Top
240°

5 Massive Games That Killed Skill-Based First Person Shooters

It’s no secret that today’s most popular games are a lot more user-friendly and a lot less rewarding for hardcore FPS gamers, but which game exactly is to blame for it? We’ve gathered up five of the top suspects for questioning, each with their own hand in today’s derp derp world of air strikes and incapacitating weaponry.

Read Full Story >>
alphakick.com
The story is too old to be commented.
wallis2187d ago

Skill based fps games still exist, it's just a matter of finding them. More often than not it's a case of skills having to be rearranged and retrained and older players of older games view this change in direction as a decrease in skill required but in reality that's not the case. While games are getting easier in many respects I'd hardly call CS:S a casual noob fest. Yeah it's a little bit easier but can you can really picture valve in their offices laughing hysterically at the thought of destroying the counter strike community?

Or, more realistically, did they just want to do a bit of fan service by remaking an older game with better visuals and distributing it for free? Counter strike source is hardly unfriendly to mods to either. If you want to make it harder just make a little mod and bam, there you go.

At the end of the day this all just boils down to the same thing you hear every day with vinyls, clubs, bands, movies and all things entertainment based - "God *brushes fringe to the side while toying with ear plug* this INSERT ANYTHING used to have integrity before it got popular".

LightofDarkness2187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

Watch a high level Quake series match and come back to me. Those games required SERIOUS skill. That is:

-pinpoint spatial awareness
-lightning reflexes
-intelligent strategy with a vast array of weaponry
-ability to process a lot of information at a very high level in order to keep up with the fast-pace
-supreme aiming capability due to the speed and verticality of play
-great mental focus, players had a lot more health and thus you needed to dish out damage very consistently and while avoiding it to survive

It wasn't a case of "I saw you first, now you die", there were FAR more factors at play. Increased health and weapon variety meant that simply getting off the first few shots didn't mean you were getting a kill. The games were simply more dynamic and more competitive, with a much greater variety of skills on display.

Watching the videos (especially from back in the day), you can see that there was a lot more separating the highest level players. You could be playing against a godly player and boy would you know it. And you wouldn't be saying "cheater, spammer, camper!" to these guys, they would be a clearly dominant and highly skilled player.

caseh2187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

Amen to that LightOfDarkness.

I was raised on Quake and Quake 2 online, Quake 2 was crazy to the extent of it taking weeks to learn a jump between two boxes to reach megahealth for example, learning the pattern of sounds effects (like picking up 2 health packs in a row) to pinpoint an enemy in duels and just trying to control a map.

As a result I wouldn't say i'm the ultimate beast but every modern day FPS I turn my hand to i'm in the top 3 players 99% of the time after playing for a few days. Where as it took me close to a year to finish top in a deathmatch game in Quake 2. :)

LightofDarkness2187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

I was literally addicted to Quake 2 CTF and the Weapons Factory mod too. Good god, I'd play it for hours, days even. Or at least until someone called in and made me play football :p

But none more so than the original Team Fortress and Quakeworld. Oh, and Unreal Tournament ('99). So many memories. Truly, the golden age of FPS.

EDIT: OMG, Chaos DM for Quake 2. I am weeping with nostalgia right now :(

wallis2187d ago

Mate I've played quake 3 and I've watched the videos. I was raised on it. Please don't talk to me like I was born in 2001.

DLight032187d ago

"can you can really picture valve in their offices laughing hysterically at the thought of destroying the counter strike community"

Certainly not. But the reality is making a game hyper-skilled doesn't translate into sales as well as "noob friendly" games do, for the most part. The learning curve is part of that reason, it's both a blessing and a curse.

Septic2187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

Why? Because of this:

"COD leans a little more on the simulation side of things, and Counter-Strike leans a bit more on the arcade side."

You have got to be SH*TTING ME!

LightofDarkness2187d ago

Haha, wow.

It's true though, even the military will tell you: you can take a good 3 or 4 shots to the chest and limbs and you'll be fine, but if you get touched by a knife it's an instant death. Like, fo realz. I saw it on the Discovery Channel.

/s

DLight032187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

Not sure what you disagree with there. There is more realism in COD than there is in Counter-Strike. From weapon mechanics, weapon selection, to animations, player movement restrictions and enhancements (like prone) and more.

Neither is a simulation game. They are both arcade-simulation. But CS is less simulation and more arcade than COD is (which makes for a better game imo).

The original modders of CS themselves have been quoted many times with saying they didn't want CS to be a simulation game, and it isn't. That's part of why it's a good game, because they were able to take more creative liberties for balance and fun.

I can only assume you read arcade and got offended. Simulation is not necessarily a good thing. Quake 3 isn't a "real life 1v1 simulation game" and it's a hell of a lot better for not being that.

frelyler2187d ago

Really, really, you don't think auto aim makes it more like an arcade game? Points and bonuses for kill streaks. Neither game are simulations that is for sure, but to say that team fortress is more arcade than COD is idiocy. A 3 year old could pick up a controller and git some people in COD no problem. Anyone can play it, which is what an arcade game is supposed to do. Neither are sims, but good god please don't ever mention Sim and COD again in the same paragraph because it's not even close.

Septic2187d ago

I'm sorry but I fail to see how Counter Strike is more of an arcade game than COD in any way.

COD: Killstreaks- you summon attack dogs, care packages, you can drop tactical nukes, you have juggernaut where you get air-dropped into the battle wearing a 100 layers of armour and can absorb countless bullets

Counter Strike- you don't have painkiller or anything stupid like super speed- you can't just swing a knife and kill someone by lunging across the map.

"From weapon mechanics, weapon selection"

Eh? Have you eveplayed the two games? Weapon mechanics? DUAL SHOTGUNS? Really? Even Halo didn't have dual shotguns.

Heartbeat sensors?

Have you noticed how I haven't even had the opportunity to talk about CS yet? Realism and COD sould not be in the same sentence.

CS had far more realistic gunplay- the auto-aim assist didn;t do all the work and the way the recoil worked was brilliant. Whereas COD is pick up and play for a reason, I had to spend a couple of days playing CS to even understand how the gunplay worked. Having fired AK47's myself, I can attest to how well the gunplay works in CS (see single fire vs spray firing) especially compared to COD.

I'm sorry but there really is no comparison to CS when it comes to realism. COD is an arcade game through and through which isn't to say that it isn't fun. But CS dominates it in the realism stakes if you are going to compare the two.

awi59512187d ago

I totally agree about halo. Halo 2 and all other halos are crap compared to CE. Thats why microsoft pissed their pants and nerfed the multiplayer in The halo CE remake because they know half the user base would dump halo reach for CE. So now they give the CE remake crappy reach gameplay and make it worthless to play.

Hicken2187d ago

... wouldn't that defeat the purpose of producing a new game they wanted people to play?

sonicsidewinder2187d ago

I disagree.

Halo 2's multiplayer was leaps and bounds better than Halo 1's.

awi59512187d ago (Edited 2187d ago )

double post

awi59512187d ago

You mean noob friendly with non lethal grenades ,useless starter weapon, and all other weapons suck unless you had the sniper or rocket launcher. In Halo CE the sniper and rocket launcher wasnt a win button you could still fight and win with the assault rifle and the pistol. IN halo 2 people just camp the power weapon just a epic fail of a game. Thats why i went to a real shooter rainbow 6 and ghost recon.

Venjense2187d ago

Lol @ people thinking that all the games mentioned don't require skill.

If someone is consistently better at a game then they have more skill - doesn't matter how easy the controls are.

...as long as they don't cheat of course.

DLight032187d ago

Skill, and having a reasonable standard for "skill" are different things.