Poll: Do FPS games with "realistic" damage take skill?

[brumby]

if you think modern warfare 2 is hard, you'd be fucked if you tried playing s.t.a.l.k.e.r.

its either kill or be killed, shoot first or die first.

so rewarding when you finish that game

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

You're bending the definition of skill to mouse turn accuracy, camping often count as tactics, even if they are gay. (from the amount I read it seemed like that's more or less what you were dissing, the idea that whoever sees the other first is the winner, hence hiding and being ready to push the trigger will often win) That doesn't mean I count campers as revolutionary tacticians of any sort, but skill is somewhat measured by success, isn't it?

If anything, MW2 is too easy, when I do approach it occasionally due to friends playing it I'll restrict myself to using knives, simply cause even if my K ratio is 1:10, my kill is still sooo much more impressive then Pick-a-boo. (course in your measure of skill, reflexes and 'accuracy' I'm the equivalent of a handicapped rabbit)

I don't know why rabbit, it just seemed to flow.

Well I kind of see your point, but tactics and skill are two different things. in a game with damage ratios like that "skill" would kind of be limited to bullet accuracy because one burst from an M16 and you're dead. I would define it as the course of actions taken when engaging the enemy. In a game like halo skill would equate to accuracy when shooting a moving target, how you react and attempt to avoid while being shot, getting into range of a melee attack (if necessary), well aimed grenade throws, getting into cover to avoid death ect. because these are all courses of actions and options you can make while in almost any gunfight, and there are counteractions your enemy can take against them. In CoD a gunfight equates to "BANG!" Dead.

a throwing knife kill takes a lot of skill and is extremely satisfying, and I do things like that because I care more about having fun then the competitive part of the game, but even then, you're sort of intentionally gimping yourself, and it doesn't change that someone with an M16 can walk up behind you and shoot you

 

[ElTigreSantiago]

Well Guitarmasterx7, I feel the exact same way as you do about the whole skill thing. The guy at the top of list with all the killstreak rewards was either camping, or he got really lucky.

But don't call this game realistic for a second. As a gun owner and enthusiast, I could list literally for hours everything that is unrealistic about this game.

such as?

Sentry guns don't exist. You don't put silencers on shotguns, .50 cal snipers or light machine guns (Light machine guns are designed to put out a lot of fire, scare the crap out of your enemy and keep their heads down. Not to be silent killers in the distance.) Unless you are some kind of god, you will NOT be able to fire the Barret while standing up, or even crouching. Any time the weapon is used in real life (and with most other snipers) the weapon is on a bypod. You will not survive a shot from a .50 caliber sniper PERIOD, weather it's in the pinky toe or the head. The bullet could miss you by 2 inches and you would STILL be violently dismembered. That is the sheer power of the bullet, "stopping power" or not. Using the Barret, the Intervention or the Desert Eagle would be completely ineffective, unless you are in a comfortable prone position that would likely take 3 to 4 minutes to make, and that's just for the rifles. There is no reasonable use of a Desert Eagle. If you tried to "Akimbo" guns firing .50 Action Express, you would loose the guns and likely break your wrist after the first shot. You cannot "Akimbo" any weapon effectively. Full Metal Jacket (or FMJ in the game) does NOT add stopping power to your bullet. It just has a coat of metal on it, so it goes right through your target without damaging its organs, while other rounds split apart inside your target and get all kinds of nasty shrapnel in their body. Weapons that use the same round in this game do different damage, such as the M4, M16 and the SAW. In real life it have the exact same effect on a target because it is the same round. All the weapons you use would have a MUCH higher recoil, and it takes longer to aim a target. No one in the world is as accurate as the player in Call of Duty. Soldiers don't just run around and shoot each other in war. A shotgun could kill you from 100 yards away, but in this game your safe at about 10. You can't regenerate from bullets, so one shot from any weapon in this game would take you out of the fight. You don't get air support from getting kills, and you can't control your air support.

There is much more but I have to go.

 

[omega_peaches]

Yes, they do, why?
ONE FRICKIN BULLET HURTS A LOT.

 

[Marter]

I think games can take skill, especially the ones with little reaction time given.

 

[rockingnic]

It takes skill to master tactics that are effective for certain games. The skill required to master one game, won't always be the same for another.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I want a game where the 'realism' includes having the player's character take an hour to die gurgling in agony from a sucking chest wound.

 

[Limzz]

The first modern warfare, YES. The second, NO. Not to be a dick but I was really good at COD 4. Didn't buy 6 at first because I was pissed about all the gimmicks but friends kept saying it was really good so I went ahead and tried it out. Tactics I used in the previous game were now obsolete. I still had filthy aim but the camper friendlyness was overpowering. There is literally no skill required in this game. If you camp and camp well, you will do great every time. If you try to actually venture out into the map you might do well, but cannot defend against good camping. Long story short it's all in the implementation.

 

[shotgunbob]

Depends

Getting Kills - Easier

Staying Alive - Harder

 

[Kawatoo]

I would love to see the average CoD player play Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on realism. One sniper bullet anywhere your dead. Shot in the head your dead. Take more than 5 bullets your dead. Amazing game though

 

[Worgen]

If you think MW2 is too realistic, a genuine simulation would likely blow your mind.

I remember SWAT 4 of all games had some ridiculously fun multiplayer when it first came out despite the occasionally grueling realism (Which is still less realistic than many other games!). Indeed the way one bullet could kill if you got unlucky added a whole new layer of strategy, especially in modes like... damn, what was the name? Escort? One team had to escort a 'very' lightly armed civvy player to a designated point while the other team had to capture and hold that civvy for something like 5 min to win. If one team accidentally killed him, which only took one stray bullet, they'd lose.

The result was the 'only' online fps I've ever played where players were using genuine tactics to win. Move slowly from room to room, deploying stun grenades and tear gas, lay down suppressing fire, the whole shebang. Your typical run & gun like you get in MW2 was just stupid suicide, it simply didn't work in a game where your default speed in a steady saunter and the weapons are fairly accurately represented; meaning you can't hit shit shooting from the hip while running around like a monkey on steroids whereas a slow & steady player could kill with a single well-aimed shot from across the room and be gone before anyone knew what happened. Some of the best online matches I've ever played were in that game, certainly the most intense.

And the *best* players were the ones who didn't kill at all. The ultimate insult was to be subdued and handcuffed. Anyone with a trigger finger can shoot, but when one player properly deploys a stun grenade and alternates tazing the rooms dazed occupants while cuffing them one by one... those were the masters. Frustrating as hell when it happened to you, but oh so very satisfying when you do it to someone else.

oh man that sounds awesome, Id love to see fps multi player like that but like if your killed then you can respawn but if your arrested your effed

 

[superbatranger]

Hell, how about a game that does realistic damage? Get hit in the shoulder and you can't fully use that particular arm. You know, stuff like that.

OT: I think they do take skill for the most part. Whenever I play Rainbow Six: Vegas on Realistic with a friend we had to work as a team. Anything else and we usually didn't finish the level.

 

[Shynobee]

Now you might argue that the skill aspect comes into play with where you're going to position yourself or how you're going to sneak up on the other players. I would say that isn't skill, because you really have no idea where the other players are going to go or what they're going to do, so if you manage to kill them that's pretty much all luck. Even if you work out a really good strategy, tactics don't have anything to do with skill. Sure, a professional UFC fighter could beat the crap out of me head on, but if he didn't know where I was and I had a gun it doesn't matter how good at fighting he is.

Ok, this here seems to be the crux of your whole argument, and I gotta say, its pretty weak at best.

Firstly, I have to disagree with your statement that knowing where to be on a map is all luck and no skill.

Let's take Wasteland for example. Now, for me, Waste land has 4 major parts; (1) the one side with two houses and the helipad area in the far back corner, (2) the quarter with the little cemetary area, (3) the other quarter south of the cemetary area, and (4) the underground section.

Now, there are many strategies that can come into play here, and it involves mostly predicting how the other team/players are playing. A common scenario is the enemy team having two or more snipers in the houses in zone 1, laying down heavy fire from inside one of the houses. They are probably going to have T.I.'s in place, so simply counter sniping them won't work. One option would be to head into zone 4 via the ditch in zone 2, and launch some explosives into the house, hopefully killing the snipers and taking out the TI's. If that doesn't work, you could head through zones 2, 4, and 3 via the trenches, and flank the snipers.

There's countless other possible scenarios that could play out that you can only learn the playing the game, and becoming more skilled. Not just on luck.

Also, your analogy on the UFC fighter and a gun really doesn't fit the scenario. Because if you sneak up on someone in MW2, they are going to also have a gun. They might also have UAV, making them more difficult to sneak up on, they can also hear your footsteps if they have the volume on, making them even more difficult to sneak up on. And, if they are playing smart, they will check their corners and their backs regularly. All of this makes flanking a skilled player rather difficult. And if you do flank someone, while luck can be a factor, it is certainly not the only factor in play.

So overall, yes, luck can play a part in getting kills, but it is certainly not the major factor, as you can never do great in any game relying on luck alone.

 

[Koeryn]

if it was realistic you would die after being shot once

I reject your 'reality' and replace it with reality. Where men like the Simo Hayha, and I was going to list more, but fuck it.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-*****.html Cracked.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I prefer those, and only play CoD on hardcore mode. Games where you empty a clip into someone and they are still alive (CoD not on hardcore, Halo, etc) piss me off. And yes, it is possible to turn and kill them, even if they see you first. Got into a debate with someone about that the other night. I find dying from getting shot once in the back a lot less annoying then shooting someone with a rocket, then they run behind a rock and are back to full health. Those games like Halo where you have massive amount of health would be so much better if it didn't recharge.

but thats the whole point? it makes 1 v 1's much more even, as each time you kill someone your health will recharge in a few seconds so each encounter is balanced and fair. what is so wrong with this? i know its not realistic, if i want realistic, i would go shoot outside.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

MW2 takes skill. Well, I mean it takes skill if you count sitting in a corner until you get a Pave low as "skill". Otherwise, no. No skill at all. CoD4 took skill because you could actually react to shots and camping wasn't as prevalent (due to the lack of completely ridiculous killstreaks).