As a COD fan I want to say COD requires no skill. stop pretending otherwise.

#51Rome218Posted 11/29/2012 9:59:19 AM
epicfailtryhard posted...
watch your killcam. discuss it with someone who has the capacity to be honest. it's not rocket science.


Killcams are full of crap though. I think killcams show you what really happened, but your events looked different because you were playing with lag. :P

So yeah it's easy to look at the killcams and get annoyed. At the same time when you kill someone, they are probably going through the same thing.
---
HP Pavilion | Windows 7 | 700 gb HDD | 17' lcd display | Speakers | 3 USB Ports | HDMI port | Wireless-N | DVD/CD Read/Write
#52BobReillPosted 11/29/2012 10:07:47 AM
If Call of Duty took no skills to play, then everyone would have about ~1.0 KDR. Don't get me wrong, I understand lag comp, and hit detectors, and all the other fancy words the haters use but an overall avg would still be about 1.0 KDR because it works against you one game, then for you next game....it'll always even out. The fact that there are people with +5 KDR and others with 0.25 KDR should prove that it does indeed take skill. One person has more skill at the game, so their KDR will reflect that.
Now, if you'd have said that it takes LESS skill than alot of FPS....then I'd agree. But thats what they wanted, a balanced game that anyone could play. But no skill? Its a pet peeve of mine when people make blanket statements like that.
I could get into the discussion about PPM (which is a real indicator of skills)....but that's another topic for another time.
#53MahoganyTooth92Posted 11/29/2012 10:08:51 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#54cwatz12Posted 11/29/2012 10:12:39 AM
Saying something requires "no" skill is naive.

Skill is always a factor. The question is how rewarding is skill? How far can you separate yourself from the masses.

BO1 for example, you could put a pretty large gap between skilled and weaker players.

In BO2 that gap is much much smaller.
#55BrostachePosted 11/29/2012 10:23:06 AM
namewitheld posted...
dueric posted...
Brostache posted...

go watch professional players on youtube. The counter strike guys sit crouch aiming at corners and the quake live guys are rocket jumping around at 50 miles per hour l.


Were probably at an impasse if youre going to leverage leet rocket jumping skills against crouch camping.


If you think rocket jumping and COUNTING making a game super serious business then I dunno what to say other than : TF was way better at the over the top stuff than either quake or unreal and CS was for the people that wanted a different experience (recoil that mattered, strict objective based play, really quick TTK's etc).

edit: TF and CS are precisely why I love Valve so much. They made TWO completely different MP variants as well as the best ever (at the time) campaign and story in gaming. They essentially made the best ever game that all but killed both unreal and quake.

editedit: I actually really liked quake and unreal I dont want it to come accross as me hatin' on them. Its just that I find it objectionable that you say CS was for casuals and that freeking Quake was serious business.


Well lets take a look at the skills quake requires:

Aiming.... check
Map knowledge.... check
dodging... check
platforming.... check
timing spawns... check

now lets compare it to CS:

aiming.... check
map knowledge... check, though not as important
dodging.... not really
platforming.... nope
timing spawns... nope

quake objectively requires more skill.



CS was very casual friendly compared to quake. Even from the getgo, you can just pick your weapon at the start of the match.... so there is no need to be proficient with all the weapons, and there is less weapon variety.

Quake forces you to be familiar with all the weapons as you dont get to pick the weapons you want... you have to fight over them with other players and you need to switch between them often in combat.

CS was all about making it easier for the player, slow down the run speed... let you pick the weapons you want. Remove the platforming elements, simpler level design, remove the need to dodge and put in cover, reduce kill times.

and it popularized the highly skillful art of camping.
#56HeyZeussPosted 11/29/2012 2:18:48 PM
I just want to point out that basically all these games you guys are arguing about came from Quake. Team fortress was a mod for Quake. Counterstrike was inspired by, and made by developers of a mod for Quake 2, called Action Quake (2). COD(1) was inspired by Counterstrike, and ran on the Quake 3 engine...
Just sayin'...
#57splooshIRLPosted 11/29/2012 2:58:45 PM
you do realize when counter strike came out it was the casual shooter for the masses to enjoy that weren't good enough to play quake and unreal.

^^^LOL .... true btw

i made a video on this subject: "stop making FPS for dummies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3MNQQ9FAc
---
Xbox live: splooshIRL
http://www.youtube.com/user/splooshIRL
#58splooshIRLPosted 11/29/2012 2:59:57 PM
you do realize when counter strike came out it was the casual shooter for the masses to enjoy that weren't good enough to play quake and unreal.

^^^LOL .... true btw

i made a video on this subject: "stop making FPS for dummies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3MNQQ9FAc
---
Xbox live: splooshIRL
http://www.youtube.com/user/splooshIRL
#59BobbyCreekPosted 11/29/2012 3:01:34 PM
you do realize when counter strike came out it was the casual shooter for the masses to enjoy that weren't good enough to play quake and unreal.

^^^LOL .... true btw

i made a video on this subject: "stop making FPS for dummies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3MNQQ9FAc
---
Xbox live: splooshIRL
http://www.youtube.com/user/splooshIRL
#60MovinBirdsPosted 11/29/2012 3:08:05 PM
This game requires skill so shush your ignorance boy
---
/end