Multiplayer Gaming: A New Hope (An Editorial)

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
28
#1
***WARNING***
As anyone who knows me from my more active days will tell you, I have horrible grammar. Please excuse any grammar mistakes and spelling errors.

Also, this is a rant, treat it like one. I hope my point comes across. It is not one of hate but of disappointment and hope for a better future
:mrgreen: lol.



Long ago, in a galaxy far far away...
There was a world in which multiplayer gaming was dominated by simplicity. Fresh out of the boot camp for multiplayer combat, we were given two things, a weapon and a map.
Whether you were playing GoldenEye in your friend's living room, having a LAN party with Quake 3, using your Multitap to play MOH: Rising Sun, or using dial up to play Counter Strike 1.6, you were playing games with a simple multiplayer setup.
Now when I say simple, I do not mean the games were simple, in fact most of those games were ground breaking, I mean that the concept of their multiplayer was simple. Weapons... Maps... You...
However, in this world with no perks, no kill streaks, no attachments, no leveling system, etc. we all loved and enjoyed gaming against others. The reason for this is simple (I'm going to say simple a lot...) it is because when we were given lemons, we made lemonade.
The key was creativity. When given a more simple structure to multiplayer gaming, we reacted in ways that gave purpose to user created content and ideas. When playing the game, you actually controlled the quality of the match, how you played could change the experience of everyone, but mostly for yourself.
This is hard for me to explain, for I did not even notice the importance of user creativity until it was gone.

I hope the word "creativity" is best describing what I mean (because I can not think of a better word ha ha). I think some examples might help, because I don't want to look like a fool and hope someone can relate to me.

Teamwork: There are pretty much two types of game modes, solo and team modes. Despite the heavy emphasis on team based game modes in recent MP games, I feel a complete (100%) lack of need for teamwork in any game mode COD can through at us. (Im gonna pick on COD).
Many will blame this on the users, but if you have ever played socom (even the new crappy one) you will find that a majority of users (I sound like TRON now...) attempt to work as a team.
Of course not everyone does this, but most players at least attempt it and it is not because they are better people than COD players. It is because the game requires teamwork to be successful...
Now, you may ask me, "how does teamwork has anything to do with creativity?". The reason is simple (said it again).
As much as I would love to say teamwork flourishes in socom, that would be a lie, and despite a general attempt to make it work by most users, it usually fails. Here is where the creativity comes in... You can not simply camp in a corner hoping for someone to walk by to be successful, you must use strategy to win, you must overcome the lack of teamwork, to win against the odds. The hectic, helicopter and nuke filled games that COD provides, eliminates this. Your team was never expected to work together, and the entire game revolves around which team has the better shooters. Team based game modes should not revolve around individual talent, it should either require teamwork, or force players to overcome odds when they are on their own.

Experience: I will never understand this. Why MP gaming has turned to giving players experience is beyond me. While I can understand the allure of unlocking new things, experience is not something that should be simulated in multiplayer gaming... ever. The idea that "I've played this game longer, I should be better, give me better ****" almost summarizes my point for this entire post.
Gamers should be rewarded by means, not by being given the upper hand.
The truth is, modern gamers need a reason to play online, they need that motivation to play to the next level, to get that new gun. This makes gaming a chore, a job... not gaming just to game, to get that excited feeling for besting your opponent.
When you take away this leveling system, and focus on earning real experience from playing, this is when you get creative.
Whats that? You keep getting owned by the guy with the M50? Well that is because you need to level up, and get the "hides you from thermal scopes" perk. NO! You need to sneak around and ambush him, or figure out another way to best him.
Now, I know people in COD often figure out strategic ways to solve their problems, but the creativity is greatly reduced when their are perks and levels that help you, trust me.

Perks, kill streaks, and noobtubes... OH MY!:
Im not going to ***** about the cheap perks, or annoying kill streaks, but instead bring your attention to the lack of creativity (yeah I am saying that word a lot) and lack of actual human skill in using these things.
Kill streaks are a perfect example of a great idea, gone horribly wrong. I could go on and on how these things ruin online gaming, but I would just **** of a bunch of COD fans, so let me just talk about what these things deprive us of. Not only the creativity that I keep rambling on about, but they deprive us of a gaming constant. Games with these items are rife with unequal bonuses for some players, and deprive others or the ability to play how they want. You need a perk to make a sniper one hit kill, you get kill streaks for camping... and using kill streak rewards for more kill streak rewards... Any sense of competition goes out the window for me when I am killed by a computerized plane turret.


I hope by now you understand what I am trying to say. I do not hate COD, or any modern online game, I just think that the current "cool thing" to do for MP games, is ruining them at the core. There is a reason people still play quake 3 and CS 1.6, and that GoldenEye is being remade, because they brought out/bring out the best in gamers when they play, they do not rely on constant new content and levels and weapons and maps, but the thrill comes from the gaming experience it self.

A New Hope:
I am not going to just ***** however, the reason I wrote this was because I recently read about the new COD's game modes. Obviously I am very excited for Barebones mode (I sold MW2 within a week, so I have never tried this). But I am very pleased to learn about the game modes that are meant to interest the players with new playing styles, rather than perks and kill streaks. Gun game was a great way to get skilled in CSS, and can't wait to try it in the new COD.

In conclusion, this is just a rant...
I hope there can be some interesting discussions on this subject, but I also hope that whether or not you disagree with my points, you can get where I am coming from (It is hard to explain ha ha).
I'm looking forward to the new COD for the first time since I sold MW2 in disgust. So I hope this is a step in the right direction, a step that will make MP games the wondrous beauties they were in the past.

-Spider

 
Jan 26, 2010
87
0
0
33
#2
I think I get what you are saying. I loved playing goldeneye for hours. It was the first multiplayer shooter I had ever played. I do miss that style of game. I was glad when I heard they might not impliment a leveling up system in the new twisted metal. Unfortunatley I can't comment on team work like what socom had. I didn't get into the online seen until this generation. My friends and I would play, Goldeneye, Twisted Metal, and SW Battlefront all day long. It would be nice to see more games go back to that, but it doesn't seem likely. Barebones sounds like a good idea, but in reality it is not. They took out the killstreaks, but every match I played everyone used rpgs and danger close combo, to make up for the no killstreaks. I actually prefer to play uncharted 2. It seems to have more of that old formula feel, with just running and picking up guns, ya there are boosters and leveling up, but not in the same sense as COD. To each is own I guess. 2 games that I have found to be fun when people play like a team are MOH and Killzone 2, but again people aren't required to play as a team to win in those games. One thing I really don't like about shooters now is the killcams. Worst addition ever. Hears hoping twisted metal and socom deliver.
 

rbrtchng

Forum Guru
Aug 25, 2006
3,661
26
0
39
#3
In my opinion, the biggest reason why I still prefer Counter Strike over any modern fps mp is because of its level design. The level designs were simple, easily memorable, maze-like, and designed to be a game. Whereas, current multiplayer maps are designed to be a city first and then just spawn some players into it. It takes a lot longer to learn the maps, so most people just don't bother. Many areas look exactly the same and serve the exact same purposes, so you can't distinguish which one you're talking about when you're issuing commands. For example, in Counter Strike, in Dust2, you can say "cat" or "b tunnel" or "underpass" in Dust and people know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Every section of every level in CS is designed this way. Whereas for a game like Call of Duty, you can say "gray room," but there are millions of gray rooms within any given level.

I don't feel like people don't want to play as a team in CoD, I feel like the game is actively trying to prevent you from playing as a team.
 

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
28
#4
[QUOTE="rbrtchng, post: 5232286]In my opinion, the biggest reason why I still prefer Counter Strike over any modern fps mp is because of its level design. The level designs were simple, easily memorable, maze-like, and designed to be a game. Whereas, current multiplayer maps are designed to be a city first and then just spawn some players into it. It takes a lot longer to learn the maps, so most people just don't bother. Many areas look exactly the same and serve the exact same purposes, so you can't distinguish which one you're talking about when you're issuing commands. For example, in Counter Strike, in Dust2, you can say "cat" or "b tunnel" or "underpass" in Dust and people know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Every section of every level in CS is designed this way. Whereas for a game like Call of Duty, you can say "gray room," but there are millions of gray rooms within any given level.

I don't feel like people don't want to play as a team in CoD, I feel like the game is actively trying to prevent you from playing as a team.[/QUOTE]

So true...

+rep

That is a great example...
Whether your rushing B or going long A, if you played CSS for even a day you could communicate with your team. Also, since there were 2 bomb sites, it required team work for the CT's (least at D2).

Socom has names for places as well, (BELL TOWER!!!!) which shows that it is not just CS where that sort of communication can work very well, and make team work easy and fun.
 

FireSol

Super Elite
Mar 23, 2007
2,224
18
0
Moscow
#5
oh...how i missed Q3 CTF matches, where every one hold specific zones
or epic team battles on DM6
or when you try catch one man them BAM he did rocket jump and then you shooted from rail

the day before yesterday i had BFBC2 game
winter map, gold rush game type, defending last crates
4-5 enemies hold their position on the lest side from objectives at i was only one person who tried to take them out
i spoted them, but no one helps me

as it was sad in OP ppl more care about getting achievement instead of just getting fun
 

BlacJack

Dedicated Member
Jun 26, 2007
1,421
22
0
UK
#7
[QUOTE="rbrtchng, post: 5232286]In my opinion, the biggest reason why I still prefer Counter Strike over any modern fps mp is because of its level design. The level designs were simple, easily memorable, maze-like, and designed to be a game. Whereas, current multiplayer maps are designed to be a city first and then just spawn some players into it. It takes a lot longer to learn the maps, so most people just don't bother. Many areas look exactly the same and serve the exact same purposes, so you can't distinguish which one you're talking about when you're issuing commands. For example, in Counter Strike, in Dust2, you can say "cat" or "b tunnel" or "underpass" in Dust and people know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Every section of every level in CS is designed this way. Whereas for a game like Call of Duty, you can say "gray room," but there are millions of gray rooms within any given level.

I don't feel like people don't want to play as a team in CoD, I feel like the game is actively trying to prevent you from playing as a team.[/QUOTE]

This is an excellent post. Sums up my feelings perfectly. Level designs quite frankly suck lately. Very few games get them right to be fun, engaging, easy to locate, yet still extremely tactical. Games like CoD just throw tons of **** in the map to make it highly confusing, and give players tons of camping spots/corners to hide in. There is no thought behind it.

I never realized in until your post, but I really think you're onto something about recognizable locations. RB6 is full of them too. I think that is one of the simplest ways to get teams to actually work together online. If you can simply say "3 peeps in the red room," and your whole team instantly knows where you mean, that encourages teamwork. SOCOM is the same way.

Anyways, good post. I miss CS and RB6 now. +rep to you and Spider.
 

higgos22

Master Guru
Feb 8, 2009
6,619
10
0
#8
Your team was never expected to work together,
This is an extremely good point! You are really spot on the money, it is kinda depressing a game of teams your team winning means nothing it doesnt mean your a better team just your team happened too have guys die less or be better shots you could be meaningless too the team I doubt they would care if you sat in a corner and did nothing all game but not die
Whats that? You keep getting owned by the guy with the M50? Well that is because you need to level up, and get the "hides you from thermal scopes" perk. NO! You need to sneak around and ambush him, or figure out another way to best him.
This is also a very good point, The idea that you can hide from someone and that is that takes away alot of strategy and makes gameplay slightly more linear like every move is a cliche... Put on some cloak move down middle kill him, rather games where this is not possible are fun as you have too either sneak or try for a good shot or use a team too ambush him
Perks, kill streaks, and noobtubes... OH MY!:
Im not going to ***** about the cheap perks, or annoying kill streaks, but instead bring your attention to the lack of creativity (yeah I am saying that word a lot) and lack of actual human skill in using these things.
Kill streaks are a perfect example of a great idea, gone horribly wrong. I could go on and on how these things ruin online gaming, but I would just **** of a bunch of COD fans, so let me just talk about what these things deprive us of. Not only the creativity that I keep rambling on about, but they deprive us of a gaming constant. Games with these items are rife with unequal bonuses for some players, and deprive others or the ability to play how they want. You need a perk to make a sniper one hit kill, you get kill streaks for camping... and using kill streak rewards for more kill streak rewards... Any sense of competition goes out the window for me when I am killed by a computerized plane turret.
I have never liked perks in game, Often a killstreak will simply lead to a greater kill streak, someone with some chopper is gonna have a far easier time getting more kills then someone on 0 killstreak... This does take away competitiveness a bit, say 3 guys on your team have perks then you are deemed useless to your team cus regardless what you do they are gonna go on a massive killstreak and win it for you
 

Teraspark

Mostly Indifferent
Nov 4, 2009
1,106
5
0
30
Staffordshire
#9
There are number of thought provoking points you make about today's multiplayer, Spider.

I'm assumimg you're a hardcore player and so I must you another question. Do you believe that today's multiplayer games such as COD and BC2 will be continuely played by the our casual counterpart if you removed the incentives to play.

What I mean to ask is if the simpler design promotes better teamwork would it not increase the time and personal experience needed to become good. Frankly, I suck at CS and such games and I would need to sink a lot of time into them to become adequately decent. That will have more of an impact on casual players who just wish to have a couple games every other night and still be able to have fun without raging at their screen.

Some of you might just say they just need to man up, play more and get better but the casual gamer doesn't think like hardcore players do.

The point I'm trying to get to in response of your OP is that won't it be unfair to demand making things harder for the casual player just to promote teamwork that will only benefit the enjoyment of the hardcore player?

+rep by the way. :D
 

rbrtchng

Forum Guru
Aug 25, 2006
3,661
26
0
39
#10
[QUOTE="Teraspark, post: 5232516]There are number of thought provoking points you make about today's multiplayer, Spider.

I'm assumimg you're a hardcore player and so I must you another question. Do you believe that today's multiplayer games such as COD and BC2 will be continuely played by the our casual counterpart if you removed the incentives to play.

What I mean to ask is if the simpler design promotes better teamwork would it not increase the time and personal experience needed to become good. Frankly, I suck at CS and such games and I would need to sink a lot of time into them to become adequately decent. That will have more of an impact on casual players who just wish to have a couple games every other night and still be able to have fun without raging at their screen.

Some of you might just say they just need to man up, play more and get better but the casual gamer doesn't think like hardcore players do.

The point I'm trying to get to in response of your OP is that won't it be unfair to demand making things harder for the casual player just to promote teamwork that will only benefit the enjoyment of the hardcore player?

+rep by the way. :D[/QUOTE]

I feel like the current approach with its leveling weapons/gears and its perks and killstreaks would do exactly what you described. Skilled players will absolutely destroy novice players because they would have an advantage in being higher levels with better weapons and better killstreaks. If you take away all of that, make it an even ground, novice players would actually have a chance.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with advanced players beating amateur players. It's when the game mechanics actually encourages this gap in skill that's the problem. And the great thing about a simpler design is that even if your team is worse than the other team in terms of skill, you can make up for that gap by using teamwork. A well coordinated team would do better than many advance players. So then it becomes a battle of tactics and skill, rather than whoever gets the killstreak first. But this would only be applicable approach if, again, the levels are designed for team tactics and not for visual fidelity, which most games are at this point.

Not to mention, a simple design would encourage casual players to learn. Subconsciously, just by playing against more advanced players, the novices will learn many techniques within any given match. Whereas, if you include all those perks, you'd think that the only reason why you lost was because the other guy had better stuff, which is probably true.

The thing about CS is that, eventually, when a game becomes that ancient and still is one of the most popular online game, pretty much the entire community has become extremely skilled. That means that the gap between a less skilled player is immediately apparent in that game. But for the most part, in any given game, there should be more people who are noobs than there are pros. So that learning the mechanics is much easier in a simple design than in the current complex design.

my 2 cents
 

RawK_Solid

Dedicated Member
Mar 23, 2008
1,434
12
0
39
#11
I agree with a lot you said. The leveling, the perks, the noobtubes, explosives, etc. Most of the time I wish it was just a gun & bullets. Then it would be more skill based & less about who's using what.

As far as the teamwork goes, I completely disagree. If you don't have any friends that you've added online, that's your fault. When you get thrown in a lobby where people play for the objective, ADD THEM. If they have a mic & call out the enemy, ADD THEM. When they complain that nobody is going for the objective & they're one of the only ones who do, ADD THEM. You get a few guys together & you play to win, an amazing thing happens...YOU WIN. And you know what's great? When you get matched up with against a clan or team that plays to win, you get epic battles that are FUN & intense. The whining about the lack of teamwork lies with the people who complain about it because you don't extend a hand to some random strangers. It's easy & simpler than ever to connect. My friends list is always full & I'm always dropping & adding new people to play with.
 

Omar

Forum Overseer
May 29, 2005
34,262
181
0
37
Addison, TX.
#12
IMO Zipper were one of the best in class as far as level design. If it weren't for the levels, Socom would not have been this popular.

The beauty was that they kept both sides different and yet they were somehow balanced out, for the most part.
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#13
COD is one of those games where it's catered to the person that just wants to join a game and kill as many people in the game as they can. Now, a lot of hardcore COD clans that played COD4 religiously it also catered to. But, the clan basis in Counter-strike was far more superior in every single way compared to the clan basis in Call of Duty. Actually, the same exact thing goes for Battlefield as well and here is why COD and Battlefield bad company fail in every single way. Mainly because the game is NOT user created friendly. COD is now limiting everyone to use one kind of servers, so is Battlefield games, Counter-strike: Source is not, you can get your own.

I don't think it's the amount of weapons these newer games have, well, it's nice to have a good amount of weapons. But the main fact is, these new FPS games are closed sources, not open, they fail in every single way regardless of having a lot of people playing them, they are still inferior FPS games in almost every single way as well, besides graphics.

I will say, the old generation of FPS gamers are getting older, the newer generation of FPS gamers that started playing COD once it came out on the Xbox360 and PS3 are the ones it's catering to. Notice that not many new FPS console gamers are not even giving a "fig" about server browsers, open sources so they can have their very own server and make their own maps? This is the new online group we are getting and to me it's not looking good for the people that have played older games such as Marathon Runner, Counter-strike + mods, etc etc. Remember, Back then there was no little clan tag box, you typed out your clan tag + name, you were not restricted at all. Every single year the FPS multiplayer games get more restricted, more and more. It's going to continue this way for a good while. Inferior in this case has actually managed to pass superior in every single way possible and people still gobble it up.

Pretty much saying that the new generation of FPS players that are coming forth definitely don't have enough marbles in their tiny heads. They want everything easy, they want the game to hold their hands every step of the way.
 
Last edited:

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
28
#14
Thanks for all the great feedback!

Glad to see some great (long) posts :)

I'm working atm, but I will respond to all of them soon lol :D promise ;)
 

TDbank24

Master Guru
Jul 25, 2008
7,202
42
48
34
Boston, MA
#16
I have fond memories of my multiplayer days just playing nothing but Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark over the summer. Those were the days. I still think multiplayer gaming has been taken to a new level though just because online gaming in general has become so amazing. Games like MAG, and Gears of War have really set the bar for me. They take teamwork to a new level. I love the Call of Duty series as well, but i can understand how people get tired of playing the games.
 

zombieking36

Dedicated Member
Mar 6, 2008
1,379
4
0
27
#17
Hm... The online game I played the most, and still have the most fond memories of is Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, the sister game to CoD2. And the reason came from when you were playing team death matches, teams would automatically vie for control of specific points on the map, even though there was no incentive in the game itself. It was purely tactical, and made everything more organized, even though no1 intended it for that. Also, the score could be lifted, etc, now its after 10 minutes ur done no matter what -_- Yet again, a lot of today's multi-player games are not worth having long matches, people would grow tired of the maps of how many of them are made redundant, and full of camping spots. Look at MW2, most of its maps would get irritating based on their complexities and problems with finding people and such, also with people going in with more explosives then a division would have in real life XD

I loved how in CoD2:BRO after your first 8 kills u became a corporal for that game, then a sarge(I dont know how to spell it correctly in full) at 16 kills, and all each did was increase the amount of ammo u spawned with, corporal got whatever classes special, though there was a charge up for most of them, and sarge's just had the special charge up faster. But there was no class editing, and so it was balanced, no garbage that would wreck the pacing and make someone overpowered...
 

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
28
#18
[QUOTE="zombieking36, post: 5233787]Hm... The online game I played the most, and still have the most fond memories of is Call of Duty 2: Big Red One, the sister game to CoD2. And the reason came from when you were playing team death matches, teams would automatically vie for control of specific points on the map, even though there was no incentive in the game itself. It was purely tactical, and made everything more organized, even though no1 intended it for that. Also, the score could be lifted, etc, now its after 10 minutes ur done no matter what -_- Yet again, a lot of today's multi-player games are not worth having long matches, people would grow tired of the maps of how many of them are made redundant, and full of camping spots. Look at MW2, most of its maps would get irritating based on their complexities and problems with finding people and such, also with people going in with more explosives then a division would have in real life XD

I loved how in CoD2:BRO after your first 8 kills u became a corporal for that game, then a sarge(I dont know how to spell it correctly in full) at 16 kills, and all each did was increase the amount of ammo u spawned with, corporal got whatever classes special, though there was a charge up for most of them, and sarge's just had the special charge up faster. But there was no class editing, and so it was balanced, no garbage that would wreck the pacing and make someone overpowered...[/QUOTE]
The BRO was my first console online FPS... such a great game... I miss it greatly

[QUOTE="Bigdoggy, post: 5233107]COD is one of those games where it's catered to the person that just wants to join a game and kill as many people in the game as they can. Now, a lot of hardcore COD clans that played COD4 religiously it also catered to. But, the clan basis in Counter-strike was far more superior in every single way compared to the clan basis in Call of Duty. Actually, the same exact thing goes for Battlefield as well and here is why COD and Battlefield bad company fail in every single way. Mainly because the game is NOT user created friendly. COD is now limiting everyone to use one kind of servers, so is Battlefield games, Counter-strike: Source is not, you can get your own.

I don't think it's the amount of weapons these newer games have, well, it's nice to have a good amount of weapons. But the main fact is, these new FPS games are closed sources, not open, they fail in every single way regardless of having a lot of people playing them, they are still inferior FPS games in almost every single way as well, besides graphics.

I will say, the old generation of FPS gamers are getting older, the newer generation of FPS gamers that started playing COD once it came out on the Xbox360 and PS3 are the ones it's catering to. Notice that not many new FPS console gamers are not even giving a "fig" about server browsers, open sources so they can have their very own server and make their own maps? This is the new online group we are getting and to me it's not looking good for the people that have played older games such as Marathon Runner, Counter-strike + mods, etc etc. Remember, Back then there was no little clan tag box, you typed out your clan tag + name, you were not restricted at all. Every single year the FPS multiplayer games get more restricted, more and more. It's going to continue this way for a good while. Inferior in this case has actually managed to pass superior in every single way possible and people still gobble it up.

Pretty much saying that the new generation of FPS players that are coming forth definitely don't have enough marbles in their tiny heads. They want everything easy, they want the game to hold their hands every step of the way.[/QUOTE]
Very true, everything must be instant and easy... if something is hard, it is not fun... not how it used to be at all

[QUOTE="RawK_Solid, post: 5232582]I agree with a lot you said. The leveling, the perks, the noobtubes, explosives, etc. Most of the time I wish it was just a gun & bullets. Then it would be more skill based & less about who's using what.

As far as the teamwork goes, I completely disagree. If you don't have any friends that you've added online, that's your fault. When you get thrown in a lobby where people play for the objective, ADD THEM. If they have a mic & call out the enemy, ADD THEM. When they complain that nobody is going for the objective & they're one of the only ones who do, ADD THEM. You get a few guys together & you play to win, an amazing thing happens...YOU WIN. And you know what's great? When you get matched up with against a clan or team that plays to win, you get epic battles that are FUN & intense. The whining about the lack of teamwork lies with the people who complain about it because you don't extend a hand to some random strangers. It's easy & simpler than ever to connect. My friends list is always full & I'm always dropping & adding new people to play with.[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, but my point is that reaching out to a random person, should NOT require adding them as a friend, then starting up as a team of just friends, only to accomplish team work. Of course in all games when you play with people you know and trust you will play better, but when you play CS or Socom random strangers are much more likely to act as a team, because the game is set up to do so...
My point was not that I hate the fact that no one acts as a team, my point was that acting as a team is not AT ALL necessary to win team game modes... which proves their pointlessness...

[QUOTE="rbrtchng, post: 5232573]I feel like the current approach with its leveling weapons/gears and its perks and killstreaks would do exactly what you described. Skilled players will absolutely destroy novice players because they would have an advantage in being higher levels with better weapons and better killstreaks. If you take away all of that, make it an even ground, novice players would actually have a chance.

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with advanced players beating amateur players. It's when the game mechanics actually encourages this gap in skill that's the problem. And the great thing about a simpler design is that even if your team is worse than the other team in terms of skill, you can make up for that gap by using teamwork. A well coordinated team would do better than many advance players. So then it becomes a battle of tactics and skill, rather than whoever gets the killstreak first. But this would only be applicable approach if, again, the levels are designed for team tactics and not for visual fidelity, which most games are at this point.

Not to mention, a simple design would encourage casual players to learn. Subconsciously, just by playing against more advanced players, the novices will learn many techniques within any given match. Whereas, if you include all those perks, you'd think that the only reason why you lost was because the other guy had better stuff, which is probably true.

The thing about CS is that, eventually, when a game becomes that ancient and still is one of the most popular online game, pretty much the entire community has become extremely skilled. That means that the gap between a less skilled player is immediately apparent in that game. But for the most part, in any given game, there should be more people who are noobs than there are pros. So that learning the mechanics is much easier in a simple design than in the current complex design.

my 2 cents[/QUOTE]
The best part about games like CS and even Socom, is the obvious skill difference between different servers/game modes... you play in a Gun Game room in CS, and you can train against less skilled players than a regular D2 map for instance. If your playing socom, hop into a respawn and learn how the game works and improve your gun skills.
This is of course almost impossible with Match making that is common now-a-days...


[QUOTE="Teraspark, post: 5232516]There are number of thought provoking points you make about today's multiplayer, Spider.

I'm assumimg you're a hardcore player and so I must you another question. Do you believe that today's multiplayer games such as COD and BC2 will be continuely played by the our casual counterpart if you removed the incentives to play.

What I mean to ask is if the simpler design promotes better teamwork would it not increase the time and personal experience needed to become good. Frankly, I suck at CS and such games and I would need to sink a lot of time into them to become adequately decent. That will have more of an impact on casual players who just wish to have a couple games every other night and still be able to have fun without raging at their screen.

Some of you might just say they just need to man up, play more and get better but the casual gamer doesn't think like hardcore players do.

The point I'm trying to get to in response of your OP is that won't it be unfair to demand making things harder for the casual player just to promote teamwork that will only benefit the enjoyment of the hardcore player?

+rep by the way. :D[/QUOTE]
Ahhh, perfect question :)

You see, I do not want the game to be harder, not in the least.

****, i got to go lol... let me respond to this when I get home lol :D

[QUOTE="higgos22, post: 5232338]This is an extremely good point! You are really spot on the money, it is kinda depressing a game of teams your team winning means nothing it doesnt mean your a better team just your team happened too have guys die less or be better shots you could be meaningless too the team I doubt they would care if you sat in a corner and did nothing all game but not die
This is also a very good point, The idea that you can hide from someone and that is that takes away alot of strategy and makes gameplay slightly more linear like every move is a cliche... Put on some cloak move down middle kill him, rather games where this is not possible are fun as you have too either sneak or try for a good shot or use a team too ambush him
I have never liked perks in game, Often a killstreak will simply lead to a greater kill streak, someone with some chopper is gonna have a far easier time getting more kills then someone on 0 killstreak... This does take away competitiveness a bit, say 3 guys on your team have perks then you are deemed useless to your team cus regardless what you do they are gonna go on a massive killstreak and win it for you[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="BlacJack, post: 5232334]This is an excellent post. Sums up my feelings perfectly. Level designs quite frankly suck lately. Very few games get them right to be fun, engaging, easy to locate, yet still extremely tactical. Games like CoD just throw tons of **** in the map to make it highly confusing, and give players tons of camping spots/corners to hide in. There is no thought behind it.

I never realized in until your post, but I really think you're onto something about recognizable locations. RB6 is full of them too. I think that is one of the simplest ways to get teams to actually work together online. If you can simply say "3 peeps in the red room," and your whole team instantly knows where you mean, that encourages teamwork. SOCOM is the same way.

Anyways, good post. I miss CS and RB6 now. +rep to you and Spider.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="FLASH48, post: 5232330]@ Spider

Plus rep for your rant and completely agree with you.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="FireSol, post: 5232324]oh...how i missed Q3 CTF matches, where every one hold specific zones
or epic team battles on DM6
or when you try catch one man them BAM he did rocket jump and then you shooted from rail

the day before yesterday i had BFBC2 game
winter map, gold rush game type, defending last crates
4-5 enemies hold their position on the lest side from objectives at i was only one person who tried to take them out
i spoted them, but no one helps me

as it was sad in OP ppl more care about getting achievement instead of just getting fun[/QUOTE]
 

RawK_Solid

Dedicated Member
Mar 23, 2008
1,434
12
0
39
#19
[QUOTE="Spider, post: 5233964]
Ahhh, but my point is that reaching out to a random person, should NOT require adding them as a friend, then starting up as a team of just friends, only to accomplish team work. Of course in all games when you play with people you know and trust you will play better, but when you play CS or Socom random strangers are much more likely to act as a team, because the game is set up to do so...
My point was not that I hate the fact that no one acts as a team, my point was that acting as a team is not AT ALL necessary to win team game modes... which proves their pointlessness...
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The objective game modes in COD require teamwork to win most of the time if the other team is worth anything. It's not the way that the game is designed that makes it flawed, it's the gamers that are playing that's the issue.

Back in the day, CS & Socom only had hardcore gamers playing. They understand the game modes & play it to win.

Now, shooters are the #1 genre out right now. With that, you get many more casuals playing & they don't really understand what it takes to win, or they're obsessed with their stats or they just don't care about winning. They just want to play.

Hardcore gamers are extremely competitive. Casuals just want to have fun. It comes with the territory.

Now with the lack of specific lobbies like you posted about in your thread, there is definitely a lack of continuity from segregating casuals vs. hardcore gamers. I used to think it was to keep the leaderboards more even, but the leaderboards are a joke anyways. It would be nice for us to set up lobbies like KZ2 allowed and outlaw noobtubes or whatever in COD.
 

Bigdoggy

Master Guru
Jan 24, 2008
7,250
58
0
39
#20
[QUOTE="RawK_Solid, post: 5234029]I disagree. The objective game modes in COD require teamwork to win most of the time if the other team is worth anything. It's not the way that the game is designed that makes it flawed, it's the gamers that are playing that's the issue.

Back in the day, CS & Socom only had hardcore gamers playing. They understand the game modes & play it to win.

Now, shooters are the #1 genre out right now. With that, you get many more casuals playing & they don't really understand what it takes to win, or they're obsessed with their stats or they just don't care about winning. They just want to play.

Hardcore gamers are extremely competitive. Casuals just want to have fun. It comes with the territory.

Now with the lack of specific lobbies like you posted about in your thread, there is definitely a lack of continuity from segregating casuals vs. hardcore gamers. I used to think it was to keep the leaderboards more even, but the leaderboards are a joke anyways. It would be nice for us to set up lobbies like KZ2 allowed and outlaw noobtubes or whatever in COD.[/QUOTE]


I have to disagree about the whole hardcore thing and how most of it was hardcore players. There were a lot of hardcore CS gamers out there but the majority were definitely casual. infact, a lot of casual gamers play FPS games back then and they continue to play them today. CS was catered to both and was enjoyed by both groups (casual and hardcore). However, if you wanted to make maps, you needed the map tool plus you had to figure out or read someones tutorial on how to create those maps. Over time mods were created by people. All mappacks were basically free. What Valve actually brought with counter-strike that every FPS game fails to do today, all these companies making FPS games fail to create a tight community that was around with CS, TFC, DoD, and maybe Firearms. COD4 was good and you could almost do all those things but the Tight clan to clan community wasn't there, they were and still are with CS 1.6 or CS:S.

I have always said this though, if Valve came out with another Counter-strike game, say goodbye to the CoD loyal fanbase. The people at Valve know what FPS gamers want and that is freedom of names and clan names, freedom to make maps and have others download them, freedom to rent servers so you can host your own CS games, freedom to make any type of spray paint that you want, including nude chicks unless there are rules about it on someone's server. So much freedom in CS alone that it dwarfs the new FPS games that are coming out today.

The issue is both the gamers and the developers. The developers for FPS games this gen are nothing more then softcore wimps that need to start wearing diapers because everything is "OH SO HARD TO CREATE" which in turn insults themselves and also insults the gamers.

Killzone 2 had a server browser but now Killzone 3 will be matchmaking, this is exactly what I am talking about, they always take away features. matchmaking systems suck no matter what, it's one of the worse things to happen to FPS games.
 

Spider

Elite Sage
Jul 16, 2008
12,260
8
0
28
#21
[QUOTE="RawK_Solid, post: 5234029]I disagree. The objective game modes in COD require teamwork to win most of the time if the other team is worth anything. It's not the way that the game is designed that makes it flawed, it's the gamers that are playing that's the issue.

Back in the day, CS & Socom only had hardcore gamers playing. They understand the game modes & play it to win.

Now, shooters are the #1 genre out right now. With that, you get many more casuals playing & they don't really understand what it takes to win, or they're obsessed with their stats or they just don't care about winning. They just want to play.

Hardcore gamers are extremely competitive. Casuals just want to have fun. It comes with the territory.

Now with the lack of specific lobbies like you posted about in your thread, there is definitely a lack of continuity from segregating casuals vs. hardcore gamers. I used to think it was to keep the leaderboards more even, but the leaderboards are a joke anyways. It would be nice for us to set up lobbies like KZ2 allowed and outlaw noobtubes or whatever in COD.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Teraspark, post: 5232516]There are number of thought provoking points you make about today's multiplayer, Spider.

I'm assumimg you're a hardcore player and so I must you another question. Do you believe that today's multiplayer games such as COD and BC2 will be continuely played by the our casual counterpart if you removed the incentives to play.

What I mean to ask is if the simpler design promotes better teamwork would it not increase the time and personal experience needed to become good. Frankly, I suck at CS and such games and I would need to sink a lot of time into them to become adequately decent. That will have more of an impact on casual players who just wish to have a couple games every other night and still be able to have fun without raging at their screen.

Some of you might just say they just need to man up, play more and get better but the casual gamer doesn't think like hardcore players do.

The point I'm trying to get to in response of your OP is that won't it be unfair to demand making things harder for the casual player just to promote teamwork that will only benefit the enjoyment of the hardcore player?

+rep by the way. :D[/QUOTE]
Sigh, both times I have tried to respond to these... I write like 7 graphs of response, and then i lose it all when trying to post... haha

Ill try again lol
 
Last edited:

Teraspark

Mostly Indifferent
Nov 4, 2009
1,106
5
0
30
Staffordshire
#22
[QUOTE="Spider, post: 5235118]Sigh, both times I have tried to respond to these... I write like 7 graphs of response, and then i lose it all when trying to post... haha

Ill try again lol[/QUOTE]

Hurry up! I wanna get this get this debate moving. ;)