In unveiling Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer at its Call of Duty XP fan event in Los Angeles this weekend, Activision said it aimed to focus on what it sees as a new degree of realism and intensity for the franchise.
"It's striking that perfect balance between capturing the real-world authenticity... and the amazing kind of 'holy shit' moments of a blockbuster action movie," CEO Eric Hirshberg told media, including Gamasutra, at a press preview for the event.
"We want every muscle in your body tense; we want your knuckles white, we want your pupils dilated every time," he said.
The teams say that objective shouldn't come at the expense of accessibility for the game, which aims to be "easy to pick up and play, hard to master," in Hirshberg's words. Another major principle: Running at 60 FPS "is like a religion with our developers," he said.
"Developing games, particularly for consoles, is all about prioritizing processing power," Hirshberg continues. "The engine has to be immensely more efficient to render the games at 60 FPS than at 30. Delivering that gameplay experience is always our priority; those are the principles that our teams started on, and the ones they still live by today."
He thanked all of the studios that have worked on Modern Warfare 3, including both Treyarch and Infinity Ward, Elite design leaders Beachhead, and Raven Software. "I think it's the most epic cinematic scale you've ever seen from a video game," Hirshberg opined. "It puts World War III right outside your door."
"We think this is the deepest experience we have ever created," agreed Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling. "We have made more profound additions and changes to the core multiplayer experience than we ever have in any chapter of Modern Warfare."
The developers have also focused on narrowing the gap between entry level and expert players, making it easier for those at a variety of skill levels to enjoy themselves: "We're supporting a larger variety of play styles than we ever have before," says Bowling.
At the Call of Duty XP event, fans will get to play Modern Warfare 3's multiplayer and see a $1 million prize tournament. They'll also get to look at a special edition Xbox 360 bundle with MW3 trappings, accessories and sound effects -- plus a 320 GB hard drive --- that will become available at the game's launch.
"This weekend is all about our fans," Hirshberg said. "We think we have the greatest fanbase in the world; we just want give them an experience that they can't get anywhere else, that they'll remember forever. That's what XP's all about -- to show our fans how much we appreciate them."
One hundred percent of the proceeds from ticket sales to this week's event will go toward the Call of Duty Endowment, Activision's non-profit charitable program that helps military veterans land jobs after returning home from their overseas missions.
"Deep"... the entire gaming culture loves that word, huh? It sounds so significant, yet it means so little. I'm still waiting for it to join "solid" and "compelling" on a list of no-no industry buzzwords.
Easy to pick up and play, hard to master? *heart attack*
That statement really is a huge insult the to core gaming crowd. If there is one FPS game on Earth that doesn't require much skills, it's precisely Call of Duty.
Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that some of these players actually have fun playing CoD? I think you are exaggerating a little. The Modern Warfare series changed the FPS landscape. They didn't just do it by "stroking egos". Look, its obvious that you don't like CoD, but give them a little more credit than that. The fact that you can name some problems that you have with game doesn't in any way make it badly designed. While I tend to play FPS' such as Bad Company 2 more than MW2 or BO, I can at least admit that I have some very fond memories of some awesome COD play sessions.
Is the game perfect? No. Are there some balancing issues with MW2's multiplayer? Of course. Can you totally own the competition with no skills whatsoever? No, you can't. If you think it doesn't take any skill, then perhaps you should pull up one of the more popular Modern Warfare montages on youtube, and then come back and tell me that there is no skill required. Can you easily own those players? Probably not, because they are exceptionally good.
What people like about games like CoD is that its always been very accessible. Yes, it is "easy to pick up and play", but it takes a lot of practice to be as good as some of the people you see on the internet.
A real veteran of FPS game might enjoy the feeling of the weapons, but what makes the core satisfaction of Call of Duty just can't appeal to veterans or pros mentality.
You could compare that easily with what makes a level design good. Casual players don't perceive the depth of the game and can't appreciate or understand the subtleties; what really make the game fun. The most casual or inexperienced players will always prefer the smaller maps, the more chaotic, the more just ''I wanna shoot people right now'' while veterans and pros will actually hate those maps since to have fun a better pacing is required. The map needs to be bigger, better designed, offer a better flow, tricks and strategies; more depth.
A gamer who cares about gameplay will just hate the Singleplayer of CoD, because it's more a cool interactive movie than a rewarding game.
CoD attempts to give you the illusion of satisfaction, because the core gameplay mechanics simply aren't properly satisfying. That's why I usually use the term ''to flatter the Ego''. The well aware players won't fall for that and will see right through it.
Call of Duty certainly isn't perfect, but the same flaws keep returning in every sequel.
- Gunplay too fast that prevents a proper compensation for lag issues or even at least offer a proper time reaction during the gunfights. On 6 shots you might just die instantly even if 3 were missed.
- Gunplay too accurate to actually require the players to develop a certain degree of mastery and in the end... pretty much all the weapons feel the same. That's why Quake II actually does more with less and so does Counter-Strike.
- Headshots are not required, since the time it takes to perform 3 bodyshots with such gameplay is mostly the same. It slightly reduce the size of the gap between rookies, veterans and pros, which is rarely a good thing (competitively speaking).
If I had to rate the skill requirement on 10, CoD is pretty much stuck to 3 compared to FPS such as Quake, Counter-Strike or Soldier of Fortune 2.
''Can you totally own the competition with no skills whatsoever? No, you can't.''
But if the gap between rookies, veterans and pros is too small, the competitive aspect of the game becomes an illusion and that's something that should be avoided at all cost. CoD has one of the smallest gap.
''If you think it doesn't take any skill, then perhaps you should pull up one of the more popular Modern Warfare montages on youtube, and then come back and tell me that there is no skill required. Can you easily own those players? Probably not, because they are exceptionally good.''
Did you know that knowledge and execution are actually two different things?
Did you know that back in 2003, I actually was able 3 shot-burst 3 guys in the head across a map at over 50 meters and that's by including the intuitive calculation of latency issues, bullet travel and delay before the weapon actually fires the projectile. That's not even the skill level that Quake 3 players are actually demonstrating in pro tournaments nowadays and I wasn't even aware that pro gaming actually existed back then. Time changed, I don't play 14 hours a day anymore and I make games instead and you know what? What I learned goes way beyond video games and I still possess that knowledge as far as I know. At the top of that, I have over 10 years of experience with martial arts and fighting. The degree of mastery and understanding I reached in Taekwon-Do really helped me to understand different subtleties of gameplay mechanics. I do not personally know any other designer who spent that much time into understanding combat design in general, but it still is a path that I would suggest to anyone.
I'm sure you would actually like to see my current skills in a CoD montage, but unfortunately I have far more constructive things to do such as creating a competitive game that actually requires some skills and then maybe we'll finally have once again... FPS games that require some skills.
I’m glad you’ve really enjoyed your time learning Taekwon-Do. I’ve also studied it, and while it’s not all that effective in real life combat, it’s great for discipline. Kudos. Anyways, what do you mean “real gamers”? I’ve been playing FPS games since DOOM and Wolfenstein. Name an FPS, and I’ve probably played it. I’m a committed gamer, and I’ve had tons of fun while playing Call of Duty. Does that prove your thesis wrong, or are you just going to now assert that I’m not a “real veteran gamer” and I’m just playing COD to “stroke my ego”?
Is it easy to get good or decent at this game? Yep, and that’s what makes it accessible. Is it easy to master the game and be at the top of the charts in every battle? No, it’s not. All you’ve demonstrated is that MW is easier to get good at (accessible), but you haven’t proven that it’s easy to master.
Look, just admit that you don’t have fun playing Call of Duty anymore. That’s perfectly fine. At least don’t insult the intelligence of people who actually like the game and have FUN while playing it.
Any game is supposed to be easy to pick up and play, otherwise it's bad design. CoD is simply not hard to master, because the potential complexity of the gameplay mechanics simply doesn't require much skills.
If you are familiar with Halo, the equivalence in terms of skills would be to only allow the players to use their ''melee''. Because it's a very generic action that doesn't require much skills, the result is going to be much more random and the gap between the players is going to be smaller. That's how CoD is compared to other FPS that have a better gunplay and other elements. Killstreaks make things even worst since some of them might give automatic kills to a player while he really did not earned them.
I used the term ''real gamer'' as a reference to a player who once experienced the thrill of getting better at a game and because of that... synchronicity occurs and as he gets better, memorable moments start to occur at a higher rate. As the player gets better, the intensity keeps going up on every level.
Because killing people is relatively easy in CoD, you will rarely have a wow moment as strong as you would normally have in a properly challenging FPS game. By example, a quadruple kill in CoD is always going to be far less exciting than one in Halo Reach. Even if Quake III is a fast game, it does compensate properly with different weapon mechanics that are slower (rocket, plasma rifle, grenade launcher, etc.).
By the way, I'm not insulting the intelligence of anyone, but I'm stating that who loves CoD more than any better FPS simply lacks experience. Some people will remain casual all their lives and will never change, there nothing wrong with that.
I play Halo, Killzone, MW, and BFBC2. I've had just as many "wow" moments in all of them. I respect your opinion about COD not requiring skill, but I just have to disagree with you. There are many people who play all of the FPS' games, are good at all of them, but still prefer CoD. Its about the type of gaming experience they prefer. That doesn't automatically make them casual. Are games like Halo and Battlefield deeper because they allow vehicles and other things? Of course, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't take skill to be the best at games like CoD. Most of the players you see on those montages are legitimately good players, and not someone who just started playing last week.
Also, don't be surprised when people react negatively to phrases such as "real gamer". CoD is full of both hardcore and casual players that love the game equally, and dismissing the casual players as not "real gamers" will automatically be construed as insulting. It's just a badly chosen phrase, IMO.
As I said, I've played every FPS you've named, and much more. When COD4 and MW2 came out, they were my favorite FPS games at that time (I liked it better than Quake, and I still do). Right now, BFBC2 is my favorite FPS. While I'm not the best in the CoD community, I'm more decent than average. Does that not contradict your point?
Have you considered that it might be that CoD multiplayer level design is just tailored for casual/chaotic gameplay? I don't find the game bad, it's great in many aspects, but it's not as strategic for me as Counter-Strike, neither as skillful as UT (whichever entry), but I have a guess that the problem is level design for the most part. I do agree weapons all feel basically the same in CoD, and killstreaks make the gameplay less solid.
I still prefer CS over CoD, I only play CoD in console for split screen with my friends in a sunday barbecue, when we get really tired of fighting games. But I have yet to see if CS rules and maps in CoD would make an awesome competitive gameplay. I bet it would, for some extend.
Addind a land mine is a bit deeper, but not really "deep". Sometimes less is more. And it's the players and the rules what make a game deep.
I'm not trying to convince you that CoD does require less skills, it is just pure mathematics and design logic. In every aspect, CoD requires simply less skills than most other FPS games on the market.
When I used real gamers, it's important to keep the context. What's the goal of a competitive game? To get better at it and if you actually experienced the depth of other games in that case, CoD is pure waste of time.
To say that CoD require as much a skills as other shooters is as true as saying the Wii was designed for core gamers. However ,the success of CoD clearly demonstrates how young our industry is, how much influence by money we are and how many new comers (casual competitive gamers) are out there buying junk food and not real food. Same phenomenon with rap and hip hop or anything else.
On the other hand, the video games industry is not different from any other businesses. The highest employees do not want to lose their jobs so they do do or care what should be done, so in the end the dev team is always going to be asked to copy CoD and we get stuck in the same cycle for years.
@ Luis Guimarães
I don't think it's the level design at all. Actually, BF: Bad Company 2 would be a better game for squad-based combat, if it had the level design of most urban CoD maps. It's really the gameplay of CoD that doesn't take advantage of the rest, including level design. There are better ways to make a game fast paced without screwing up the formula.
I'm particularly curious to see if the Respawn Entertainment guys actually learned from CoD.
-looks up above for "mathematics and logic" and finds a lot of opinions instead-
Yeah, sure. By the way, there is no such thing as a game that is NOT a waste of time. Its a moot point.
Look, like I said, its obvious that you don't like COD, and that's fine. I don't have the time nor energy to continue this back and forth so you can have the last word...
"Yeah, sure. By the way, there is no such thing as a game that is NOT a waste of time. Its a moot point."
My goodness. I just forgot that games, along with film, TV, and music are all just wastes of time and not experiences or art forms that are created for human pleasure. obviously ataining some forms of human pleasure could be wastes of time, but that is also to say that making yourself happy from induldging in art is itself a waste of time. So by all means if you find "wasting time" with CoD or any game enjoyable then please do so. Just keep in mind, theres MaMa Mia, and Les Miserables, sure MaMa Mia takes in more money and is more popular, but who in their right mind wants to sit through MaMa Mia. lol Idc for either side of this, I just couldnt let that little bit about games being a waste go untouched.
Everyone has to hate whats popular! You are a fool with a big ego and think you somehow know better than everyone else in the industry.
- Call Of Duty games have some of the best networking and online experiences I have ever played. Rarely has latency problems effected my games, maybe its time for you to upgrade your internet?
- Gunplay too accurate to require mastery? Thats like a contradicting statement. It is true the weapons are not designed to be completely different. Most guns in real life do similar things while feeling unique and the design choice to push for realism over an age old game mechanic you were taught as the "best" way makes a much more engaging experience.
- You don't need headshots too kill someone that is correct. The game does not focus on ancient FPS design of twitch shooting mechanics.
- Thats really warm and fuzzy that you think martial arts improves your game design, but your still working at the bottom of the totem pole so maybe that hasn't really helped :) ?
- There is anything but a tiny gap between the pros and the noobs. While it is structured so new players can more easily get kills and contribute, the difference between somebody 5/15 and a player dominating with a 45/4 is definitely a large skill based gap. Another testament is how players keep coming back. If it was easy and they could master it so quickly, this would not be the case.
- What it comes down to is 10 million people think its the most fun game they own and play it every night including some of the most hardcore and casual gamers. You may say what you want about how superior you think your own game designs may be but the fact is 10 million people say COD is better and will buy that over your game every time.
You claim I hate CoD, that I'm a fool with a big ego and that I somehow believe that I'm better than everyone else in this industry. Those a pretty big claims from someone who jumped to some conclusion right after reading a text on the internet, so let me laugh, because that can just be hilariously pretentious. But hey, good fun.
My internet is fine, 30mb download and 2mb upload so it gives me a ping between 5-50 depending of the location of the server. But you got it all wrong, I wasn't talking about that kind of latency issue, but I already explained that.
Gunplay too accurate to require mastery seems contradictory to you? Maybe you didn't read the whole text, but let me rephrase that. When you fire with a weapon, barely have any recoil and can keep your finger on the trigger because there is nothing to master or control, then that's not challenging and that doesn't require any mastery of the weapon. You just full fire and follow; that's CoD and that is the basic of the basic. There is nothing easy to play and hard to master in that.
''Thats really warm and fuzzy that you think martial arts improves your game design''
As I said earlier, if you understand the principle of correspondence or the law of vibration or the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein or many ancient teachings from all over the world or if you actually have a certain life experience, that's the type of truth that at some point is very obvious. Whatever you study, you learn the same things and those things are the same, but only have a different look or context. You can learn cooking, music, sports, martial arts or eSports... it doesn't matter. You learn the same life principles, because all of them are governed by the same universal laws. And yeah, they don't teach that sort of stuff in college.
''but your still working at the bottom of the totem pole so maybe that hasn't really helped :) ?''
Could you please say that in a different way, because I really don't get the meaning.
''There is anything but a tiny gap between the pros and the noobs. While it is structured so new players can more easily get kills and contribute, the difference between somebody 5/15 and a player dominating with a 45/4 is definitely a large skill based gap. Another testament is how players keep coming back. If it was easy and they could master it so quickly, this would not be the case.''
One day, a brilliant analyst for a big company told me this: ''Most analysts will look through the data, look at the numbers and draw a conclusion, a pointless one. That is what I would call a Level 1 analysis. But if you study what you are looking at and are able to understand the influences, then you can understand the numbers and even perceive what is coming next. That's what I would call a level 2 analysis.'' What you just did is a Level 1 analysis. Compared to a game that really require a lot of skills, most good player in CoD will end up at the top of the list with not much difference between the scores and if you would look at the whole CoD gaming community... you'll find out that most players are actually above the average score that they would have in a game that requires skills. in other words, the veterans and the pros are so close in CoD in terms of skill, that there is barely a gap between them. And then you say that they come back because it's hard to master, but that's not why they come back. They come back because they make kills effortlessly, because they have killstreaks and hundreds of ''Congratulation master sergeant most important extreme sergeant to the max'' that make them feel good (their EGO). You even get rewarded for sucking at the game, for wasting the time of your teammate that could actually care about their experience.
''What it comes down to is 10 million people think its the most fun game they own and play it every night including some of the most hardcore and casual gamers.''
Do you actually know those 10 million people, because I really don't and really didn't jump to that conclusion. And I know a lot of core and casual gamers. And once again, it's not because a game is successful or sell well that it is actually representative of its quality; you are doing a level 1 analysis. You need to consider if it became a cultural event like Halo was back in the days, the type of game everyone agrees to buy to find a middle ground to play with their friend. You need to ask yourself if a lot of them bought the game hoping for changes and everytime just don't get them, but still keep hope. And you need to consider if there are actually other competitive FPS games on the market for that genre. Gamers need to have something to play, something new even if it's crap in order to wait for the next big thing and it's not CoD. And if you ask me, Unreal Tournament 3 didn't nail it and CoD is pretty much alone in its genre so there isn't much competition. That's why some people keep buying CoD while a few others keep playing Quake III and Counter-Strike, the old games.
''You may say what you want about how superior you think your own game designs may be but the fact is 10 million people say COD is better and will buy that over your game every time.''
I really don't get where I talked about ''my'' game design. I pointed flaws in the design and that all there was. And as I said earlier, if 10 million people are convinced that CoD is better than some other competitive games on the market, well it is strongly probable that it's because they yet do not have the experience to appreciate better design or simply put a competitive game that requires proper skills. Give them games that help them to make the transition and after a few years you'll end up with 10 million thinking that CoD wasn't so fun afterall.
Consumers don't shape this industry, it's what we create that forges them. The popularity of Call of Duty exclusively demonstrate what we already know... a lot of new comers came in the current generation of 360 and PS3; that's it. So here is the big thing; make a game more mature and the audience will follow.
By the way, there is a new bonus round on gametrailers in which David Jaffe speaks about how video games right now fail to be fun as pure video games.
That's a very fair response, and I agree 100%. I spoke very hastily when I was responding to his depiction of COD as a “waste of time”. I mean to say that such logic can be applied to just about any popular game out there, including the ones he appears to be particularly fond of (like Quake and Halo).
Thanks for calling me out on that one. Great point.
1. Consumers shape every industry that makes money, thats how economics works. If your not trying to make products that appeal to consumers and instead push some "new view" or something like that, I can guarantee you will not be successful for long.
2. All science is based on drawing conclusions from data and I don't see how you can logically think that does not work. Its also the basis of how humans learn. While knowing some influence can help you make smarter decisions, smart decisions based sheerly on data are made everyday.
3. Xbox live alone posts more than one Call Of Duty game in the top ten with the players being in the millions. Almost everyone I know who plays games has played Call Of Duty for some large amount of time. People always wan't to be playing the most fun game so It still comes down to these 10 million people say Call Of Duty is more fun than any other game they own, doesn't matter what Jaffe says, whatever "pure video games" are, if they were better people would play those instead.
4. Jason West and Vince Zampella at Respawn understand games and entertainment. I would be shocked if there new game was not a massive success.
5. You just did what you call a "level 1 analysis" with:
"Compared to a game that really require a lot of skills, most good player in CoD will end up at the top of the list with not much difference between the scores and if you would look at the whole CoD gaming community... you'll find out that most players are actually above the average score that they would have in a game that requires skills"
Scores and even kill counts between games is completely incomparable some are designed with longer conflicts so fewer kills, some are shorter encounters more kills, it can even be level design. Sounds like you need to look more into "understand the influences"
1. If you look at the games that shaped the history of gaming, most were pretty unique and new. Half-Life, Team Fortress 2, Portal, Angry Birds, Halo, Modern Warfare, Zelda, Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, Gears of War, Crash Bandicoot, WoW, Diablo, Red Dead: Redemption, etc.
2. What was that for?
3. And how many players are still playing Call of Duty online? Not 10 millions. As I said, the franchise is a cultural event. A lot of those players go back on other games once they are done with their friends. And as I said, how many other competitive FPS games are out there that are decent and not trying to copy CoD? Very few if not... none other than Halo. So, to think that COD is that good is pretty pointless.
5. You can play with the same group of highly skilled players and the best players will usually be at the top of the list. But if that group plays Call of Duty, you would realize that who usually was first can now be 2nd and 3rd and that all other players are pretty much always equal from the beginning to the end. That's because it doesn't require as much skills as a FPS game should. If you look at both Halo and CoD, then you obviously realized that the current new comers LOVE easy kills that do not require much effort, so that do not require much skills.
And that's just mathematic, because the same thing happens also on Halo. It takes 4 shots to destroy the energy shield (anywhere on the body), then one headshot. With a default weapon, it's impossible to perform a headshot during the first 4 shots. Anywhere you hit... works. So that means that during 4 shots, you don't have to aim the head, so don't have to aim better than the other; and bodyshots are pretty easy. So, because the players do not have those 4 opportunities to aim better than the opponent, that will reduce the gap between rookies and pros just like what Call of Duty does, because that game only requires you to hold down the trigger and follow a target and anyone with decent skills can do that perfectly.
To say that ''Scores and even kill counts between games is completely incomparable because some are designed with longer conflicts so fewer kills, some are shorter encounters more kills, it can even be level design.'' is irrelevant, because I wasn't talking about the exact amount of kills, but the proportions of one player to another more skilled player.
Sorry, I should have expected that some people wouldn't have been able to put it in the competitive context.
My bad. But a discussion goes both ways, so when you are not sure; you ask, before jumping to such conclusion that prevents us from having a proper discussion.
You seem to have a stringent criteria for an FPS. That may work for you, but not for everyone and downgrading people who happen to prefer Call of Duty seems elitist. I understand your points and that those are your preferences. Other people are allowed to have their own.
I don't see much arrogance in pointing out that there are 3 different audiences, but that people tend to forget that people change over time or when they are taught.
I said that CoD was designed for a very casual audience and all posts above pointed out that CoD didn't require as much skills as other shooters. So your assumption that I'm actually an arrogant person isn't very valid to me. But I can't blame you, you didn't read...
I think all "true gamers" know that it's been completely downhill ever since the mouse was invented, a cheap device created by feeble minded individuals who couldn't cope with the rather more elegant and challenging method of using one's keypad to look about a 3 dimensional space. Now, I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, I'm just saying that you don't belong to a special group that I belong to and therefore your opinions will never be as valid as mine. Clearly, Call of Duty has inferior "gunplay" as any accurate reading on the Becks-Heimdall "gunplay" scale would show. Now, I think we can all agree that the only reason for Call of Duty's massive popularity is most likely due to rampant inbreeding among the "casuals." Thankfully though over time, this aberration will soon die out due to weakened immune systems and really not a moment too soon for those poor, uneducated masses enjoying something so clearly inferior. It's almost tragic.
"The developers have also focused on narrowing the gap between entry level and expert players,"
These just feel a little contradictory, and the whole article itself just feels like a PR guy saying it's whatever you want it to be without providing any details as of how. I bet if someone there had said they wanted a ham sandwich he would have told them the disc tastes like a ham sandwich.
And it's especially untrustworthy if the PR talk is coming from Bowling.
That statement really is a huge insult the to core gaming crowd. If there is one FPS game on Earth that doesn't require much skills, it's precisely Call of Duty.
Is the game perfect? No. Are there some balancing issues with MW2's multiplayer? Of course. Can you totally own the competition with no skills whatsoever? No, you can't. If you think it doesn't take any skill, then perhaps you should pull up one of the more popular Modern Warfare montages on youtube, and then come back and tell me that there is no skill required. Can you easily own those players? Probably not, because they are exceptionally good.
What people like about games like CoD is that its always been very accessible. Yes, it is "easy to pick up and play", but it takes a lot of practice to be as good as some of the people you see on the internet.
You could compare that easily with what makes a level design good. Casual players don't perceive the depth of the game and can't appreciate or understand the subtleties; what really make the game fun. The most casual or inexperienced players will always prefer the smaller maps, the more chaotic, the more just ''I wanna shoot people right now'' while veterans and pros will actually hate those maps since to have fun a better pacing is required. The map needs to be bigger, better designed, offer a better flow, tricks and strategies; more depth.
A gamer who cares about gameplay will just hate the Singleplayer of CoD, because it's more a cool interactive movie than a rewarding game.
CoD attempts to give you the illusion of satisfaction, because the core gameplay mechanics simply aren't properly satisfying. That's why I usually use the term ''to flatter the Ego''. The well aware players won't fall for that and will see right through it.
Call of Duty certainly isn't perfect, but the same flaws keep returning in every sequel.
- Gunplay too fast that prevents a proper compensation for lag issues or even at least offer a proper time reaction during the gunfights. On 6 shots you might just die instantly even if 3 were missed.
- Gunplay too accurate to actually require the players to develop a certain degree of mastery and in the end... pretty much all the weapons feel the same. That's why Quake II actually does more with less and so does Counter-Strike.
- Headshots are not required, since the time it takes to perform 3 bodyshots with such gameplay is mostly the same. It slightly reduce the size of the gap between rookies, veterans and pros, which is rarely a good thing (competitively speaking).
If I had to rate the skill requirement on 10, CoD is pretty much stuck to 3 compared to FPS such as Quake, Counter-Strike or Soldier of Fortune 2.
''Can you totally own the competition with no skills whatsoever? No, you can't.''
But if the gap between rookies, veterans and pros is too small, the competitive aspect of the game becomes an illusion and that's something that should be avoided at all cost. CoD has one of the smallest gap.
''If you think it doesn't take any skill, then perhaps you should pull up one of the more popular Modern Warfare montages on youtube, and then come back and tell me that there is no skill required. Can you easily own those players? Probably not, because they are exceptionally good.''
Did you know that knowledge and execution are actually two different things?
Did you know that back in 2003, I actually was able 3 shot-burst 3 guys in the head across a map at over 50 meters and that's by including the intuitive calculation of latency issues, bullet travel and delay before the weapon actually fires the projectile. That's not even the skill level that Quake 3 players are actually demonstrating in pro tournaments nowadays and I wasn't even aware that pro gaming actually existed back then. Time changed, I don't play 14 hours a day anymore and I make games instead and you know what? What I learned goes way beyond video games and I still possess that knowledge as far as I know. At the top of that, I have over 10 years of experience with martial arts and fighting. The degree of mastery and understanding I reached in Taekwon-Do really helped me to understand different subtleties of gameplay mechanics. I do not personally know any other designer who spent that much time into understanding combat design in general, but it still is a path that I would suggest to anyone.
I'm sure you would actually like to see my current skills in a CoD montage, but unfortunately I have far more constructive things to do such as creating a competitive game that actually requires some skills and then maybe we'll finally have once again... FPS games that require some skills.
Is it easy to get good or decent at this game? Yep, and that’s what makes it accessible. Is it easy to master the game and be at the top of the charts in every battle? No, it’s not. All you’ve demonstrated is that MW is easier to get good at (accessible), but you haven’t proven that it’s easy to master.
Look, just admit that you don’t have fun playing Call of Duty anymore. That’s perfectly fine. At least don’t insult the intelligence of people who actually like the game and have FUN while playing it.
If you are familiar with Halo, the equivalence in terms of skills would be to only allow the players to use their ''melee''. Because it's a very generic action that doesn't require much skills, the result is going to be much more random and the gap between the players is going to be smaller. That's how CoD is compared to other FPS that have a better gunplay and other elements. Killstreaks make things even worst since some of them might give automatic kills to a player while he really did not earned them.
I used the term ''real gamer'' as a reference to a player who once experienced the thrill of getting better at a game and because of that... synchronicity occurs and as he gets better, memorable moments start to occur at a higher rate. As the player gets better, the intensity keeps going up on every level.
Because killing people is relatively easy in CoD, you will rarely have a wow moment as strong as you would normally have in a properly challenging FPS game. By example, a quadruple kill in CoD is always going to be far less exciting than one in Halo Reach. Even if Quake III is a fast game, it does compensate properly with different weapon mechanics that are slower (rocket, plasma rifle, grenade launcher, etc.).
By the way, I'm not insulting the intelligence of anyone, but I'm stating that who loves CoD more than any better FPS simply lacks experience. Some people will remain casual all their lives and will never change, there nothing wrong with that.
Also, don't be surprised when people react negatively to phrases such as "real gamer". CoD is full of both hardcore and casual players that love the game equally, and dismissing the casual players as not "real gamers" will automatically be construed as insulting. It's just a badly chosen phrase, IMO.
As I said, I've played every FPS you've named, and much more. When COD4 and MW2 came out, they were my favorite FPS games at that time (I liked it better than Quake, and I still do). Right now, BFBC2 is my favorite FPS. While I'm not the best in the CoD community, I'm more decent than average. Does that not contradict your point?
Have you considered that it might be that CoD multiplayer level design is just tailored for casual/chaotic gameplay? I don't find the game bad, it's great in many aspects, but it's not as strategic for me as Counter-Strike, neither as skillful as UT (whichever entry), but I have a guess that the problem is level design for the most part. I do agree weapons all feel basically the same in CoD, and killstreaks make the gameplay less solid.
I still prefer CS over CoD, I only play CoD in console for split screen with my friends in a sunday barbecue, when we get really tired of fighting games. But I have yet to see if CS rules and maps in CoD would make an awesome competitive gameplay. I bet it would, for some extend.
Addind a land mine is a bit deeper, but not really "deep". Sometimes less is more. And it's the players and the rules what make a game deep.
I'm not trying to convince you that CoD does require less skills, it is just pure mathematics and design logic. In every aspect, CoD requires simply less skills than most other FPS games on the market.
When I used real gamers, it's important to keep the context. What's the goal of a competitive game? To get better at it and if you actually experienced the depth of other games in that case, CoD is pure waste of time.
To say that CoD require as much a skills as other shooters is as true as saying the Wii was designed for core gamers. However ,the success of CoD clearly demonstrates how young our industry is, how much influence by money we are and how many new comers (casual competitive gamers) are out there buying junk food and not real food. Same phenomenon with rap and hip hop or anything else.
On the other hand, the video games industry is not different from any other businesses. The highest employees do not want to lose their jobs so they do do or care what should be done, so in the end the dev team is always going to be asked to copy CoD and we get stuck in the same cycle for years.
@ Luis Guimarães
I don't think it's the level design at all. Actually, BF: Bad Company 2 would be a better game for squad-based combat, if it had the level design of most urban CoD maps. It's really the gameplay of CoD that doesn't take advantage of the rest, including level design. There are better ways to make a game fast paced without screwing up the formula.
I'm particularly curious to see if the Respawn Entertainment guys actually learned from CoD.
Yeah, sure. By the way, there is no such thing as a game that is NOT a waste of time. Its a moot point.
Look, like I said, its obvious that you don't like COD, and that's fine. I don't have the time nor energy to continue this back and forth so you can have the last word...
Talk about fucking l33t.
"Yeah, sure. By the way, there is no such thing as a game that is NOT a waste of time. Its a moot point."
My goodness. I just forgot that games, along with film, TV, and music are all just wastes of time and not experiences or art forms that are created for human pleasure. obviously ataining some forms of human pleasure could be wastes of time, but that is also to say that making yourself happy from induldging in art is itself a waste of time. So by all means if you find "wasting time" with CoD or any game enjoyable then please do so. Just keep in mind, theres MaMa Mia, and Les Miserables, sure MaMa Mia takes in more money and is more popular, but who in their right mind wants to sit through MaMa Mia. lol Idc for either side of this, I just couldnt let that little bit about games being a waste go untouched.
- Call Of Duty games have some of the best networking and online experiences I have ever played. Rarely has latency problems effected my games, maybe its time for you to upgrade your internet?
- Gunplay too accurate to require mastery? Thats like a contradicting statement. It is true the weapons are not designed to be completely different. Most guns in real life do similar things while feeling unique and the design choice to push for realism over an age old game mechanic you were taught as the "best" way makes a much more engaging experience.
- You don't need headshots too kill someone that is correct. The game does not focus on ancient FPS design of twitch shooting mechanics.
- Thats really warm and fuzzy that you think martial arts improves your game design, but your still working at the bottom of the totem pole so maybe that hasn't really helped :) ?
- There is anything but a tiny gap between the pros and the noobs. While it is structured so new players can more easily get kills and contribute, the difference between somebody 5/15 and a player dominating with a 45/4 is definitely a large skill based gap. Another testament is how players keep coming back. If it was easy and they could master it so quickly, this would not be the case.
- What it comes down to is 10 million people think its the most fun game they own and play it every night including some of the most hardcore and casual gamers. You may say what you want about how superior you think your own game designs may be but the fact is 10 million people say COD is better and will buy that over your game every time.
My internet is fine, 30mb download and 2mb upload so it gives me a ping between 5-50 depending of the location of the server. But you got it all wrong, I wasn't talking about that kind of latency issue, but I already explained that.
Gunplay too accurate to require mastery seems contradictory to you? Maybe you didn't read the whole text, but let me rephrase that. When you fire with a weapon, barely have any recoil and can keep your finger on the trigger because there is nothing to master or control, then that's not challenging and that doesn't require any mastery of the weapon. You just full fire and follow; that's CoD and that is the basic of the basic. There is nothing easy to play and hard to master in that.
''Thats really warm and fuzzy that you think martial arts improves your game design''
As I said earlier, if you understand the principle of correspondence or the law of vibration or the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein or many ancient teachings from all over the world or if you actually have a certain life experience, that's the type of truth that at some point is very obvious. Whatever you study, you learn the same things and those things are the same, but only have a different look or context. You can learn cooking, music, sports, martial arts or eSports... it doesn't matter. You learn the same life principles, because all of them are governed by the same universal laws. And yeah, they don't teach that sort of stuff in college.
''but your still working at the bottom of the totem pole so maybe that hasn't really helped :) ?''
Could you please say that in a different way, because I really don't get the meaning.
''There is anything but a tiny gap between the pros and the noobs. While it is structured so new players can more easily get kills and contribute, the difference between somebody 5/15 and a player dominating with a 45/4 is definitely a large skill based gap. Another testament is how players keep coming back. If it was easy and they could master it so quickly, this would not be the case.''
One day, a brilliant analyst for a big company told me this: ''Most analysts will look through the data, look at the numbers and draw a conclusion, a pointless one. That is what I would call a Level 1 analysis. But if you study what you are looking at and are able to understand the influences, then you can understand the numbers and even perceive what is coming next. That's what I would call a level 2 analysis.'' What you just did is a Level 1 analysis. Compared to a game that really require a lot of skills, most good player in CoD will end up at the top of the list with not much difference between the scores and if you would look at the whole CoD gaming community... you'll find out that most players are actually above the average score that they would have in a game that requires skills. in other words, the veterans and the pros are so close in CoD in terms of skill, that there is barely a gap between them. And then you say that they come back because it's hard to master, but that's not why they come back. They come back because they make kills effortlessly, because they have killstreaks and hundreds of ''Congratulation master sergeant most important extreme sergeant to the max'' that make them feel good (their EGO). You even get rewarded for sucking at the game, for wasting the time of your teammate that could actually care about their experience.
''What it comes down to is 10 million people think its the most fun game they own and play it every night including some of the most hardcore and casual gamers.''
Do you actually know those 10 million people, because I really don't and really didn't jump to that conclusion. And I know a lot of core and casual gamers. And once again, it's not because a game is successful or sell well that it is actually representative of its quality; you are doing a level 1 analysis. You need to consider if it became a cultural event like Halo was back in the days, the type of game everyone agrees to buy to find a middle ground to play with their friend. You need to ask yourself if a lot of them bought the game hoping for changes and everytime just don't get them, but still keep hope. And you need to consider if there are actually other competitive FPS games on the market for that genre. Gamers need to have something to play, something new even if it's crap in order to wait for the next big thing and it's not CoD. And if you ask me, Unreal Tournament 3 didn't nail it and CoD is pretty much alone in its genre so there isn't much competition. That's why some people keep buying CoD while a few others keep playing Quake III and Counter-Strike, the old games.
''You may say what you want about how superior you think your own game designs may be but the fact is 10 million people say COD is better and will buy that over your game every time.''
I really don't get where I talked about ''my'' game design. I pointed flaws in the design and that all there was. And as I said earlier, if 10 million people are convinced that CoD is better than some other competitive games on the market, well it is strongly probable that it's because they yet do not have the experience to appreciate better design or simply put a competitive game that requires proper skills. Give them games that help them to make the transition and after a few years you'll end up with 10 million thinking that CoD wasn't so fun afterall.
Consumers don't shape this industry, it's what we create that forges them. The popularity of Call of Duty exclusively demonstrate what we already know... a lot of new comers came in the current generation of 360 and PS3; that's it. So here is the big thing; make a game more mature and the audience will follow.
By the way, there is a new bonus round on gametrailers in which David Jaffe speaks about how video games right now fail to be fun as pure video games.
Thanks for calling me out on that one. Great point.
2. All science is based on drawing conclusions from data and I don't see how you can logically think that does not work. Its also the basis of how humans learn. While knowing some influence can help you make smarter decisions, smart decisions based sheerly on data are made everyday.
3. Xbox live alone posts more than one Call Of Duty game in the top ten with the players being in the millions. Almost everyone I know who plays games has played Call Of Duty for some large amount of time. People always wan't to be playing the most fun game so It still comes down to these 10 million people say Call Of Duty is more fun than any other game they own, doesn't matter what Jaffe says, whatever "pure video games" are, if they were better people would play those instead.
4. Jason West and Vince Zampella at Respawn understand games and entertainment. I would be shocked if there new game was not a massive success.
5. You just did what you call a "level 1 analysis" with:
"Compared to a game that really require a lot of skills, most good player in CoD will end up at the top of the list with not much difference between the scores and if you would look at the whole CoD gaming community... you'll find out that most players are actually above the average score that they would have in a game that requires skills"
Scores and even kill counts between games is completely incomparable some are designed with longer conflicts so fewer kills, some are shorter encounters more kills, it can even be level design. Sounds like you need to look more into "understand the influences"
2. What was that for?
3. And how many players are still playing Call of Duty online? Not 10 millions. As I said, the franchise is a cultural event. A lot of those players go back on other games once they are done with their friends. And as I said, how many other competitive FPS games are out there that are decent and not trying to copy CoD? Very few if not... none other than Halo. So, to think that COD is that good is pretty pointless.
5. You can play with the same group of highly skilled players and the best players will usually be at the top of the list. But if that group plays Call of Duty, you would realize that who usually was first can now be 2nd and 3rd and that all other players are pretty much always equal from the beginning to the end. That's because it doesn't require as much skills as a FPS game should. If you look at both Halo and CoD, then you obviously realized that the current new comers LOVE easy kills that do not require much effort, so that do not require much skills.
And that's just mathematic, because the same thing happens also on Halo. It takes 4 shots to destroy the energy shield (anywhere on the body), then one headshot. With a default weapon, it's impossible to perform a headshot during the first 4 shots. Anywhere you hit... works. So that means that during 4 shots, you don't have to aim the head, so don't have to aim better than the other; and bodyshots are pretty easy. So, because the players do not have those 4 opportunities to aim better than the opponent, that will reduce the gap between rookies and pros just like what Call of Duty does, because that game only requires you to hold down the trigger and follow a target and anyone with decent skills can do that perfectly.
To say that ''Scores and even kill counts between games is completely incomparable because some are designed with longer conflicts so fewer kills, some are shorter encounters more kills, it can even be level design.'' is irrelevant, because I wasn't talking about the exact amount of kills, but the proportions of one player to another more skilled player.
My bad. But a discussion goes both ways, so when you are not sure; you ask, before jumping to such conclusion that prevents us from having a proper discussion.
And your arrogance continues
I said that CoD was designed for a very casual audience and all posts above pointed out that CoD didn't require as much skills as other shooters. So your assumption that I'm actually an arrogant person isn't very valid to me. But I can't blame you, you didn't read...
"easy to pick up and play, hard to master,"
A little further down:
"The developers have also focused on narrowing the gap between entry level and expert players,"
These just feel a little contradictory, and the whole article itself just feels like a PR guy saying it's whatever you want it to be without providing any details as of how. I bet if someone there had said they wanted a ham sandwich he would have told them the disc tastes like a ham sandwich.