PC shooters

[Slimebeast]

mirgro said:

Slimebeast said:

mirgro said:

Slimebeast said:

mirgro said:

 

That is absolutely false. Look at Counter-Strike or Battlefield 1942. They are much better than the modern FPS games, and are more realistic than Bad Company 2 as well.

Also, your realstic games take almost no skill and a whole lot of luck. UT and Quake showed actual skill in the FPS genre. Just because you couldn't handle doesn't mean it's bad. Basically, UT/Quake are the Formula 1 of FPS games, Counter-Strike/BF1942 and so on would be NASCAR, and Halo/CoD/etc. are just your street races using Nissan Altimas.

Counter-Strike is shit. But whatever floats your boat.

I actually fully agree. But it's laughable you don't think modern games aren't shit because Counter-Strike is twice the game any modern shooter you can name. That should tell you just how bad modern shooters have gotten.

But I do admit, CS and the newer shittier counterparts, have their use. I can't play more than 1-3 games of UT or Quake because when it comes down to me and another guy and the last few frags for the win, astounding amounts of adrenaline shoot through my system. It's absolutely awesome and badass, but after those several games at the top of my game my hands start shaking and I have to stop. No other FPS I have played has ever come even close to the amount of adrenaline that I get through my system as those moments in UT and Quake.

I guess saying they are bad isn't the right word. They are just a huge bore compared to the shooters of yore. Then again, boring in entertainment terms could be classified as bad. Before you begin to argue about how this is an opinion or not. You can directly measure the amount of adrenaline in your system, and I'm willing to bet my left nut that UT/Quake have much higher adrenaline levels than any modern shooter.

Ok, this I can agree with.

I don't deny that Quake & UT are games that award skills. Of course they are. Those games are made to separate the wheat from the chaff.

My main point was that I like realism in games. And the side effect of 'dumbing' down just happens to be that shooters become more realistic.

But now that you adress the topic of skill, I wanna comment that I actually like the fact when games try to level the playing field and increase the chances for bad players. You see by nature humans have very different skills so I think it's cool that games try to compensate for that so that the competition becomes more exciting. It's got nothing, or at least very little, to do with my personal skills. Back in the day I was average at fast paced shooters including Quake 2&3 online. I was well above average in Return to Castle Wolfenstein/Enemy Territory. I am average at ET: Quake Wars. At the moment I am average, or slightly below average, at Bad Company 2 on PC. So it's got nothing to do with my 'personal gain' frag-wise.

Alright! Someone who sees sense and I can talk to.

You know, I hadbn't fully thought about the fact people have different skills and I fully understand where you are coming from. I play CS and BC2 right now because I just can't handle the fast ones 24/7. Constant adrenaline can't be good for my system, but damn it feels great.

The thing that annoys me is that, someone will say they have more FPS skill in BC2, because they had a better score than me in BC2. Which is simply not true. I can sit behind a tank and repair it for a long while and once gained over 500 points form a single tank like that. Meanwhile to get those points by just killing people would mean that I need to kill about 10 people without a headshot or any def/att killls. That's when it greatly irks me, because there's a large chance I'd sweep the floor with said engineer when we play when nothing matters but the one basic skill in FPS games, shooting.

Generally though, if I wanted to use the skill of strategy or tactics instead of shooting, I usually boot up DoW2 or Total War. They require a whole lot more tactics and strategy than even BC2 or CS or any shooter. You are also not rushed, but don't have unlimited time as well to formulate and execute.

 

Edit: A little more thinking and I realized that the consoles don't have strategy games. Their limited control schemes just cannot handle a proper strategy game even if they wanted to, not even half-assedly like the way they handle shooters. If proper strategy games, not JRPGs because that is as close to a strategy as you will ever get on a console,  started coming out then a big chunk of the shooter base may rethink its priorities. This is another way I blame the limited control scheme of consoles. Because they can't handle strategy games, they have to slowdown and implement strategy into shooters and consequently make meh shooters seem great.

Heh, but it's so obvious in BC2 that Engineers easily get incredible scores from just repairing. I would not use score as an argument when comparing player skills, I thought no one did in BC2. K/D is much more important, but even that is hard to use as a metric since there's some overpowered guns and tactics in BC2(the Carl Gustav-guys, and the M60 & also the noob-tube to some extent). Also, you can be a very sneaky and cautious player in BC2, avoiding getting killed and thus getting a high K/D, but it don't necessarily mean that you are skilled.

I understand your craving for the adrenaline kicks. It's not good for your health in the long run though.