Please explain to me what is so "casual" about Call of Duty and Battlefield 4?
What makes it so "noob friendly" compared to other FPS and can you give me good examples of more skill dependent competitive FPS games available on consoles?
I get it, PC gamers love their Counter-Strike. I've owned CS: Source since it's release and honestly cannot go back to the over-simplicity of CS nowadays. But I get it, it's just not my cup of tea and we're talking about console FPS right now.
To me CoD seems like it would be considered the opposite of "casual" as combat resolution is lightning fast and if you do not learn the maps well or develop good aim to make the kill shots when you do catch someone with their pants down then you will spend a lot of time dead. That's right, if you do not learn from your mistakes and learn the mechanics of the game you will die. A lot.
Compare this to, say, Halo where the combat is a lot slower paced. What makes CoD and BF4 "noob friendly" but not Halo? Or are all 3 "noob friendly"? Or are console FPS players just the scum of the Earth? Or is it FPS players period?
TL;DR and on-topic: Please recommend me better competitive FPS games on the XB1 than CoD:G and BF4.
If Pokemon [RBY vs MM vs PD vs Banjo] wins this, I'd kindly send a note to Allen to remove my bracket. Menji76, 4/22/2009
That post explains EVERYTHING at the end.
"I hated this game, the controls were awful," isn't trolling... But you'll probably still get modded.
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Well I'd say look at a game like Arma or even America's Army. I actually think BF isn't as "casual" as COD for the very reason that if you played the game the way it was designed you would be working as a team far more than COD.
They are easiest when played with friends online. If I have even one person I talk to playing with me we do well. All team shooters are casual.
Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Because I play them with men I meet on Craigslist's m4m casual encounters.
That'd be true if it required much to get a kill. In Call of Duty you need to do more than look near somebody and hold R to get a kill. You barely need to aim, you don't need to maintain aim, you don't need to account for recoil ... And the "time to kill" is nearly the same length as the average player's ping.
The game is a joke. Skill is barely a factor. You need rudimentary map knowledge that you can pick up after playing a map two or three times and a good connection and there you go - you're dominating.
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
CoD in general takes almost no skill.
But the main reason, I believe, is that CoD gamers are casual gamers because that's the only game they play, and only play it because their friends play it. They don't play any other game.
How can someone who only plays one game/ type of game be called a gamer?
They are casual gamers because they play games casually.
Stalking the GameFaqs boards since '04.
Cod halo and bf4 are not casual they are both casual and hard core they all cater to every type of skill and player this is why they are so popular cod specificly has dang near masterd this art which is why its so popular amongst many hardcore and casual. shooters that cater to all players and play styles are the best type of shooters imo . rather then shooters that cater more towards the hardcore only or casual only.
Every one has there own opinions unless theirs is stupid.
To me casual means its easy to pick up and and play. More cod then bc because of the more relistic feel, but still rather easy to pick up and play. Halo can be, but the game is not as easy to play. There is more of a harder learning curve. I cant stand halo because of the fact u cant aim. That is the reason I never really liked counter strike.
Platforms are casual games as well. Mario and games of that sort.