By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
chocoloco on 05 August 2012
Edit Thread
Kresnik said:
chocoloco said:

CoD does not encourge experimentation in gun style because the skill level is so high you will never master a gun style if you switch styles early on. This is very apparent in the upgrading system as a person has lo log in hours for each gun to upgrade it to it'sfull potential. It takes mastery and is not a pick up and be the best style it requires a lot of play to get good. The "shootout" sty;e is built for any body to pick up and be decent more quickly, I would say. I do agree most guns in each class are useless, but I find many guns with different ratings that work better on different maps. For example, I would have a shorter range scar for close range maps and an ACR for long range maps. The strategy for Cod is different and does not have any less strategy. Shootouts have zero camping and very little snipers which are both styles that add a ton of variety to the game. In fact, I actually think Cod has way more styles due to skill perks, kill streaks, etc. I would say shootout games are way more bare-bone in style other than they have unique weapons.


You're probably right about all that stuff - the last CoD I played was blops nearly a year ago now.  The bit I was referring to about strategy was in the actual gunfights.  In something slightly twitchy and quick like Call of Duty, it's all decided in a couple of seconds, whereas in something like Timesplitters it's going to take half a clip with most guns to kill someone.  Which leads to more strategy, at least in my opinion.  I'm sure in the match as a whole CoD has more strategy because there's much more factors at play.

Uff, you've reminded me as well, kill streaks.  I understand how they add another layer to the game but they really frustrate me, especially when they're not properly balanced.  The attack helicopters in MW2 (I think) really brought the whole game to a standstill for the 30 seconds they were out while everyone just hid.  It got really boring.  Even Halo Reach had a pretty imbalanced perk, if I remember correctly (armor lock?)

It does make me wonder how CoD achieved such popularity over other shooters, though.  I'd have thought something bare-bone (which is kind of true) would appeal to more people because it's easy to dip into whenever you feel like.  Pick a weapon, pick a map and go killing.  In Call of Duty there's all these factors you have to think of before you go into a match, all this practicing you have to do with certain weapons etc.  I guess it's all the levelling/perks/rewards you're given on top of a solid base game that keeps people coming back.

 

 

I never really played timespitters more than once so I can hardly comment on the game. Other than it seemed like a better local coop game than one to play online. Mostly because that is how I played it.

The higher level perks can be annoying. But Frankly, I just think they add something to shoot for as a goal to help you win. Most people who hate them are probably those that never got big enough streaks to get them. And even if they are not your streaks a player can carry a one shot or two missle launcher to quickly eliminate many of the perks that attack from above rather quickly. They only force different strategy.

Arcade shooters were the old thing when Cod came out so at least originally cod and playing online was new. Plus, playing online makes playing with others available even when friends or family cannot, so there is little wonder online shooters have gained more popularity in my eyes. As you mentioned, the perks and rank system do add reward to anyone even if they are not the best so people feel good about playing and adding something new. I would say putting both of those factors together is way it reigns supreme over current arcade shooters even the psuedo-arcade like Halo series.