Moving in such a way that you see your enemy first IS a skill.
Timing grenade throws? A skill.
Also, TEAMWORK is a skill, the ability to synchronize your attack.
Use all three to develop strategies.
Regardless of the "realism", we develop skills based on the available world environment.
Your argument presupposes aimless wandering around the map and no concept of where the enemy could be. Admittedly, I have seen players do this, but they are not good players and get fragged quick.
Well if they didn't take skil and planing then why the hell are we all not in MLG. Besides the only realistic Multiplayer shooters that I know exist all start with the words Tom Clancy.
Red Orchestra, ArmA MP, and game mods like Project Reality force you to use more tactical thinking and be more alert, But I don't think they require any more skill than a regular shooter. Just more thought and less charging.
If you're looking to improve your COD playstyle, my best tip for you is to try to stay behind your team and act as support. Any campers will go after or be dealt with by your teammates. You should be able to determine where the enemy team is even without radar based on where your team is. Just stick behind them and move up as they move up, using cover and you'll do fine.
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.
I never thought it took skill to win in video games. I don't see much strategy in CoD and Halo, it's all reaction time to me.
The only game I've ever played that really takes "skill" is company of heroes, which is an RTS.
I don't know where you got the idea that MW2 was a realistic game, because its not at all.
IRL ONE bullet kills, not 35 hundred in a spray. IRL battle takes place at usually 100-500 METERS, not feet or inches, METERS. Therefor its all skill because you have to be able to fire your gun open site at that range ad still hit your target.
What im getting at is MW2 isnt a realistic game, your movement is fater, your guns are a hell of a lot less powerfull, there is no recoil at all, and the maps are so damned close together.
Go play a game like Arma or maybe even Operation Flashpoint Dragon Rising, then you'll get a better feel of what a "realistic" game is.
MW2 is fun, but I've felt the same way about online shooters being essentially about who sees who first. That's why I love TF2; it encourages you to be strategic and play your role without punishing you with instant death every time an enemy sees you.
I agree with Citrus
CoD game is just shoot em' up and majority of the people camp (everyone camps now and then, but i'm talking about the people who do it ALL the time)
Other shooters make you group up and use your special abilities to complete objectives. Such as Team Fortress, Enemy Territory games (though most of them dont do it) etc.
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.
If every enemy was onscreen, and easy to see, it wouldn't take as much skill. All those things you chalk up to luck are things which other players try to control for very, very carefully.
The point, and the matter of skill, is that you are aware of your surroundings. You have to position yourself in such a way that others can't get a shot on you to begin with, while you can. You get the advantage through flanking, cover, etc. The margins are more narrow, and the risk versus reward factor is high. There is always the possibility that a few stray bullets will end even the best of position and setup, but the point of the game is being consistent. If you play well, you will have a much smaller chance of dying, which will help your and the teams score that much more. It's like balancing a bowling pin on your nose versus steering a ship. Both require skill, but one requires quick, rapid adjustment and a very fine line between success and failure, the other requires more long term, slow planning of more elaborate strategies. There just different.
Ok, so I've been playing MW2 a lot for the last few days, and I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to be "good" at it because it's more of a complicated game of hide and go seek than a measure of skill.
So lets look at it this way. There are basically 3 scenarios for MW2, Confrontation (both players see each other) Flanking (one player sees another unsuspecting player) and Camping (one player stays in one spot and either one of these scenarios can be the result)
Confrontation is the closest thing to a competition of skill games like this have. Basically, because you both see each other, the first person to aim and fire is going to win. Most people like me have been playing mostly FPS games for the last 3-6 years, and can pretty much immediately look down the sights of their M16 and kill someone, so two players of functional level of skill doing this would leave the victor to be the person who's reticule was closer when the two players encountered each other.
Flanking really gives no chance to the player who can't see the other player. Unless by some miracle you're unknowingly already on a running path to some very near cover, you get shot from somewhere you can't see and you're dead before you even have the chance to react. On games like Halo or TF2, yes, having someone sneak up on you is a disadvantage, but unless you let the person get literally within punching distance it's still possible to try to retaliate or retreat in some way when you're being shot at.
Camping is pretty much making your whole strategy about taking someone out before they see you. So obviously if you don't see a camper and they see you, you have zero chance to defend yourself. Likewise, if you sneak up on a camper they usually die before knowing you're there.
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.
Anyways this is why I find it strange when people say halo takes no skill and then bring up CoD as a counterpoint, or when people back in CoD 4 would ***** and moan about juggernaut making it possible to survive 3 bullets instead of 2. When I point this out most people retort with something something like "WELL THEN GO PLAY HARDCORE PUSSY" which doesn't really make sense to me because removing the radar makes the game even more "hide and seek" oriented, and it's not that I suck at the game because I usually come out of games with a K/D of like, 24/17, but of those deaths 9 out of 10 times it's from somewhere offscreen. Maybe it's just my playstyle? I dunno.
I could probably go off about this all day but this is getting way too lengthy as is so
TL;DR version
Since you die so quickly in games like this it gives you no chance to defend yourself if you get shot from offscreen, and any player worth his salt can immediately aim and kill a player he does see, making the game more of a "who sees who first" scenario then a competition of skill.
Do you agree, or is there something I'm missing here?
Disclaimer: I actually like MW2 because it does feel very satisfying when you kill someone and it is a fun game to play. It's just not one that I think should be taken seriously. But hey, it's a videogame right?
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)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
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)