even that big across. Just my two cents.

[brown]

I don't find cod to be that realistic of a shooter. Can't count how many times I have seen someone eat a 50cal from me. I usually play hardcore and prefer more realistic to be honest. I don't think you can really say the game is for people that are bad at shooters. If anything you need to be better to play it as it is more tactical. Even though you can still get lucky and take a 50cal to the face, you still have to be careful because unlike in halo the next shot will kill you. I believe each game does require its own type of skill, but you can't say one is for the baddies.

[Laughriot]

I don't find cod to be that realistic of a shooter. Can't count how many times I have seen someone eat a 50cal from me. I usually play hardcore and prefer more realistic to be honest. I don't think you can really say the game is for people that are bad at shooters. If anything you need to be better to play it as it is more tactical. Even though you can still get lucky and take a 50cal to the face, you still have to be careful because unlike in halo the next shot will kill you. I believe each game does require its own type of skill, but you can't say one is for the baddies.

Eh, that's all been talked about at other places in the thread. I amended my "bad at shooters" comment, and clarified what I meant by "realistic."

I appreciate your input, but it helps to read the thread.

[skatblast]

I've always thought the same thing. And i agree halo is more skillful.

[noahjam326]

I dunno... I play Halo 3, and then play Black Ops, and it just feels like such a step backwards.

It's funny you mention that, because I feel the exact same way, but replace CoD with Halo. I can't get into Halo at all and feel it's a step back in fun. I'm being absolutely serious. I've tried all the Halo games and can't stand them, especially compared to CoD. Personal preference is funny like that.

[Laughriot]

It's funny you mention that, because I feel the exact same way, but replace CoD with Halo. I can't get into Halo at all and feel it's a step back in fun. I'm being absolutely serious. I've tried all the Halo games and can't stand them, especially compared to CoD. Personal preference is funny like that.

The "step backwards" thing doesn't really apply to what you're saying. The reason I said that is because CoD came out quite some time after the Halo series, and instead of building on what Halo did right, it purposefully imposed negative quality-of-life changes to promote realism. That's why I meant that it was a step backwards, because it actually regressed in terms of gameplay instead of getting better, as one would expect. For instance, WoW has proven itself to be something of a genre-defining MMO. A game that came out after WoW, but failed to do the same things right that WoW had already done, would be viewed as a step backwards.

I get what you're saying, that you think CoD is far more fun than Halo. I understand that, and you're right. Personal preference, and all that. Just... not sure that "step backwards" makes sense, in this context :P

[noahjam326]

Are we talking about franchises or specific games? The thread title refers to franchises while your posts seem to single out specific games. If we're talking about franchises (the title of the thread) then that means the Halo-like games and "Realistic Shooters" (which includes the battlefield series) have been side by side over the years.

[Wilian]

Realistic shooters... what's the appeal?

I hope this doesn't get me flamed by Call of Duty or MW fans, but... what on earth is the appeal of games like this?

I.. I don't know what to say. If it was ArmAs or original FP game, maybe even the new Dragon thing by EA if stretching it, I'd understand but now I'm just speechless.

[Toccs]

Hello OP love the discussion by the way very interesting!

Here is a little bit of my input and what i think of the discussion. I used to play Counter-Strike on a professional level (long time ago now) i would class it as a realistic shooter due to the 2 shot AWP kills (Sniper) or 1 head shot AK/M4, The skill comes from aiming for headshots, tactics and game sense. Luck is sometimes involved but it will rarely win the day (Clutch rounds) there is also no auto-aim.

Now if you place that next to halo reach, you have auto-aim (being on the console I guess) but you have a shield, 2 melee hits and your dead, 1 headshot + melee your dead, or 4 ( I think) BR headshots and you die.

I’m rambling on a bit but the point I’m trying to make is I think it’s all relative to the game you’re playing, and the rules said game has. Lining up that first headshot in CS takes a lot of skill especially when under pressure and in CS you can’t afford to make mistakes. In Halo getting that sticky planted on someone from a distance takes skill but you have a shield so mistakes are aloud.

I don’t think I’m making much sense I’m tired, but I really do think it’s relative; realistic shooters take the same amount of skill as action shooters. It’s just portrayed in a different way.

Realistic shooters... what's the appeal?

Forgot to answer this, i'm a huge FPS fan played them all at a decent level but I swing to realistic shooters why? Well i guess its because it makes more sense if i shoot someone in the head they should die, they shouldn’t get a second chance to run and hide only to get me back later, and that comes down to the skill (game sense) knowing your surroundings so you don’t get flanked.

[Laughriot]

Are we talking about franchises or specific games? The thread title refers to franchises while your posts seem to single out specific games. If we're talking about franchises (the title of the thread) then that means the Halo-like games and "Realistic Shooters" (which includes the battlefield series) have been side by side over the years.

I haven't played a lot of the CoD games, but I assumed they played pretty similarly. The thread is mostly about Black Ops and World at War. If the other games don't play like that... my bad.

As I said a couple times, I've stayed away from these games since they came out, so I don't know a lot about them.

[Zeta333]

I haven't played a lot of the CoD games, but I assumed they played pretty similarly. The thread is mostly about Black Ops and World at War. If the other games don't play like that... my bad.

Those are the worst 2 of the series IMO.

[noahjam326]

Never played WaW, but I like Block Ops. Feel free to flame away but I found the online a lot more fun than MW2. Even with the wonky hit-detection (which is the game and not realistic shooters overall).

[namelessone]

I dunno, I hate all these new army shooters. Gimme Quake 3 over CoD any day.

[Mixon]

Halo 2 was the golden age of FPS pvp =), UnReal Tourny was the beginning of it and was awesome. the new games are fun and all like cod and ghost recon .... for a little while.... then they get very tedious as you get good at them spending long long games stalking each other until everyone gets tired of it and just rambos it and dies.

[Biggoron]

I agree with ToccsI don't see why you seem to consider tracking and getting 4 headshot with a DMR to be skill but getting one in CoD or CS to be luck. There have been plenty of times in Black Ops where someone got the drop on me and I came out alive, and there have been plenty of times in Reach where I've come around a corner into someone sitting with a shotgun and could do nothing.

[Deleted]

Halo is so fucking boring it makes me sick. When you have the same assault rifle you just shoot forever and someone dies, and then oops, your balanced pvp just turned into shit when your opponent found a sniper, which would be full legendary pvp gear in wow terms.

[Blznsmri]

Halo is so fucking boring it makes me sick. When you have the same assault rifle you just shoot forever and someone dies, and then oops, your balanced pvp just turned into shit when your opponent found a sniper, which would be full legendary pvp gear in wow terms.

That's like, your opinion man...

[nyc81991]

"If I wanted reality stuffed down my throat when I played video games... I'd just watch TV (or shoot a real gun) instead of play a video game."


Unfortunately the world we live in doesnt allow us to just go around with an ak-47 and just shoot random people. When you play a game like CoD you arent actually killing people so that makes the shooting not such a bad thing. Common sense would tell you that... lol