They take skill you cannot get when using a controller. The unrealistic can be more realistic. The only realistic fps I know that is good is a military training one.
Poll: Do FPS games with "realistic" damage take skill?
- Thread starter Guitarmasterx7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I hate to be picky, but did anyone else notice that the poll doesn't make sense? The question is "Does this game take skill?" Answer one is "Yes" which would imply that the answer is "Yes, they take skill." However, answer two is "No, they take skill." So...both answers mean they take skill?
OT: Sniping takes skill, depending on what you're trying to do. Blowing someone's head off from across the map, that takes skill. Beating you're enemy to the kill with a sniper rifle from across the room when they've already sighted on you: skill. Killing an entire team from one spot when they keep charging you before you have a chance to reposition because they hope something different will happen this time: Funny. Caring more about your kill count than tactics or you death count: no skill, no fun.
OT: Sniping takes skill, depending on what you're trying to do. Blowing someone's head off from across the map, that takes skill. Beating you're enemy to the kill with a sniper rifle from across the room when they've already sighted on you: skill. Killing an entire team from one spot when they keep charging you before you have a chance to reposition because they hope something different will happen this time: Funny. Caring more about your kill count than tactics or you death count: no skill, no fun.
This man would like to speak with you. => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwu3ivAJ68UElTigreSantiago said:
On another front, CoD4 and MW2 both take a fair degree of skill, for arguments already made in previous posts. Mostly, in my eyes, the skill comes in knowing where to go and when, and predicting where the other guy will most likely head to. Picking the right choke point to wait at to get the drop on the other guy is only luck if you don't know the map or don't care to think about common traffic in game.
And on that SWAT game, that sounds freakin' awesome.
Welcome to Red Orchestra, where you can be killed instantly by somebody you diden't see, miles, to inche's away.Skullkid4187 said:
Just like real life.
EDIT: oh hell yes do they take skill, It takes the skill of knwoing your weapon, knowing the map, and knwoing your enemy.
So essentialy, like every other FPS.
Games like Call of Cthulhu are way more realistic than CoD4, despite the fact it has Yithian overlords in the game.AkJay said:
You should probably make the word "damage" in the title all capitals so people stop moaning about how unrealistic the game is.
And definitely it takes skill. Strategy IS a skill. I don't particularly feel like rehashing what people have already said, so I'll just quote the good posts, and bold the extra good bits.
What system do you play on by the way? 'Cause I also think it's a very fun game, regardless of the somewhat random nature of it. If you're on the Xbox, we should play some time.
And definitely it takes skill. Strategy IS a skill. I don't particularly feel like rehashing what people have already said, so I'll just quote the good posts, and bold the extra good bits.
Halaxis said:
Nevyrmoore said:
Basically, I agree with your general assessment of how the game is played, that is, the three possible scenarios, but I disagree about whether or not it takes skill, it most certainly does. Otherwise newcomers would have the same average scores as pros, which is quite simply not the case. It is definitely a skill to anticipate where the enemy will be, and plan a strategy accordingly.ctrl-alt-postal said:
What system do you play on by the way? 'Cause I also think it's a very fun game, regardless of the somewhat random nature of it. If you're on the Xbox, we should play some time.
Don't kid yourselves, there's no reaction time skill... in that game if you're being shot at, you're dead.
There is camping skill though, knowing where to hide and such, but frankly that's far too boring for me to ever want to learn.
There is camping skill though, knowing where to hide and such, but frankly that's far too boring for me to ever want to learn.
The major standpoint of that type of FPS games is that they force you to take cover. And that makes shoot-outs more realistic (apart from your mutant healing factor) and tactical. This is void in MW2 however when usually 2/3 of the server have a 3-bar connection and the 1/3 with a 4-bar connection have a ~100ms advantage over them.
With a 3-bar connection i can't stand my ground in direct confrontation with the host and can't take cover in time. While when i'm host or with a 4-bar connection in MW2, i can very easily kill those with a 3-bar connection in direct confrontation. By the time they see me and aim down their sights i've aimed, shot them and reloaded. And when i'm shot i can take cover in time, allowing me to heal and reposition. It feels unfair in both situations.
To conclude, i find that system optimal, but it can't work without a dedicated server. It's very reliable on reaction time and every moment counts. A ~100ms difference is ridiculous and is why there is no real MW2 comptetitve play.
With a 3-bar connection i can't stand my ground in direct confrontation with the host and can't take cover in time. While when i'm host or with a 4-bar connection in MW2, i can very easily kill those with a 3-bar connection in direct confrontation. By the time they see me and aim down their sights i've aimed, shot them and reloaded. And when i'm shot i can take cover in time, allowing me to heal and reposition. It feels unfair in both situations.
To conclude, i find that system optimal, but it can't work without a dedicated server. It's very reliable on reaction time and every moment counts. A ~100ms difference is ridiculous and is why there is no real MW2 comptetitve play.
Just patience. If it 10 - 20 sec respawns you would have to camp like a ************.
MW2 has a, what, 2 - 3 sec respawn time?
MW2 has a, what, 2 - 3 sec respawn time?
Yes, it does take skill, but there is an upper limit to this. In a game as exceedingly lethal as MW2, the learned skills fall into two discreet categories:
1) Situation awareness - the combiation of intimate map knowledge and current battlespace conditions. This skill is primarily used in order to ensure that the player is in the best possible position and their weapon is pointed in the most probable direction of the enemy.
2) Target Acqusition - 90% (or more) of this game is won or lost based on who fires first. When properly used, Situation Awareness will grant an edge in a percentage of encounters. The ability to rapidly acquire targets (that is, maneuver a weapon reticle over the target and then fire) will help ensure an advantage in a wider number of engagements.
The rest that people might cite - weapon selection, maneuver and the rest, are ultimately more or less irrelevant. Any weapon in the game is more than capable of being extremely lethal and thus weapon selection is a matter of personal preference. In extreme cases, weapon selection becomes a subset of situational awareness - afterall, bringing nothing more than a shotgun on very large, open map will limit the number of encounters that are likely to result in a favorable outcome.
The trouble is, when attempting to determine if skill is involved in such a game, you will find that even a very highly skilled player will only achieve a kill/death ratio of perhaps 2:1 (the highest I've ever seen was 2.01:1). Simply put, because the world is so lethal, the advantages conferred through skill only offer an increased probability of overcoming any enemy, and even an absolute newbie can easily kill a highly skilled player if conditions are correct. Worse still, one's success in many game mode hinges heavily upon the actions of other players on the team. Even a highly skilled player cannot routinely hope to successfully engage multiplayer players or cover multiple directions at a time. Add the wide assortment of superweapons inherent to the game into the mix and the edge provided by skill deteroriates further.
In less realistic games (such as Quake 3), you'll find that the advantage conferred by skill to be enormousWere a top level player to battle against one of the unskilled masses for example, the odds of the unskilled player getting a kill are incredibly remote
In short, yes skill matters, but because of a combination of factors it does not matter as much as it does in other games.
1) Situation awareness - the combiation of intimate map knowledge and current battlespace conditions. This skill is primarily used in order to ensure that the player is in the best possible position and their weapon is pointed in the most probable direction of the enemy.
2) Target Acqusition - 90% (or more) of this game is won or lost based on who fires first. When properly used, Situation Awareness will grant an edge in a percentage of encounters. The ability to rapidly acquire targets (that is, maneuver a weapon reticle over the target and then fire) will help ensure an advantage in a wider number of engagements.
The rest that people might cite - weapon selection, maneuver and the rest, are ultimately more or less irrelevant. Any weapon in the game is more than capable of being extremely lethal and thus weapon selection is a matter of personal preference. In extreme cases, weapon selection becomes a subset of situational awareness - afterall, bringing nothing more than a shotgun on very large, open map will limit the number of encounters that are likely to result in a favorable outcome.
The trouble is, when attempting to determine if skill is involved in such a game, you will find that even a very highly skilled player will only achieve a kill/death ratio of perhaps 2:1 (the highest I've ever seen was 2.01:1). Simply put, because the world is so lethal, the advantages conferred through skill only offer an increased probability of overcoming any enemy, and even an absolute newbie can easily kill a highly skilled player if conditions are correct. Worse still, one's success in many game mode hinges heavily upon the actions of other players on the team. Even a highly skilled player cannot routinely hope to successfully engage multiplayer players or cover multiple directions at a time. Add the wide assortment of superweapons inherent to the game into the mix and the edge provided by skill deteroriates further.
In less realistic games (such as Quake 3), you'll find that the advantage conferred by skill to be enormousWere a top level player to battle against one of the unskilled masses for example, the odds of the unskilled player getting a kill are incredibly remote
In short, yes skill matters, but because of a combination of factors it does not matter as much as it does in other games.
Depends on the game, level setup, weapon effectiveness, tactical level, gamemode...
Aliens vs. Predator 2 never has this problem, because everyone is completely different and you have to react to different enemies in different ways.
Unless it's a Queen or a Heavy Predator, in which case you need to run.
Unlees you're behind them, then you can just hit them with something powerful and then run.
Aliens vs. Predator 2 never has this problem, because everyone is completely different and you have to react to different enemies in different ways.
Unless it's a Queen or a Heavy Predator, in which case you need to run.
Unlees you're behind them, then you can just hit them with something powerful and then run.
I've never understood "hardcore" modes for FPS games. I get why people want to play them. Because it is more realistic and you need to be more aware of your surroundings. To me, hardcore modes take all of the skill out of the game. It just turns it into a boring campfest since you know if you try to run out into the open you'll get shot once or twice and die by someone you never saw.
In my opinion, multiplayer FPS games should not be realistic. A little bit of realism is fine, but I want to be able to take a few hits before I go down so that I at least have a chance to fight back before I die. At the same time, it shouldn't take an obnoxious amount of hits to kill someone either.
OT: It really depends on the game and how you play it. Some games like MW2 are, like you said, mostly just close range shootouts. Whoever pulls the trigger first usually wins. But there's lots of other games out there that require "skill." My definition of skill is a combination of awareness, reaction time, and ability to use tactics to your advantage.
In my opinion, multiplayer FPS games should not be realistic. A little bit of realism is fine, but I want to be able to take a few hits before I go down so that I at least have a chance to fight back before I die. At the same time, it shouldn't take an obnoxious amount of hits to kill someone either.
OT: It really depends on the game and how you play it. Some games like MW2 are, like you said, mostly just close range shootouts. Whoever pulls the trigger first usually wins. But there's lots of other games out there that require "skill." My definition of skill is a combination of awareness, reaction time, and ability to use tactics to your advantage.
This is the perfect point for it and probably what IW wanted making it.D4zZ said:
You also forgot about the fourth tactic run about the map like a nutter shooting any ***** you see