POST STUFF
|
 by Pzychotix, Level 16
Last updated at June 8, 2008, 6:33 am
|
|
Grenades will be the bane of your CoD4 experience. Half the time, when I die and watch what my opponent was doing in the killcam, the opponent isn't even trying to actively kill people. He's just tossing grenades because he can. And die you will, with a grenade that's properly cooked so there's no escape. Sure, you can toss grenades right back at him, but honestly, dying to grenades as I spawn is ridiculous. The ability to instantly kill people with them having no control over it is the sign of a flawed game. Sure, it's realistic, but realism doesn't always make for enjoyable experiences (AoC hiding system, here's looking at you.) People just don't like having control ripped away from them.
So it never ceases to amaze me when people cry that resilience broke WoW PVP. Honestly now, did people enjoy getting 2-shot by PoM-Pyro mages, or getting psuedo-stunlocked to death? Seems kind of ass backwards to me. Maybe the people who complain about resilience were those people. I don't know. But it just seems that overall, resilience allows people to at least live long enough so that they can do something that matters before they die.
Am I completely wrong about this? Should people enjoy having their lives wrenched away without the ability to do anything about it?
Report Post
20 comments
scamp Jun 8, 2008 at 6:41 am
+1 votes
Grenades really do suck in CoD4. The game plays so much better without them.
Resilience is required in WoW now. Can you imagine how stupid arena would be without it, especially 3v3 and 5v5. Hell, even in 2v2 double DPS would dominate without that stat.
Resilience is required in WoW now. Can you imagine how stupid arena would be without it, especially 3v3 and 5v5. Hell, even in 2v2 double DPS would dominate without that stat.
7 replies to scamp (hide)
7 replies to scamp (show)
Permalink
Quote
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
SKNeilyo Jun 8, 2008 at 11:08 am
+2 votes
He never said CoD4 sucked you retard. He was talking about grenades.
Kill yourself for being this stupid.
Kill yourself for being this stupid.
Brilliance Jun 8, 2008 at 11:14 am
+1 votes
Grenades will always be a stain in the pants of FPS. TF2 is so nice without them.
And yes, resilience makes PvP so much better. For all the *****ing about arenas this one implementation changed the game for the better.
And yes, resilience makes PvP so much better. For all the *****ing about arenas this one implementation changed the game for the better.
themrchook Jun 8, 2008 at 8:07 pm
+0 votes
Oh my, grenades are so bad, I want to play a little made up game in my head where everything is nicer without them.
I.e: I'm terrible and can't deal with how games are made.
Kill yourself for defending a scrub you scrub.
I.e: I'm terrible and can't deal with how games are made.
Kill yourself for defending a scrub you scrub.
Pzychotix Jun 8, 2008 at 9:29 pm
+1 votes
So you would agree that a fighting game with an IWIN button for both players is an enjoyable experience?
themrchook Jun 8, 2008 at 11:43 pm
+1 votes
If you respawn after he knocks you out and there are 20 other players in the game to kill, sure.
Aments Jun 8, 2008 at 6:46 am
+1 votes
I DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY
IT TOOK SKILL TO PRESS THE POM BUTTTON
IT TOOK SKILL TO PRESS THE POM BUTTTON
makju Jun 8, 2008 at 6:47 am
+2 votes
Find servers listed as "hardcore". These servers usually have friendly fire turned on and the mods will enforce spray-and-pray behavior.
fowl Jun 8, 2008 at 6:48 am
+1 votes
It's the direction that every new game is going. They took out aim and recoil and made it easy. All it is is who ever is in the others cross hairs first. It's like HALO, the game is complete crap, but all these new players who don't know any better think it's absolutely amazing. The single player is really well done, but everything else is silly.
I played CoD1 for a few years, I even stuck with CoD2 for over a year, but it only took it me a few days of CoD4 before I couldn't take it anymore. There is only so many times you can get blown up by set car nades before you realize your playing HALO with iron sights. Maybe CoD5 will be like WoW, tab targeting! Or auto-aiming!
Right now the future of competitive gaming is going to be in old games, or competitive mods. Or maybe a company that dares to make a game, rather than a cinematic 'experience.'
I played CoD1 for a few years, I even stuck with CoD2 for over a year, but it only took it me a few days of CoD4 before I couldn't take it anymore. There is only so many times you can get blown up by set car nades before you realize your playing HALO with iron sights. Maybe CoD5 will be like WoW, tab targeting! Or auto-aiming!
Right now the future of competitive gaming is going to be in old games, or competitive mods. Or maybe a company that dares to make a game, rather than a cinematic 'experience.'
themrchook Jun 8, 2008 at 7:07 am
-1 votes
Quick translation: I'm terrible at everything but extremely old games that I take the time to learn by playing them over and over again. When I'm used to these outdated and archaic methods of play I find it difficult to play other games without feeling like I suck, because I do.
fowl Jun 8, 2008 at 8:03 am
+1 votes
I like to stick to games I enjoy. My guess is your at a relatively low level in the CoD community, or not experienced enough to know the general feeling towards CoD. It is much like the WoW community, where they realize their game is not as competitive as games such as 1.6, but they play because they enjoy it. It ends up with a lot of top players continuously complaining about the game they play, because they realize its place in the world of games. This was pre-CoD4, and much of that community went on to better things so perhaps I am mistaken.
You would be right to assume I prefer older games but this doesn't necessarily mean I'm better at them. I played CAL-i cod1, CAL-p 1.6, and played q3 for u5 at cpl, etc. But I am fine moving to newer games, and played CEVO-p CSs, played tf2, with a decent team, and was decent at cod2 and q4. I admit I prefer older games, and it isn't my 'sucking' that prevents me from succeeding at newer games. I had many offers in cod4, just couldn't bring myself to play it once I hit 55 and scrimmed a few times.
And Heldericht, the game is enjoyable for casuals, and the single player was good. I think CoD4 is a great game, but not a competitive game. The leveling system was fine and lasted a few days, but that is hardly a new feature in a game. Not sure what they tried that was new?
You would be right to assume I prefer older games but this doesn't necessarily mean I'm better at them. I played CAL-i cod1, CAL-p 1.6, and played q3 for u5 at cpl, etc. But I am fine moving to newer games, and played CEVO-p CSs, played tf2, with a decent team, and was decent at cod2 and q4. I admit I prefer older games, and it isn't my 'sucking' that prevents me from succeeding at newer games. I had many offers in cod4, just couldn't bring myself to play it once I hit 55 and scrimmed a few times.
And Heldericht, the game is enjoyable for casuals, and the single player was good. I think CoD4 is a great game, but not a competitive game. The leveling system was fine and lasted a few days, but that is hardly a new feature in a game. Not sure what they tried that was new?
themrchook Jun 8, 2008 at 8:15 pm
+1 votes
Personally, I found it was more fun going to a LAN cafe and starting a new account, leveling up from the beginning playing with about 15 or so people who did the same.
I understand how maybe... other games are more competitive but that doesn't mean it couldn't work for CoD4. This "general feeling" that seems to have a negative connotation seems to hang around a lot of games and I'm wondering whether its actually because some games have more competitive merit or because we're conditioned to respond better to certain types of game.
For example, how is quake3 more competitively viable than UT, or Doom? Are the games really that different? What isn't enjoyable about them that q3 has to make it more enjoyable for you?
I understand how maybe... other games are more competitive but that doesn't mean it couldn't work for CoD4. This "general feeling" that seems to have a negative connotation seems to hang around a lot of games and I'm wondering whether its actually because some games have more competitive merit or because we're conditioned to respond better to certain types of game.
For example, how is quake3 more competitively viable than UT, or Doom? Are the games really that different? What isn't enjoyable about them that q3 has to make it more enjoyable for you?
Heldericht Jun 8, 2008 at 7:23 am
+1 votes
CoD 4's multiplayer appeal is in it's leveling system, where you unlock better weapons, etc through progression. And its not just killing other people, its completing certain tasks, which makes it really interesting and its an innovative way to make the pPuG multiplayer aspect of FPSs appealing. I mean... not everyone can find a team to play CS with, most people just want to play in their free time for a bit by hopping on a server and blowing stuff up, and CoD4 makes that extremely appealing and at the same time rewards the hardcore for spending more time in it as well. Its this balance that makes CoD 4 really interesting.
The future of competitive games are the new generation of games that are trying something different like CoD4.
The future of competitive games are the new generation of games that are trying something different like CoD4.
Heldericht Jun 8, 2008 at 7:27 am
+1 votes
As for the article, while I disagree with the CoD4 example, I agree that resilience was a much needed stat for WoW, specially since they are moving it towards an e-sport.
Damage was already scaling in a ridiculous manner towards the end of pre-bc and it would be out of control if arenas were introduced without resilience.
For the people crying like retards about resilience 'ruining WoW', try playing an arena match with you and your team wearing zero resilience and get back to me.
Damage was already scaling in a ridiculous manner towards the end of pre-bc and it would be out of control if arenas were introduced without resilience.
For the people crying like retards about resilience 'ruining WoW', try playing an arena match with you and your team wearing zero resilience and get back to me.
Bethryn Jun 8, 2008 at 8:11 am
+1 votes
Grenade spam: I thought people had learnt their lesson after TFC, but obviously not. Suffice to say, you could previously get a Feat Loadout with 3x HE Grens, the Grenade Launcher attachment, the buff to damage and Martyrdom. It's a real laugh on maps like Container.
As for Spray and Pray... pro tip. AK-74U, the penetration feat, the fire-from-the-hip feat, and a 'red dot' (recoil) sight. Suddenly, the game plays just like Quake and you have top kills.
Finally, this whole levelling progression thing. I see where it comes from, really, I do, but CS got it right with cash. You only ever use the crap guns when you're new to CoD4, and once you've gotten new ones you never bother with the old ones, making them useless in their entirety except for that brief levelling period. The - great - reasoning behind cash is that you use guns depending on their availability to you: if you have a little cash, you get an average gun (or save for a better gun), if you have a lot of cash you splash out on your favourite and this way more guns see use than would do if you had all guns available for free. It's similar to guns-on-map games, where map control is important because you need to control the area with the best gun and armour combination: allowing your opponent to get there is a big fail on your part. The lower tier of guns are a booby prize for failing to hold the map properly. By comparison, CoD4's levelling system basically breaks out 3 to 5 guns for everyone who has played a tiny amount (I unlocked most guns in less than a day's play), and there is little to no point in using the others. Quite a few of the feats are pretty useless as well.
As for Spray and Pray... pro tip. AK-74U, the penetration feat, the fire-from-the-hip feat, and a 'red dot' (recoil) sight. Suddenly, the game plays just like Quake and you have top kills.
Finally, this whole levelling progression thing. I see where it comes from, really, I do, but CS got it right with cash. You only ever use the crap guns when you're new to CoD4, and once you've gotten new ones you never bother with the old ones, making them useless in their entirety except for that brief levelling period. The - great - reasoning behind cash is that you use guns depending on their availability to you: if you have a little cash, you get an average gun (or save for a better gun), if you have a lot of cash you splash out on your favourite and this way more guns see use than would do if you had all guns available for free. It's similar to guns-on-map games, where map control is important because you need to control the area with the best gun and armour combination: allowing your opponent to get there is a big fail on your part. The lower tier of guns are a booby prize for failing to hold the map properly. By comparison, CoD4's levelling system basically breaks out 3 to 5 guns for everyone who has played a tiny amount (I unlocked most guns in less than a day's play), and there is little to no point in using the others. Quite a few of the feats are pretty useless as well.
Pzychotix Jun 8, 2008 at 10:47 am
+1 votes
Hmm. Discussion went completely the opposite direction I hoped. Oh well.
And TF2 needs to get rid of random criticals. RNG in mah FPS? Nothankyouverymuch.
And TF2 needs to get rid of random criticals. RNG in mah FPS? Nothankyouverymuch.
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...