|
So this is going to be a rant on how I feel fps gaming on the pc has become worse over the years. Especially the Call of Duty series.
First some background on me, I started playing my first fps game when I was about 15 and we just got cable internet. For the first time I could play with a decent ping and develop some skills. The games I started with were Enemy Territory and Call of Duty 1. Pretty soon I joined a clan for cod1 and started playing matches on clanbase, at one moment even playing for one of the best clans back then, H2K.
Then Call of Duty 2 was released and I immediately noticed some so called 'improvements' on cod1. Now when you fired a weapon you became a red dot on the minimap, a convenient X showed if you hit someone and the screen was cluttered with little skulls to show you the places that might be dangerous. The game still had good gameplay and more or less balanced weapons together with a nice set of maps. So it was all good with me.
![[image loading]](http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3087/callofduty2360review01.jpg) Hey look! Red dots! Maybe some enemies are near!
Fast forward to cod4. It was more of the same little things like the red dots, death markers, hit blips, the only new thing being the killstreaks and perks. At first I thought it was an interesting concept but soon enough I realized that stopping power was almost necessary on any weapon and most matches consisted of people with frag x3, martyrdom and the p90 or an assault rifle with the grenade launcher. Ruining my day with their spam.
![[image loading]](http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/EXCLUSIVE%20RIGHTS/Exclusive%20Games/C/Call%20of%20Duty%204/Everything%20Else/CoD-4Grenades--article_image.jpg) An ordinary day on a cod4 server
Maybe it was stupid, but I had high hopes for Call of Duty: World at War. Back to ww2 with my old trusted factions and their weapons. I wish I had done a little more research. Because the multiplayer was a straight copy of cod4, perks, killstreaks and even more little icons on the hud. My main dislike with cod:waw is that you no longer have faction weapons, but like cod4, unlock the weapons as you rank up. No longer you could distinguish between friend and foe by listening to the sound of gunfire, or gain an advantage by picking up an enemy weapon. The main trend I noticed so far was the addition of more gimmicky stuff like the bouncing betty, perks, killstreaks and less focus on the core: the actual fps game itself.
The epitome of this mindset is Modernwarfare 2. No dedicated servers making high latency and lag a normal experience, even more killstreaks, overpowered weapons and more gimmicks with the riot shield and tactical knife. This game threw any kind of necessary skill out of the window and replaced it with randomness. All due to the lack of dedicated servers.
![[image loading]](http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4840/codmw2hostq.jpg) Hmm I wonder if the host would have an advantage
What brings me to cod: Black Ops. They brought back dedicated servers and instead of expected smooth gameplay there is even more lag due to poor coding.
I could have added more things I dislike but I would like to conclude with the trend I noticed, and why I feel it is bad for online fps gaming on the pc. In all recent fps releases these so called 'gimmicks' are added to the point they handicap the core part of an fps: the actual stable and smooth gameplay with interesting and balanced weapons.
   
|
stop playing CoD and play Counter Strike, it's the best FPS there is. Day of Defeat for WW2
|
All so very very true.
I started a few years before you with Medal of Honor: Allied Assault. I also played on Clanbase for a series of top clans (MyGspot being EU champions several times over cups and over the ladder).
For me MoH:AA was the perfect FPS setup for competitive FPS, we often had 3-5 clan matches a day and there was actually a skill to the game.
I played CoD1 for a while but like 2 years after it came out (still had a big following), but never really got into it competitively as I played MoH:AA competitively for around 5 years, attending LANs such as Insomnia in the UK. Myself and the clans I played for were pretty successful to say the least.
Fast forward a little bit and I quickly observed the detereoration of FPS competitiveness. As you said, the CoD series was going downhill, so I jumped ship to MMORPGs, in which I led a team who, simply put, hardcored every major MMORPG out there. We would play for 18 hours a day on new games/new servers to show how much we wanted to dominate.
So I played these games for around 3-4 years, then went to consoles for a little bit. MW2 on Xbox360 I played on GameBattles "competitively"... GB is a subsidiary of MLG for those that don't know. But MW2 was and still is a case of Marathon, Lightweight, Ninja Pro alongside a UMP + Silencer. The single most OP class you can really have in the game... I mean, c'mon, how the hell can an SMG be so accurate at such a long distance?!
Fortunately, Starcraft 2 came out, and I thought I'd jump ship to RTS and try my hand at the worlds most competitive game. I sucked, and admittedly still do (finally advancing through the leagues though!).
Nevertheless, I'm straying off topic and would ultimately like to agree with you that PC FPS competitivity is terrible these days, and unfortunately all the old games that made competitiveness so good are dying out now (MOHAA, CS etc)
TLDR; I agree.
|
What do you expect from a series with EA style publishing? There has been 7 CoD games in the last 7 years. Of course its becoming bullshit. Just look at how EA games like Command and Conquer developed. Same publishing style, same result. They see it works, and then they completely "over-drain" the franchise with a ton of new games in a quite short time.
|
CoD2 ! ou memories : (((((((( but look at this. how many RTS games are there ? not so much more than FPS ones. FPS - CS, CSS, QL, little bit CoD4 RTS - SC, SC2, DoW and dying W3
We all know that CoD is gonna be just worst and worst, CoD2 got skill capped on high level play. others like CS, CSS, QL are here so play em.
MW2 on Xbox360 I played on GameBattles "competitively" cmon, there is no competitive play of CoD with perks, and that MLG league is one big JOKE cause that game cant be taken like a competitive game.
|
IMO big competitions like WCG have it right, stick to CS 1.6 for competition. Games like CoD, BF, modern fps i guess, just aren't made for competition. They're made to appease the casuals who give them money. Stick to CS for competition.
|
You'll get x prestige level, play a near carbon scene for scene campaign copy of mw1&2 and realise there are tonnes of single player games you could have played through. Even WoW is more fulfilling the fps nowadays.
|
Less a state of FPS and more a state of CoD lol.
Anyway, people interested in this type of game will love this guy's Let's Play of Battlefield 1942:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Battlefield315
I still like your points though... My brother shows me those new games and I don't like them. Perhaps it's for the same reason I am so fond of SC... At the start of the game you are not at an immediate disadvantage because your opponent has gotten a better rank than you.
Really, giving players who have played longer (therefore know the ins and outs of the maps and general glitchy things about the game) the better weapons, while totally screwing newer players who don't feel like playing every day is a terrible idea. It's kind of like letting a Protoss build arbiters out his Nexus so he can feel gosu as he beats someone who is not allowed to get detection.
|
play 1.6? it is still very much alive and still the best competitive fps out there.
|
Korea (South)1897 Posts
http://www.quakelive.com/#!home
Quake Live for the win. Seriously, all others have no comparison if you want real FPS action. You sissy walking, crouching, wall hugging wannabes, go play a real FPS!
And its free to play for some limited features. No, I don't work for them, but I was an old school Quake 3 player.
You sissies! And agree, the state of competitive fps in the toilet, the fact that ID brings out this as their new product lol. But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS.
|
We can blame the consoles. Developers just make console games now and port them to PC, that's why most FPS games nowadays are crap. THe console players cant pirate as easily as the PC players. Why should they make games catering for players which will "steal" the game instead of buying it? Capitalism, what can you do?
|
On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS.
True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs..
Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games.
|
all I have to say is that overall FPS skill level has declined since Q3A and UT1/UT2k4 fell from prominence
|
On November 22 2010 02:34 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS. True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs.. Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games.
In all honesty, the CoD games are actually fun to play on public. Not everyone buys games because they want to go to LANs, win prizes...etc. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumers are casual gamers and couldn't care less about competitive features.
tl;dr the troglodytes have to be catered for, they make up >90% of the revenues
|
lol, this is the reason i continue to play css. it's just so good and relies on skill (unless you're awping ) and there aren't any gimmicks to take away from that. and dust2 is THE SHIT!
|
I guess I bet on the wrong horse back then by starting out with call of duty 1. Wish I started with cs then, now it is too late to really get good at it i'm afraid. And besides that I really don;t have the time anymore to play fps competitive on a high level. But it is such a shame that there are no true fps game developed anymore.
|
Please play TF2 its the best modern day shooter at the moment. And you get to wear hats.
|
United States4053 Posts
As an interesting note, I played on some (cracked) servers in CoD4 where Martyrdom and Last Stand were banned (dunno how, but you'd get kicked if you used them), and the game was actually pretty tactical and skill-based rather than people spamming nades all over the place. Just goes to show how a couple strong gimmicks can totally ruin a game x____x (cough tacknife commando)
|
Unfortunately I had to swear off the CoD series. I don't even mind the perks and stuff as much, but not being able to join servers with custom rules was a real turn off. I put a ton of hours into MW2, but in the end cheaters just became so prevalent that it was more frustrating than anything else. I might pick up BF3 when it comes out, but I'm not holding my breath. Diablo3 and SC2 can probably float me for the next few years.
|
On November 22 2010 02:50 eLiE wrote:lol, this is the reason i continue to play css. it's just so good and relies on skill (unless you're awping  ) and there aren't any gimmicks to take away from that. and dust2 is THE SHIT!
i think you slipped in an extra s somewhere there
|
The state of online FPS is all about Call of Duty? You could make an equal argument about RTS using only C&C. Seriously CS, Quake, unreal, and TF2 are much better than any CoD series
|
On November 22 2010 03:55 Ipp wrote: The state of online FPS is all about Call of Duty? You could make an equal argument about RTS using only C&C. Seriously CS, Quake, unreal, and TF2 are much better than any CoD series
I think he's saying that the mass population is shouldered by Call of Duty, not that CS/Quake/etc aren't better games.
|
Unreal Tournament '99 was always my favourite FPS. There's still a decent community kicking around on mIRC.
Great game.
|
On November 22 2010 02:37 limonovich wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 02:34 h3r1n6 wrote:On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS. True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs.. Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games. In all honesty, the CoD games are actually fun to play on public. Not everyone buys games because they want to go to LANs, win prizes...etc. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumers are casual gamers and couldn't care less about competitive features. tl;dr the troglodytes have to be catered for, they make up >90% of the revenues
Well, you might make a point for something like no console. But all I hear is that the game is really bugged, you can only get dedicated servers from one source, the dedicated servers still lag. Doesn't sound playable to me.
That CoD is not a game I enjoy is a whole different story.
|
I hate modern FPS too. Whatever happened to making a fun game instead of substituting the fun for gimmicky features?
I hate the MMORPG-style leveling up and unlock systems that seem to be a requirement these days. You buy the game but can only use a few guns until you grind out hundreds of hours, and in the process you get your ass kicked by people that already have the better shit. It'd be like laddering in Starcraft where you only got to use barracks units until you won enough games to unlock the factory.
I hate the obsession with persistent stat tracking. People don't even try to work together or win matches anymore because they're all stat whores. K:D ratios are more important than winning or having fun apparently.
I hate the ridiculous level of customization. Let me choose my gun and a few things like armor and grenades, but that's it. I feel like I'm equipping an RPG character in any modern FPS. It's option overload, and it isn't any fun. I also hate how every new game has a dozen different modes to fragment the player base. Why not just make one base game that's actually good?
It's not even worth complaining about all this stuff because each new CoD game is going to sell a billion copies anyway. People like all these features that I hate.
|
I think its more of an issue with the CoD series degrading. I personally thought MW1 was amazing, but from CoD5 on, it went downhill.
|
Yea there's pretty much nothing competitive since CS. Just noob catered games nowadays in the fps genre.
|
On November 22 2010 11:55 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 02:37 limonovich wrote:On November 22 2010 02:34 h3r1n6 wrote:On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS. True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs.. Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games. In all honesty, the CoD games are actually fun to play on public. Not everyone buys games because they want to go to LANs, win prizes...etc. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumers are casual gamers and couldn't care less about competitive features. tl;dr the troglodytes have to be catered for, they make up >90% of the revenues Well, you might make a point for something like no console. But all I hear is that the game is really bugged, you can only get dedicated servers from one source, the dedicated servers still lag. Doesn't sound playable to me. That CoD is not a game I enjoy is a whole different story.
Uh... game has run fine for me since the first patch they issued a day or two after launch. Whether the game was fun after a week of play is another story. It's actually sad that FPS are more popular on console than PC, and because of that, the shitty is gameplay is tailored towards them.
Also, sounds like OP started with the wrong FPS franchise, Q3 for life.
|
As always, Quake is the way to go. It has stayed true to itself for so many years. Quake Live is truly a testament to that.
|
Hmm I think I understand now why the Call of Duty series has these weird things happening online where you are running into cover but still die, and the killcam shows you wasn't in cover. Or: you know for sure you fired but killcam shows not a shot fired by you. We have to thank antilag for this. People with higher ping actually have advantage in this game T_T
+ Show Spoiler +There is no "disadvantage" to the net code of UE3. It works quite similar to UE2, and Red Orchestra 1 was widely regarded as having some of the best net-code around - with the game being very playable even up to a ping of 200ms. And considering I'm the guy that did the multiplayer network coding for RO1 and I'm doing a lot of it for RO2, you should see similar results in the end. Regarding AA3, I can't speak to it's network code since when I tried to play it it was back when the game wouldn't even function online right after it was released.
When it comes to visual representation of hits (i.e. displaying hit effects/particles) there are two methods possible, and both have their advantages/disadvantages.
Method 1) Calculate hit effects on the client. With this method you get instant feedback on where your bullet would hit (with hitscan weapons). This is great but there is one major flaw - where you see your bullet hit on the client doesn't actually represent where your bullet hit on the server since they are both calculated independently. This was the system that was used in Americas Army 2.X (which I worked on). This system is exasperated by randomness or cone fire, since to simulate the shot on the client you have to simulate the randomness you would also have on the server. The problem is, since it is random the client and the server will have different locations where the bullet will go. This is why in AA2.X you would very often actually see puffs of blood coming off of an enemy that you were shooting, but in reality you didn't hit them at all. Your client side simulated shot had hit them, but your server shot had not.
Method 2) Display hit effects on the client in the proper place by sending the information from the server on where the "real" hit actually happened. The disadvantage of this system is that there is a slight delay between when your shot is replicated to the server and when the hit location is replicated back down to your client. The advantage of this system is that when you see a hit effect appear it actually appears where the real hit happened on the server. In other words, when you see that you blood puffs appearing on an enemy that you shot, you are ACTUALLY damaging them.
In the original RO and since then I have been using method 2. I find the slight delay until the hit effect appears is far outweighed by never getting "false positives" and knowing where my bullets actually hit. Combine this with a non-hitscan system with full bullet ballistics where even if you are playing a non-network game there is a slight delay between when you fire and when your bullet hits, then the delay when playing online is almost not noticeable with a ping < 100 ms.
Also, in your case where you say your ping is 60 ms, but there is a delay 0.3 to 0.5 seconds (300-500ms) either there has to be something wrong with your network, the network between you and the server, or the people coding that particular game. Because in the standard "Method 2" system above, with a 60ms ping it would be about 120ms (or .12 seconds) before you saw the hit effects. Most likely it is a problem with your network, your computer, or your perception of time.
Finally, there are the games with the so called "lag compensation". I've never been a fan of this so called lag compensation because of the side effects it causes. If you have ever been playing an online game and walked completely around a corner only to die when noone could possibly have shot you, it was likely do to lag compensation. With these systems the server stores a list of locations and where a player was at a particular time. Then when a player shoots on his client it sends the firing info and a timestamp to the server. So when the server receives this information it basically "rewinds" back to the point in time when the client fired and checks to see if the shot from some time in the past would hit the player back then. The problem with this system is, that depending upon players ping everyone playing the game has a different view of where the other players are at a particular time. This is why on your machine you could be behind a wall, but the player (who you may not even be able to see on your machine) who has a higher ping than you sees you where you were a short time ago and shoots and kills you. So this is why I think lag compensation sucks
I prefer the Unreal net code methodology which uses client side prediction instead of lag compensation. When a programmer knows what they are doing and uses the Unreal net code properly client side prediction gives all of the clients connected to a server a very very close picture of where the other players are actually at on the server at all times. It does this by predicting the physics and movement of the other players. It does this pretty good for super-fast games like UT, and when you slow this down to real world movement speeds like in Red Orchestra this system is rock solid. In other words, in RO when you shoot at someone you can pretty much guarantee they are at where you see them at (up to a ping of 200ms). Likewise when you get SHOT by someone on RO, it was because they could see where you are currently at, not where you WERE a short time ago.
After coding MP network games for nearly ten years, this area is a bit near and dear to my heart, so I'll stop ranting now
|
FPS games are a very hard game to get right to appeal to the masses(COD did that for the masses). There is not one right fps game and there is not one wrong fps game. If you want a hard fps to play you will have to dig deep and go into communities that are very small. Here is how I lump fps games.
Realism: These are games that take away anything "fun" and make the game a lot more challenging. Some examples would be, no hud, no crosshairs just iron sights, no unlimited sprinting and of course realistic damage. I liked these games but they had very small communities. Games that would fall into this category. Red Orchestra (I played this a ton when it was a mod and not retail), Insurgency (I was a internal beta tester for this game and stopped playing before it was released as a HL2 mod)
Arcade: Fun, nothing too realistic but lots of action and big guns. Games that I would put here. Unreal Tournament series, COD, Halo.
Competitive(?): Not sure what I can add it is a blend of realism(not the biggest blend) and arcade style. Games that would go in here. Quake series, Day of Defeat, Counter strike. (Most fps games are competitive).
There are many other FPS games out there and my categories are of course open for interpretation and not 100% set in stone.
|
CoD2... Ahh. The memories.
It sucks that competitive gaming in FPS has almost disappeared.
Halo 2 - One of fastest paced online first person shooters (console!) with great competition everywhere. Halo 3 - Still a lot of great competition. No more fast paced action though. Halo: Reach - Absolute shit. You actually have to sprint around a map just to find ONE person to kill and if your lucky, he won't have something stupid and gimmicky like Armor Lock. I can't believe Halo went down this path >_>
CoD2 - Just perfect for a CoD game. Perfectly balanced game. CoD3 - Not as great as CoD2, but it was still a good game. The class skills added a new element to the game that didn't make it too gimmicky. CoD4 - Gimmicks, ahoy! Anything after that - Absolute shit.
I just wish they would create more first person shooters like CoD2/Halo 2. Hell, remake them and I'll be happy.
On November 22 2010 11:55 h3r1n6 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 02:37 limonovich wrote:On November 22 2010 02:34 h3r1n6 wrote:On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS. True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs.. Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games. In all honesty, the CoD games are actually fun to play on public. Not everyone buys games because they want to go to LANs, win prizes...etc. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumers are casual gamers and couldn't care less about competitive features. tl;dr the troglodytes have to be catered for, they make up >90% of the revenues Well, you might make a point for something like no console. But all I hear is that the game is really bugged, you can only get dedicated servers from one source, the dedicated servers still lag. Doesn't sound playable to me. That CoD is not a game I enjoy is a whole different story.
Halo 2 was a highly competitive game and it still appealed to the masses. You don't have to have an FPS filled with gimmicks to make people want to buy it. Just give it some fun online play and you'll be set.
|
fps on the pc for me = ut99 instagib ctf and quake. i played cod 1 2 and 4 and mw2 on pc, each got shittier and more idiot friendly. mw2 is by far one of the easiest games ever and i spent a little while on it but eventually got bored and went back to real fps games.
still have ut2k4 and 99 installed and enjoyed them as there is a few small pug communties. i still play Tactical Ops which has been my main game on the pc since 2000-2001 and it still has a community and pick up games. (TOps = counter strike but with ut movement and a lot faster paced and no insta kill unless you're sniping)
never got into counter strike as i didn't enjoy the pace of play.
|
On December 10 2010 03:19 Joementum wrote:CoD2... Ahh. The memories. It sucks that competitive gaming in FPS has almost disappeared. Halo 2 - One of fastest paced online first person shooters (console!) with great competition everywhere. Halo 3 - Still a lot of great competition. No more fast paced action though. Halo: Reach - Absolute shit. You actually have to sprint around a map just to find ONE person to kill and if your lucky, he won't have something stupid and gimmicky like Armor Lock. I can't believe Halo went down this path >_> CoD2 - Just perfect for a CoD game. Perfectly balanced game. CoD3 - Not as great as CoD2, but it was still a good game. The class skills added a new element to the game that didn't make it too gimmicky. CoD4 - Gimmicks, ahoy! Anything after that - Absolute shit. I just wish they would create more first person shooters like CoD2/Halo 2. Hell, remake them and I'll be happy. Show nested quote +On November 22 2010 11:55 h3r1n6 wrote:On November 22 2010 02:37 limonovich wrote:On November 22 2010 02:34 h3r1n6 wrote:On November 22 2010 02:22 MightyAtom wrote: But I'd say the Q3 was what SC was for RTS was for FPS. True. And CS 1.6 is the same for team FPSs.. Why do you expect anything but crap from Activision, hasn't Battle.net 2.0 taught you anything? The worst part is, all the brainless retards put up with that crap and still buy CoD games. In all honesty, the CoD games are actually fun to play on public. Not everyone buys games because they want to go to LANs, win prizes...etc. You have to remember that the vast majority of consumers are casual gamers and couldn't care less about competitive features. tl;dr the troglodytes have to be catered for, they make up >90% of the revenues Well, you might make a point for something like no console. But all I hear is that the game is really bugged, you can only get dedicated servers from one source, the dedicated servers still lag. Doesn't sound playable to me. That CoD is not a game I enjoy is a whole different story. Halo 2 was a highly competitive game and it still appealed to the masses. You don't have to have an FPS filled with gimmicks to make people want to buy it. Just give it some fun online play and you'll be set.
cod4 promod actually produced some sick gameplay. believe that you can still find some competition in that too.
|
I gotta say the state of fps on PC will never die I just watched the IEM Euro Finals for CS damn amazing finals it made me want to play cs competitive again.
|
On January 24 2011 12:01 zyglrox wrote: fps on the pc for me = ut99 instagib ctf and quake. i played cod 1 2 and 4 and mw2 on pc, each got shittier and more idiot friendly. mw2 is by far one of the easiest games ever and i spent a little while on it but eventually got bored and went back to real fps games.
still have ut2k4 and 99 installed and enjoyed them as there is a few small pug communties. i still play Tactical Ops which has been my main game on the pc since 2000-2001 and it still has a community and pick up games. (TOps = counter strike but with ut movement and a lot faster paced and no insta kill unless you're sniping)
never got into counter strike as i didn't enjoy the pace of play.
You seem like someone who would enjoy Urban Terror. It is a standalone quake 3 mod. And it is free btw.
|
|
|
|