I enjoy Battlefield 2142. I play it with friends and have a grand old time running around with teamspeak and working together. I'll probably get Quake Wars, because I love Enemy Territory and still play it today. I'll also probably pick up the Half-Life expansion solely for Team Fortress 2. All three are different kinds of games with their own virtues and faults. I never understood the animosity between different kinds of players. Clearly they enjoy different playstyles, and clearly others enjoy different styles.
It's important because there's a war on for dominance in style in the FPS genre. Traditional twitch vs. new-age tactical shit. Both will NOT get equal attention. Developers will shift the majority of their efforts back and forth between the two as they struggle for dominance.
Personally; I hope twitch puts tactical to bed permanently... maybe the occasional indie project by some stark raving mad Tom Clancy nuts rearing it's ugly head now and again. Skill in FPS games is not in strategy, it's about ability. If I wanted to play chess, I'd go play chess.
It's important because there's a war on for dominance in style in the FPS genre. Traditional twitch vs. new-age tactical shit. Both will NOT get equal attention. Developers will shift the majority of their efforts back and forth between the two as they struggle for dominance. Personally; I hope twitch puts tactical to bed permanently... maybe the occasional indie project by some stark raving mad Tom Clancy nuts rearing it's ugly head now and again. Skill in FPS games is not in strategy, it's about ability. If I wanted to play chess, I'd go play chess.
You are completely ignoring the fact that tactical FPS's take much faster reaction times than your precious "traditional FPS's"...as I said in my very first post...one game is forgiving for your mistakes, the other is not...now tell me which one is carebear again? I can hop into a game of Halo where bunny hopping abounds and snipe peoples' heads off as I jump through the air...and I can do it every single time I try...why? Because movement has no effect on my aiming, as it would in real life..that's where the skill of tactical FPS's comes in...If I want any degree of acuracy, I can't just go around jumping like an idiot...not that you're going to read any of this and comprehend it, you've made it quite clear that you're just going to ignore anyone that doesn't prefer "traditional" FPS gameplay over modern FPS gameplay.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
This is really interesting. There are people who are responding to me but missing the point, or just ignoring me all together. My problem with this game is that 1 person can rambo it up and dominate the server too easily. I've done it, and I'd only say I'm decent at FPSs.
I went to play a couple rounds last night because we have been talking about it. The first thing I noticed was that even though it's a free open beta, nobody is playing it. Of all the servers in the list last night, there was only 1 more than half full.
When I got onto the server, there was 1 guy dominating the game just by going Rambo and completing all the objectives himself. The rounds were over in 5 minutes each cause like when I do it, he simply sprinted to the objective, "point-and-clicked" any enemies that were there, and then held F for the objective.
This game takes no skill whatsoever.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I'm ignoring you because you're full of shit. Placing emphasis on who shoots first does not necessitate a faster reaction time- having one would help; more commonly people accomplish that first shot by camping, hiding, or sneaking. I remember when people who did not run the board, campers, were thrown out of servers... now they're building games around these rejects. The biggest reason tactical FPS games are shit though- is because of their rock, paper, scissors nature that simply does not belong in FPS gameplay. There are preordained classes, roles, and equipment that predetermines how you should fare in every unique encounter. That is bullshit, it doesn't belong in FPS gameplay. Period. To make matters worse- tactical FPS games are numbers' games. He who has the most bodies wins. For the very same reasons you'd say that the 1st shot in a one-on-one engagement is so important to victory; I say that these games assert that 2 people should always beat 1 regardless of varying levels of player ability... which is again, bullshit. There are always exceptions to the rule but these games try their damnedest to erase player ability as a factor in a player vs player(s) engagement with all sorts of rules and mechanics that are designed for this purpose alone. Realism? It's a secondary concern- a side effect of the true purpose of such rules that you perceive. These safety mechanisms (which is what they REALLY are) are in place to ensure that everyone who plays feels like they can excel, succeed, or be useful; this ensures the greatest potential mass appeal and marketability ala WoW. Yes- tactical FPS games are "carebear," because your potential ability only matters to an certain extent- and no one can truely be horrible at them.
Yeah... okay, please go to a fucking Quake forum or something, because this is getting ridiculous. You aren't even listening, and your statements and few poor arguments are lacking and faulty, due to the obvious lack of knoweldge, experience and even reasoning. Not gonna reply to your crap anymore, as I already see everybody here thinks you're full of elitist zealous shit. There is obviously is no making you understand, but I'd love to play some GRAW2, Swat 4 or Armed Assault against you. Then I'd like for you to show me how everybody is as good as their weapon... what a load of bullshit.
Yes- Tactical games have skill elements you obviously can't comprehend because you are too skillless to see beyond moving the crosshair towards somebodies head, while smashing the jumping and movement keys.
While I dig Tac shooters as much as the next guy, some of what your troll is saying has merit. For instance, the comment about camping. It's possible to just sit in one place and rack up kills for extended periods of time in the Battlefield games. This isn't so much of a factor in games like America's Army and Rainbow Six where you remain dead till the end of the round. In the latter style of games, everyone knows where the choke points are and it can turn into a rush to take and hold those positions. In the former style of game, you have a set number of team respawns which means you can just spend the whole round zerging the choke points without too much penalty. Furthermore, the maps in BF style games are designed in such a way that you can actually bypass and ignore high risk areas in order to focus on taking spawn points.
On the flip side, "traditional" shooters are not completely devoid of cheap tactics. In Quake 1-3, it was common practice to try and avoid combat until you had 200 health, 200 armor, and the rocket launcher. Most of the kills you would rack up during a game were players that had just recently respawned and hadn't gathered enough firepower to defend themselves yet. Experienced players would have two or more routes through a map that would take them across items as the respawned which would allow the player to not only stay supplied but also score some easy kills on weaker players that were trying to gear up. The focus on pure body count meant that killing someone right off spawn, kill stealing, and attacking from behind were all encouraged even though they didn't require any skill.
You'll also notice that I totally ignored the difference in emphasis in the two (three) styles of games. Tac shooters emphasize the taking of objectives and completion of goals while "Traditional" shooters emphasize body count alone. It's possible to contribute to your teams success in a Tac shooter without firing a shot. Just run from objective to objective and take any that aren't defended. Obviously this won't work in the America's Army, Rainbow Six, and Counter-Strike style games since many games can end up as a stalemate unless the entire other team gets eliminated. You can't really get away with not fighting in a "traditional" team-based FPS like CTF, Capture and Hold, or Assassination.
Having said all that, I just can't play BF2 or BF2142. They're both too slow for my taste. The maps are huge, so you have to use the vehicles to get anywhere in a timely manner and the fighting just lacks intensity to me. I liked War Rock until K2 fucked it up beyond all recognition, but I just require more actual action in my "action" games. I see the merit in Tac shooters, but I think there's a happy medium between the pedestrian Battlefield games and the balls out action of Unreal Tournament 200X. Counter-Strike seems to have hit that sweet spot, but it's really the only game that even tried on this side of the Pacific.
I also wouldn't worry about either style of game going extinct any time soon. Right now is a great time to be an FPS freeloader. The web is littered with great free FPS games like Warsow, Tremulous, and Nexuiz. There's also America's Army and KumaWar for the Tac shooter fans. We all know that Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is free.
I actually liked Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory so I'm going to try out Quake Wars which is an Enemy Territory game. Bitching about Quake wars not being like Battlefield 2 is like complaining that Dawn of War isn't like Supreme Commander. different game styles, different emphasis.
...everybody here thinks you're full of elitist zealous shit.
That's because we're on MMORPG.com. I'd say the millions of folks who built the FPS genre from the ground up with their disposable income would be willing to disagree with you en masse; I very much doubt they reside here. Have a good one.
-My problem with this game is that 1 person can rambo it up and dominate the server too easily. I've done it, and I'd only say I'm decent at FPSs. -When I got onto the server, there was 1 guy dominating the game just by going Rambo and completing all the objectives himself. . -This game takes no skill whatsoever.
If the game takes no skill, than how can one person dominate? Because no one else can stop him. Why not? Because they don't have the skill. There's no reliable way to see an even match in a pub as anyone at any level can play- and you really won't see just how wide the gap is in ability until you play some clans in tourneys or go to a match with a cash prize; always guaranteed to see the best of the best there.
I'm really not too concerned with Quake Wars either way. My concern lies with fundamental styles of play and their battle for dominance. The original foundation for the genre does not deserve to have the rug swept out from under it, to be hi-jacked, by these new-age brats of the "gimmie generation" who are used to having everything handed to them from 90's prosperity.
Comments
I enjoy Battlefield 2142. I play it with friends and have a grand old time running around with teamspeak and working together. I'll probably get Quake Wars, because I love Enemy Territory and still play it today. I'll also probably pick up the Half-Life expansion solely for Team Fortress 2. All three are different kinds of games with their own virtues and faults. I never understood the animosity between different kinds of players. Clearly they enjoy different playstyles, and clearly others enjoy different styles.
It's important because there's a war on for dominance in style in the FPS genre. Traditional twitch vs. new-age tactical shit. Both will NOT get equal attention. Developers will shift the majority of their efforts back and forth between the two as they struggle for dominance.
Personally; I hope twitch puts tactical to bed permanently... maybe the occasional indie project by some stark raving mad Tom Clancy nuts rearing it's ugly head now and again. Skill in FPS games is not in strategy, it's about ability. If I wanted to play chess, I'd go play chess.
You are completely ignoring the fact that tactical FPS's take much faster reaction times than your precious "traditional FPS's"...as I said in my very first post...one game is forgiving for your mistakes, the other is not...now tell me which one is carebear again? I can hop into a game of Halo where bunny hopping abounds and snipe peoples' heads off as I jump through the air...and I can do it every single time I try...why? Because movement has no effect on my aiming, as it would in real life..that's where the skill of tactical FPS's comes in...If I want any degree of acuracy, I can't just go around jumping like an idiot...not that you're going to read any of this and comprehend it, you've made it quite clear that you're just going to ignore anyone that doesn't prefer "traditional" FPS gameplay over modern FPS gameplay.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
This is really interesting. There are people who are responding to me but missing the point, or just ignoring me all together. My problem with this game is that 1 person can rambo it up and dominate the server too easily. I've done it, and I'd only say I'm decent at FPSs.
I went to play a couple rounds last night because we have been talking about it. The first thing I noticed was that even though it's a free open beta, nobody is playing it.
Of all the servers in the list last night, there was only 1 more than half full.
When I got onto the server, there was 1 guy dominating the game just by going Rambo and completing all the objectives himself. The rounds were over in 5 minutes each cause like when I do it, he simply sprinted to the objective, "point-and-clicked" any enemies that were there, and then held F for the objective.
This game takes no skill whatsoever.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Yeah... okay, please go to a fucking Quake forum or something, because this is getting ridiculous. You aren't even listening, and your statements and few poor arguments are lacking and faulty, due to the obvious lack of knoweldge, experience and even reasoning. Not gonna reply to your crap anymore, as I already see everybody here thinks you're full of elitist zealous shit. There is obviously is no making you understand, but I'd love to play some GRAW2, Swat 4 or Armed Assault against you. Then I'd like for you to show me how everybody is as good as their weapon... what a load of bullshit.
Yes- Tactical games have skill elements you obviously can't comprehend because you are too skillless to see beyond moving the crosshair towards somebodies head, while smashing the jumping and movement keys.
I was always more of a Team Fortress Classic and Starsiege: Tribes guy myself. There's just something about CTF....
While I dig Tac shooters as much as the next guy, some of what your troll is saying has merit. For instance, the comment about camping. It's possible to just sit in one place and rack up kills for extended periods of time in the Battlefield games. This isn't so much of a factor in games like America's Army and Rainbow Six where you remain dead till the end of the round. In the latter style of games, everyone knows where the choke points are and it can turn into a rush to take and hold those positions. In the former style of game, you have a set number of team respawns which means you can just spend the whole round zerging the choke points without too much penalty. Furthermore, the maps in BF style games are designed in such a way that you can actually bypass and ignore high risk areas in order to focus on taking spawn points.
On the flip side, "traditional" shooters are not completely devoid of cheap tactics. In Quake 1-3, it was common practice to try and avoid combat until you had 200 health, 200 armor, and the rocket launcher. Most of the kills you would rack up during a game were players that had just recently respawned and hadn't gathered enough firepower to defend themselves yet. Experienced players would have two or more routes through a map that would take them across items as the respawned which would allow the player to not only stay supplied but also score some easy kills on weaker players that were trying to gear up. The focus on pure body count meant that killing someone right off spawn, kill stealing, and attacking from behind were all encouraged even though they didn't require any skill.
You'll also notice that I totally ignored the difference in emphasis in the two (three) styles of games. Tac shooters emphasize the taking of objectives and completion of goals while "Traditional" shooters emphasize body count alone. It's possible to contribute to your teams success in a Tac shooter without firing a shot. Just run from objective to objective and take any that aren't defended. Obviously this won't work in the America's Army, Rainbow Six, and Counter-Strike style games since many games can end up as a stalemate unless the entire other team gets eliminated. You can't really get away with not fighting in a "traditional" team-based FPS like CTF, Capture and Hold, or Assassination.
Having said all that, I just can't play BF2 or BF2142. They're both too slow for my taste. The maps are huge, so you have to use the vehicles to get anywhere in a timely manner and the fighting just lacks intensity to me. I liked War Rock until K2 fucked it up beyond all recognition, but I just require more actual action in my "action" games. I see the merit in Tac shooters, but I think there's a happy medium between the pedestrian Battlefield games and the balls out action of Unreal Tournament 200X. Counter-Strike seems to have hit that sweet spot, but it's really the only game that even tried on this side of the Pacific.
I also wouldn't worry about either style of game going extinct any time soon. Right now is a great time to be an FPS freeloader. The web is littered with great free FPS games like Warsow, Tremulous, and Nexuiz. There's also America's Army and KumaWar for the Tac shooter fans. We all know that Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is free.
I actually liked Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory so I'm going to try out Quake Wars which is an Enemy Territory game. Bitching about Quake wars not being like Battlefield 2 is like complaining that Dawn of War isn't like Supreme Commander. different game styles, different emphasis.
That's because we're on MMORPG.com. I'd say the millions of folks who built the FPS genre from the ground up with their disposable income would be willing to disagree with you en masse; I very much doubt they reside here. Have a good one.
If the game takes no skill, than how can one person dominate? Because no one else can stop him. Why not? Because they don't have the skill. There's no reliable way to see an even match in a pub as anyone at any level can play- and you really won't see just how wide the gap is in ability until you play some clans in tourneys or go to a match with a cash prize; always guaranteed to see the best of the best there.
I'm really not too concerned with Quake Wars either way. My concern lies with fundamental styles of play and their battle for dominance. The original foundation for the genre does not deserve to have the rug swept out from under it, to be hi-jacked, by these new-age brats of the "gimmie generation" who are used to having everything handed to them from 90's prosperity.