So you're saying that if we're against the level system we're nintendo fans? Please. Come play me in UT2004 and you'll get schooled by a Nintendo fan.

I don't think that's a comment about the leveling system as much as it's a comment about the idea that stripping weapons from advanced players is a good idea. I'm not sure what that has to do with Nintendo though.

Would you want to be stuck with the lowliest of weapons in UT2004 because you were good at the game? Something's telling me the enjoyment would lower a bit.

I think most do. Rainbow Six Vegas had a leveling system, so did CoD4 (which treyarch copied), and Halo does. No clue if Killzone 2 will. You should get it no matter what though.

The first FPS game I remember playing with a leveling system is Halo 2. I'm sure there were others before that though.

If it meant i get to run around 1 shotting noobs with my shield gun then fukc yeah. That'd be actually awesome.

@Onyxmeth
I repeat myself.
What i prefer is a level playing field
I feel leveling up of experienced players in FPSes is far less logical than imposing a handicap on them( not necessarily weapon degrade).

For how long would that be awesome? Remember I'm not talking about an optional feature here. You are locked out of any weapons but the weapons with the lowest worth forever.

@BringBackChrono-There is no level playing field in online multiplayer. Whether that is a factor of better weapons or a dozen other variables, those with experience will always have a hefty advantage. The weapon advancing is a motivational tool to keep coming back to the multiplayer and bettering themselves for rewards. Everyone that has an unfair advantage was once the noob too, so in essence it's pretty fair. I can put in 20 hours getting moderate wins and loss records in COD while gathering weapons, or I can put in 20 hours getting my ass handed to me in UT but at least I have all the same weapons.

@Onyxmeth
Then i will say we belong to two different schools of thought.
For me, a n00b can become good only by playing regularly against better players, getting a feel of the difference in skills. This estimate is somewhat distorted by presence of an unbalanced weapon system.
For a skilled player, i firmly believe that an added advantage should take something away from the experience. When i got really good at Quake 3,and i felt a game was below my max level, i always used to pick up just a shot gun and stay away from power ups. That makes it interesting, for me as well as the newer players.

wow... there are a lot of responses. in the first half hour i waited for a response it seemed like no one was interested (which i thought was weird considering how popular the genre is).

thanks for the suggestion, but i already have cod4:mw for the ps3. i only played it solo for about a half hour before becoming sick and never picked it up again. i'm tempted to play it again but all my friends who play fps are on the 360... and i only have halo 3 and cod:waw on the 360 and i'm not going to own two copies of the same game (again, i only played about half an hour solo on halo 3)

thank god i gave fps a 4th chance (also bought the first socom on ps2 and it suffered the same fate of 30 minutes). this must mean i'm a glutton for punishment.

i like the leveling system because, as a gamer, i like unlocking stuff even if i don't use it. so if i, the ultimate newbie at fps, was able to make it to lvl 20 in around 10 hrs to open up more guns and perks and still enjoy the experience, then i think the leveling system is good enough for anyone.

i was hoping someone that was on the kz2 beta would have been able to comment on unlocking items. i just watched that slow play opera trailer for kz2 and it looks cool enough that i'll get it anyway - but i hope it copies the leveling system for mulitplayer.

Proper RPG elements in FPS games, such as in Deus Ex, I don't mind but the system in CoD is lame imo for many reasons (of few of which vlad and some other have already mentioned).