Originally Posted by luckbox
So you do not agree that higher skill ceiling = better game, M.C?
The only thing that matters in a game is how fun the game is to you personally.
There are multiple FPS games in the world, you have "hardcore" FPS games like Unreal Tournament/CS/Quake for that crowd, you have lesser skilled FPS games like BF3/COD for the casual/average gamer crowd.
Saying that COD is "one of the worst online games ever made" and that it "must be 85% children playing" is stupidly ridiculous. So you guys play "hardcore" FPS games, good for you guys, there are games out there specifically designed for you, have a blast playing them. Why would you even want to go around calling another game, suited for a completely different type of player/skill level, "horrible"? I mean honestly it doesn't matter, it's just an opinion, but sometimes it feels like people forget that you're discussing video games here, not politics, who cares what games other people like, cause trust me, nobody cares about what games you like or what your "skill level" is - it's all about just having fun.
Originally Posted by GrappleRetarded
You're clearly just not a competitive online FPS player, so you're not going to get it.
Every online FPS game is competitive by nature. Every single game you go into, your goal is to beat the other team or beat the other player. No one goes into a game wanting to lose, every one wants to win, that's the natural competitive nature of an online FPS game.
My gripes with call of duty are that there are so many randomised game mechanics in the meta game that is significantly reduces the amount of fun you can get out of the competitive aspect.
Think of it as like an actual sport. Let's take MMA, a highly competitive sport. You can just train MMA for fun or you can look to make a career out of it, like online gaming. All of the organisations promoting MMA don't include random, silly things into their rule set (ala call of duty). There aren't tag team matches or 2vs1 matches, that would completely ruin the competitive nature and legitimacy of the sport. The more random elements you throw into the sport, the less competitive it becomes.
That's the case with cod. You have all of these wild and uneccesarry mechanics such as kill streaks and automated helicopters, remote control bombs....all of those things are hurting the competitive nature of the game, and like I said, every online FPS game by nature, is competitive, everyone plays to win.
The call of duty franchise isn't popular because it's a great game, it's simply a product of genius marketing, that's all. Marketing and funding is every thing. And that's why I get annoyed, because I know that if Quake got the right marketing, sponsoring and funding behind the game, it could quite easily be just as huge as call of duty is now.
The fact that you even consider comparing a video game to a sport makes this discussion silly and nonsensical. It's a video game, dude. They are here for fun and enjoyment, if that means you need to feel like you're competing at a high level, then by all means feel that way, but realize that you're a minority of gamers and that most people really don't care about the elitist PC FPS players playing Quake - gamers just want to enjoy a hobby (most of them).