Will Doom 4 going to save FPS genre?

[Arnoxthe1]

Has everyone just completely forgotten Serious Sam 3 these days? THAT game was what Doom 3 should have been but no one seems to pay it any mind at all.

 

[Netrigan]

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

Well, that's how it should be. You are what you put into the game. If your bad you should lose all the time until you become good. That's life and that's the whole point of getting good in games. To stop losing and be the one winning most of the time. Common sense is common sense and shouldn't be messed with because people are lazy. Not fair to the guy who put in the hours and time to get good in the first place. How you think I felt when I was the one losing back when there was no other place to go. No matter what game you played you were going to get destroyed by those who deserve to win. Now I put in the work and time and I expect the same rewards of destroying the majority. Time for others to pay their dues like we had too back then. Even if it means by force and against their will.

Common sense is that players will stop playing games they don't think are fun and move toward games which they do. Most of the people playing aren't trying to be The Best, they're just looking to have a bit of fun in their downtime.

And me sucking at a game and managing to put a few points on the board is still losing. You seem to make out like those few points are the end of the world. To me, those few points are the reason to keep playing, to try to get better. I'm still awful, I'm still in dead last, but I'm still showing up to matches and keeping the servers populated and keeping the game alive.

 

[Vigormortis]

Sigh...

Really?

Look. The First-Person Shooter genre does not, repeat: NOT, need saving. All it needs is a little variety.[footnote]But then, what genre doesn't need a little variety nowadays?[/footnote] And frankly, we're already starting to get that. Both within and (especially) without the Triple-A industry.

So...there's really no need for the doom-and-gloom, hyperbolic proclamation of, "This game we know nothing about is going to save a genre that is dying!"

No. The genre isn't "dying" and Doom 4, as intrigued as I am as to how it'll turn out, most likely won't be responsible for much of anything beyond maybe; and I put strong emphasis on maybe; bringing us some modernized nostalgic fun.

 

[Artaneius]

Sigh...

Really?

Look. The First-Person Shooter genre does not, repeat: NOT, need saving. All it needs is a little variety.[footnote]But then, what genre doesn't need a little variety nowadays?[/footnote] And frankly, we're already starting to get that. Both within and (especially) without the Triple-A industry.

So...there's really no need for the doom-and-gloom, hyperbolic proclamation of, "This game we know nothing about is going to save a genre that is dying!"

No. The genre isn't "dying" and Doom 4, as intrigued as I am as to how it'll turn out, mostly likely won't be responsible for much of anything beyond maybe; and I put strong emphasis on maybe; bringing us some modernized nostalgic fun.

I bet a whole bunch of people will snort derisively at this, but Halo saved the FPS genre for me.

And yes, I've played Doom, Heretic, Duke 3D, etc. and none of them interest me. Halo strikes the perfect balance between insane FPSs of yore and the modern shooter. Interesting weapons, great enemy variety, still is decently fast, and requires a good amount of skill.

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

And of course, if that isn't the main reason why you dislike regen systems, please elaborate. Because having played both types of FPSs, I genuinely don't miss shooters that had medkits / health packs.

Because arena shooters like Quake and UT which Doom helped birth allow the more skilled player to win over lesser skilled opponents at all times. Having items and weapons on map allowed those with the most skill to win and create a social hierarchy that pretty much defined the whole reason to get good in fps in the first place. Nowadays, it means nothing to be good because anyone can get kills with ease. No items on the map means no map control. Matchmaking systems also destroyed the hierarchy where the most skilled dominated the online scene and gave lesser skilled players a false sense of entitlement.

In online competitive gaming, the whole point of getting good is to pwn. Without being able to pwn because casuals had to be appeased, makes little to no point in dedicating the time and hours to master FPS games now. Maybe Doom 4 will finally change that and bring back the golden days of casuals and noobs being pwned 24/7 as should be. Maybe dedicating hundreds and thousands of hours into games will mean something again when the social hierarchy of the elite gamers is brought back.

And trust me if it does come back, I think casuals will feel the full wrath of the competitive gamers in their rightous fury. Too many years even decades wasted having games appease the masses has made most old school competitive gamers very pissed. They will have their revenge if the new UT, Doom 4, and others come. And I personally will gladly take part of it. There will be bloodshed in online gaming that no real life genocide could ever match. We will finally have our fps back and those that took it away will pay for it. Their entertainment hours will be filled of ragequitting and filled with throwing controllers.

The problem with Old School games is a skilled player can dominate a map to such a degree that it simply isn't fun for less skilled players. Getting dominated and shut-out isn't fun.

Modern shooters let novice players get a few points while getting their butts handed to them by better players. They're still going to lose (and lose big), but getting a handful of lucky kills makes the experience much, much more enjoyable.

I'm more of a mid-pack kind of guy when it comes to competitive multiplayer. I used to slip on-line a bit to play Quake and I think the last game I ever played was against someone who was so far above me that I simple could not enjoy myself. Someone so far above me that it wasn't even a learning experience. It was just me dying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I'm struggling to get something other than the crappy starting weapons, while this guy is just dominating anything of value on the map.

Many years later, I pop into a Gear Of War match and while I'm stinking up the joint and coming in dead last match after match, I was actually enjoying myself because I was getting the odd kill and felt like I was learning the maps instead of constantly getting shot while going for the weapons I needed to be even slightly competitive.

Well, that's how it should be. You are what you put into the game. If your bad you should lose all the time until you become good. That's life and that's the whole point of getting good in games. To stop losing and be the one winning most of the time. Common sense is common sense and shouldn't be messed with because people are lazy. Not fair to the guy who put in the hours and time to get good in the first place. How you think I felt when I was the one losing back when there was no other place to go. No matter what game you played you were going to get destroyed by those who deserve to win. Now I put in the work and time and I expect the same rewards of destroying the majority. Time for others to pay their dues like we had too back then. Even if it means by force and against their will.

Common sense is that players will stop playing games they don't think are fun and move toward games which they do. Most of the people playing aren't trying to be The Best, they're just looking to have a bit of fun in their downtime.

And me sucking at a game and managing to put a few points on the board is still losing. You seem to make out like those few points are the end of the world. To me, those few points are the reason to keep playing, to try to get better. I'm still awful, I'm still in dead last, but I'm still showing up to matches and keeping the servers populated and keeping the game alive.

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

Oh...kay...

Congrats on winning an online match, I guess? And what exactly was your reason for quoting me?

When did I ever say the removal of skill requirements in competitive-based online games was a good thing? For that matter, at what point in my post did I say anything that seemed to contradict your assertions?

I'm quite baffled by this post.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

snip

Okay... Congrats on winning an online match, I guess? And what exactly was your reason for quoting me?

When did I ever say the removal of skill requirements in competitive-based online games was a good thing? For that matter, at what point in my post did I say anything that seemed to contradict your assertions?

I'm quite baffled by this post.

Judging from the previous posts I;d say he has big issues when it comes to online gaming today and in general with winning and life itself, that's what I;m getting from those posts anyway, pretty sure a psychiatrist would get the same too.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Because you don't like the way the FPS genre has changed over the years doesn't mean it needs saving, especially considering it is one of the most, if not the most, popular genres there is.

So to answer your question, no I don't think Doom 4 will save the FPS genre, because it doesn't need saving in the first place.

 

[sageoftruth]

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

I think TotalBiscuit had a pretty good answer for that one. In a youtube video he had on old vs. new styles of FPSs, he mentioned how the thing about health packs was you had to go look for them. Sure that's negated if you quicksave/quickload to the point where you never need them (in that case, shame on you), but otherwise, it puts you in a situation where you have to explore and put yourself in further danger in order to survive, making it a game of survival as well as shooting stuff. Once regeneration of health was brought in, it was just about (tactically) shooting stuff. Halo managed to hold onto some of that Medkit charm early on, but once 2 and 3 came around it felt like a lot less was at stake, since I regained everything at the end of each firefight.

The bottom line is, it's different from quicksaving/loading because of those moments when you finish a firefight without a full health bar.

 

[SKBPinkie]

P.S. - A quick question to the people saying regenerating health killed the FPS (genuine question here, not trying to insult anyone for their choices) - how often was quick load / quick save used in a difficult encounter? How is that different from regenerating health, besides the obvious distinction that you're manually doing it?

I think TotalBiscuit had a pretty good answer for that one. In a youtube video he had on old vs. new styles of FPSs, he mentioned how the thing about health packs was you had to go look for them. Sure that's negated if you quicksave/quickload to the point where you never need them (in that case, shame on you), but otherwise, it puts you in a situation where you have to explore and put yourself in further danger in order to survive, making it a game of survival as well as shooting stuff. Once regeneration of health was brought in, it was just about (tactically) shooting stuff. Halo managed to hold onto some of that Medkit charm early on, but once 2 and 3 came around it felt like a lot less was at stake, since I regained everything at the end of each firefight.

The bottom line is, it's different from quicksaving/loading because of those moments when you finish a firefight without a full health bar.

Hmm... that's a good distinction. Not something that I like, to be honest, but I can see how someone would prefer that instead.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Look, if you enjoy that kind of thing, then more power to you. But I have little interest in being utterly humiliated every time I step onto a server. Yup, the skilled player deserves to win and if they weren't winning in Call of Duty, I'd say you have a point. But they are winning. They always win, because these games require a good amount of skill to play well.

There's plenty of ways to score lucky kills in a game like Call of Duty, but as everyone knows, good players create their own luck. They're able to spot opportunities and capitalize on them. That's why they're good. The only thing different are the scores. Some games it's harder to score than others, so the score in hockey is 3-1, while in American football it's 35-7, and in basketball it's 105-92. Everyone of those is a pretty good ass kicking.

EDIT: It occurs to me, if you're beating everyone by a hundred kills.... maybe you should seek out better players to play against. That's not competition, that's just slaughter. I'm not sure how that could qualify as fun in anyone's book.

 

[Evonisia]

No, Doom will just be a generic rip off of a previous, probably better game that will have a style which has either been used way too often or stands out in the new scene so everybody praises it when it really doesn't deserve it. Like the other Doom sequels.

Doom 2: Just Doom 1 but more of it.
Doom 3: Just System Shock 2 but less deep and had a less good story.

I'm not going to go into the "shooters need saving" business. The OP has a very clear, very restrictive taste and anything else is a disgrace and you should feel bad for liking shitty games.

 

[Rozalia1]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

 

[Sherokain]

It all depends what you mean by "save" the FPS genre, its alive and kicking really if you think about it. Maybe not as it used to be but if it wasn't popular it wouldn't sell.

 

[Artaneius]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

 

[Evonisia]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Unless the specific game in question has horrible perk balance (which is what? MW3? Maybe Black Ops?), a good player on the victim team will be able to break through that. Even bullshit like the C4 and Quickscoping is counter able by even low level classes depending on the actual player using those classes.

Otherwise the actual matches are not based on "he has the superior weapon/perk/equipment/whatever therefore he will always win".

 

[Rozalia1]

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

And that post tells me everything I need to know. A big thing in those games back than was the very simple fact that the good players knew where all the good weapons were, and they'd get them while making sure that the not so good players are stuck using the crappy weapons. Starting players would have to be completely butchered before they got the weapon locations burned into their memory...before they even thought about standing a single chance.

That is not skill. That is purposely wanting other player's weapons to be limited unless they put in the amount of time you did in learning where everything is. That isn't the attitude of a "good player" you're having, its of a bad sport who doesn't want "bad players" killing them.

... Except its completely available to you too... its like those people who play fighters and whine "all you do is X, what a scrub" when they repeatedly get hit by the same tactics over and over again. If you do know all the inns and outs it doesn't matter if they use X, Y, or Z.

Oh and I mean no offence but I have a hard time believing your CoD 4 tale. Someone who gets those results wouldn't be on here complaining like you are about modern games giving unskilled players too many advantages.

 

[Netrigan]

This is how every match should be in every online shooter for a skilled player. No exceptions to validate what it means to be a skilled gamer. No competitive gamer should be shafted and their rights and privileges taken away to make those who barely put in the time and effort to feel entitled. Put in the work, don't be lazy. Pay your dues like everyone else in any other hobby known to mankind.

[http://s1374.photobucket.com/user/justin_bennett2/media/2014-08-21_00002_zps45d2e64d.jpg.html]

Excuse me but how is it different in modern games? When I was playing Crysis 2 online I eventually got good enough to attain perfect rounds (reach kill cap with no deaths).
If you're good you'll win whatever style the game is going for.

And every Call of Duty release is met from cries of Unfair! as the perk/reward system allows the best players to completely dominate maps as the reward for dominating the map is more powerful tools... to further dominate the map.

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

Well, I look at your pic and think that shouldn't happen in any competitive game, because, well, that's nothing resembling a competitive situation.

Without you in the game, it would have been competitive as the two teams seem reasonably matched. How can your team take any pride in that victory when you carried them? How can you take any pride in so completely outmatching your opponents? That's less skill than playing far below your level. It's like playing Doom on "Please Don't Hurt Me" and bragging about it being no challenge.

If a NFL team dominated the league like that, you can guarantee the rules would be changed the following year to prevent that from ever happening again, because that kind of thing isn't interesting, it's not fun to anyone but the person doing the dominating, and that person isn't getting any better because no one is forcing them to get better.

So, no, I don't think a match should look like that.

As for CoD having easy kills; it sounds like it's more like basketball where high scores are encouraged and its fans enjoy the high-scoring action. Good players still come out on top, while novice players get enough kills to have fun and keep coming back. If the goal is fun, then guess which game they'll gravitate toward.

If the goal is Video Games: Serious Business, then probably not.

 

[Vigormortis]

If the goal is fun, then guess which game they'll gravitate toward.

If the goal is Video Games: Serious Business, then probably not.

This is my primary sticking point, and one of many reasons I can't entirely agree with Artaneius.

There is room within the gaming landscape for both kinds of competitive online shooters. The industry can accommodate pure-skill based twitch shooters like Quake and Counter-Strike while also accommodating more "leveled-playing field" type games like Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.

This notion Artaneius and the OP have that the only valid online shooters are those that demand endless hours of devotion to master is as ludicrous as it is destructive. It's that precise attitude that will bring about the death of the genre.[footnote]And I say this as someone who equally loves playing casually online and competing in amateur and pro-level scrim and league play.[/footnote]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On a side note:
I'm still baffled as to why Artaneius quoted me previously. If someone could offer insight I'd appreciate it.

 

[Artaneius]

Difference is that it takes absolutely years to play arena shooters that good to dominate. You have to learn every single technique, every nook and cranny of each map, time weapon and powerup drops perfectly, and mind game the opponent. First time I played CoD 4 I got 40 kills and maybe 3 deaths just camping around buildings taking pot shots. That's wrong. It should take a long time before ANYONE ever gets good enough to get big stats in the first fucking place.

Skill is what should decide what is fair and not fair in online shooters. It did from the very beginning with Doom and Quake and that is the way it should be now.

And the perk/reward system is consider unfair by competitive gamers for the exact opposite reason. It allows lesser skilled gamers to get free kills without earning them. Which is wrong. So wrong that whoever decided to make that game mechanic should of been fired.

And that post tells me everything I need to know. A big thing in those games back than was the very simple fact that the good players knew where all the good weapons were, and they'd get them while making sure that the not so good players are stuck using the crappy weapons. Starting players would have to be completely butchered before they got the weapon locations burned into their memory...before they even thought about standing a single chance.

That is not skill. That is purposely wanting other player's weapons to be limited unless they put in the amount of time you did in learning where everything is. That isn't the attitude of a "good player" you're having, its of a bad sport who doesn't want "bad players" killing them.

... Except its completely available to you too... its like those people who play fighters and whine "all you do is X, what a scrub" when they repeatedly get hit by the same tactics over and over again. If you do know all the inns and outs it doesn't matter if they use X, Y, or Z.

Oh and I mean no offence but I have a hard time believing your CoD 4 tale. Someone who gets those results wouldn't be on here complaining like you are about modern games giving unskilled players too many advantages.

To understand what I'm saying, you have to look at video game skill as one who would look at work ethics. At work do you expect the same benefits as someone who has worked there for many years? Same principles, reward those who have put in the work and effort and punish those who haven't. I still complain about CoD even though I did well on it when I played it because I shouldn't be doing well until years of dedication, blood, sweat, and tears. I've seen people never play a shooter in their life get high stats on CoD and it just makes me embarrassed and honestly sickened. When back then it took so damn long to achieve victory and now people are just handed it like little pieces of candy. People have no pride or respect for those who dominated the scene. Now it's "If the game is too hard or doesn't have a matchmaking system, we don't play." You earn respect not given it for profit.

And for someone who brings fighting games up, you should already know what I'm talking about. Being good in fighting games myself took many years and it's pretty much the same thing. When you dedicate a lot of time and effort into something your going to get pissed off when they take away the meaning behind getting good in the first place. That combo on my gif was done by me and I'm very proud of it. I'm proud of all my ass kicking and so are all gamers good in games. We shouldn't be shunned for it. We should be rewarded for it.