Please explain to me what is so "casual" about Call of Duty and Battlefield 4?

#31IMProdiGYPosted 12/15/2013 11:27:45 PM
Most games that were great I say were for a reason; were on PC. PC gamers are a different beast. PC gamers hate consoles and most console games. I have a PC that can play any game right now on at least high settings. Im already out dated lol. I only play Planetside and Starcraft 2. Thats it and that is only because of the whole mouse and keyboard crap.

There are fames I never played and here how much they are better then this and that game. Consoles are where developers can make more money. Just because a game to most people takes skill does not mean they are wrong. I do not like Halo or Gears but both take a great deal of skill that does not let me have fun. Its more me then the game. I dont think the game sucks though.

What makes a game more skillfull in shooters is how many bullets it takes to kill. COD comes off as easy because I can drop you wil 1-3 bullets while other so called skill fames takes almost a while clip. Im cool with that though, but nothing is more frustrating then shooting off 4 rocket launcher rounds at a tank and it is still moving. Talking about BF.

If you like to waste a clip or 2 to kill someone that is fine. Maybe that is more fun to you. Nothing wrong with that. But dont knock a game because it does not suit ur type of skill. Like the one dude said if cod is so easy why do people still suck? Cod is just easier to get better at then most games. Does not mean its bad. They make lots of money because of that reason.
---
gl hf
#32IMProdiGYPosted 12/15/2013 11:38:48 PM
snakes_codec posted...
Personally I dont consider Battlefield casual. it rewards tight team play and takes far more skill to master. COD rewards you even if you suck making progression very casual friendly. its arcade like gameplay style make it easier to pick up and play however its overal MP experience is very shallow and unfullfilling compared to Battlefields massive scale battles huge maps and need to work as a team to win especially on modes like conquest . Honestly the only thing COD has over Battlefield is its Campaign and lets be honest that not really the reason you buy either tho is a nice distraction.

To sum it up

Battlefield = challenging but rewarding mp

COD = very casual friendly no sense of reward due to progression being mind numbingly easy

In a perfect world Battlefield would vastly outsell the casual garbage that is COD.


Umm. U can suck at battlefield and still rank up. COD is more casual and whT is wring with that. What is sad is we care comparing COD which is nothing like BF. Besides being a FPS there is nothing you can compare. Here we go. COD vs Medal of Honor thats a compare and contrast game. Fast paced action FPS.

In a perfect world people would jusg be happy they can actully play video games. Lol

I own both games love both games. But come on you cant compare the 2. Its is like comparing Need For Speed to Forza. You cant really do it. Hhyou say which may be more fun thats about it. Or like comparing Nba 2k to Nba jam.
---
gl hf
#33CapwnDPosted 12/15/2013 11:47:11 PM
IMProdiGY posted...
snakes_codec posted...
Personally I dont consider Battlefield casual. it rewards tight team play and takes far more skill to master. COD rewards you even if you suck making progression very casual friendly. its arcade like gameplay style make it easier to pick up and play however its overal MP experience is very shallow and unfullfilling compared to Battlefields massive scale battles huge maps and need to work as a team to win especially on modes like conquest . Honestly the only thing COD has over Battlefield is its Campaign and lets be honest that not really the reason you buy either tho is a nice distraction.

To sum it up

Battlefield = challenging but rewarding mp

COD = very casual friendly no sense of reward due to progression being mind numbingly easy

In a perfect world Battlefield would vastly outsell the casual garbage that is COD.


Umm. U can suck at battlefield and still rank up. COD is more casual and whT is wring with that. What is sad is we care comparing COD which is nothing like BF. Besides being a FPS there is nothing you can compare. Here we go. COD vs Medal of Honor thats a compare and contrast game. Fast paced action FPS.

In a perfect world people would jusg be happy they can actully play video games. Lol

I own both games love both games. But come on you cant compare the 2. Its is like comparing Need For Speed to Forza. You cant really do it. Hhyou say which may be more fun thats about it. Or like comparing Nba 2k to Nba jam.

Don't bother, it's clear most of the people here do compare the two games and chalk it up to being the same thing.
---
Death to Videodrome, Long Live the New Flesh
#34ImThe8thWonderPosted 12/15/2013 11:50:14 PM
Casual because the casual gamer audience are the ones interested in it. That DOES NOT imply that CoD or BF4 takes no skill. It just so happens that the majority of people to take interest in those games are not very serious gamers outside of those games.
---
Currently own: PS4, XB1, PS3, XB360, PS2, PS1, PS Vita, Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, Super NES, N64, and a gaming PC.
#35aszsithPosted 12/16/2013 12:05:29 AM(edited)
blablablax17 posted...
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
.


By that logic, someone who plays only one sport isn't an athlete.

Consider a person who only plays a single game, say Tetris or Solitaire. This person plays for 10 hours a day every day. Is this person not a gamer? Replace Tetris with Starcraft. Does this make them a gamer? How about WoW? CoD? Madden?

Let's say someone plays games for less than 1 hour a day. In that hour they play 20 minutes of CoD, 20 minutes of WoW, and 20 minutes of Madden. Since they have diversity, are they more of a gamer than the person who plays a single game for 10 times longer?

Like it or not, my 65 year-old mother who plays Windows Solitaire and Tetris all day (and has for the past decade+ because she has nothing better to do) may be just more "hardcore" at her gaming hobby than you are.

And, consider this: If those casual, non-gamers didn't play so much and didn't pay for so much in-game content, the big game companies wouldn't be stuffing the "hardcore" games with so many micro-transactions these days.
---
You can put icing on a turd, but that doesn't make it a cupcake!
#36NSGraphitePosted 12/15/2013 11:55:34 PM
Gojak_v3 posted...
Skill based FPS like Quake and Unreal died a long time ago. In fact it is you console casuals that killed them since they can't just pick them up and face roll like in CoD.

Also lol at thinking CoD has anything to do with skill.


Hey! many of us old skool console gamers had no interest in having fps on console to begin with. we figured people who wanted to play those just bought pc's. it was the creation of the xbox that brought fps to consoles in a big way.
---
http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/3va9jp/
I don't always Troll on the internet. But when I do, I make it the Xbox-One forums...
#37ImThe8thWonderPosted 12/15/2013 11:57:06 PM
Alright, I'm not a fan of CoD like apparently a lot of you guys, but saying it doesn't take any skill is just ridiculous.
---
Currently own: PS4, XB1, PS3, XB360, PS2, PS1, PS Vita, Wii, Wii U, DS, 3DS, Super NES, N64, and a gaming PC.
#38Cowboy082288Posted 12/16/2013 12:16:49 AM
TC those 2 games are popular, especially CoD. Anything that is popular has it's haters. Calling it 'casual' is a way of insulting the thing they hate. That is really all there is to it.
---
PSN/XBL/Steam/iOS - cowboyoni
#39The_RaterPosted 12/16/2013 12:26:58 AM(edited)
Just the general restrictions of what's applied into the gameplay mechanics. Having a slow character that's needs a running button, a fast burst of bullets to kill an opponent with a small amount of health and deserted maps that has deserted houses for sniper positions. Compared to Unreal Tournament and Quake 2 or even Halo 2, there's way more skill involved compared to these games.
#40squidgy617Posted 12/16/2013 12:47:59 AM
IMProdiGY posted...
Gojak_v3 posted...
IMProdiGY posted...
Gojak_v3 posted...
Skill based FPS like Quake and Unreal died a long time ago. In fact it is you console casuals that killed them since they can't just pick them up and face roll like in CoD.

Also lol at thinking CoD has anything to do with skill.


Oh snap a PC gamer is mad lol!!! Dude those games were never really all thag dont kid urself. The games died because better games came out. Command and conquere was a popular game as well. Pretty good fun game, but compared to Starcraft the game is garbage.


You're trying to prove a seperate point. The point is they are skill games. The reason they never caught on with consoles I believe has a lot to do with they are skill games. Like I said if you can't jump in and face roll its bad to a console gamer and you just proved that.


Ok but it could have stayed on PC only and it died there too. I understand what ur saying. People get mad at COD and it makes no sense why. Because a game does not appeal to a certain type of gamer right away its bad or a joke. I know that those games toom skill. I will be the first say that. IMO those games were boring because of that skill you needed.


Here's the thing: There's more money to be made in consoles than on PC. That's why it died on PC as well. When the console market exploded like it did, devs stopped caring about PC and everything went multiplat. Games like UT and Quake are simply impossible to make work on consoles, so they stopped making them altogether. Without the precise aim of a mouse there's really no point in playing them.

They didn't die because they were bad or unpopular. They died because consoles were MORE popular. Of course, there is that secret project that Cliffy B mentioned...

Also, I think the general reason people get mad at CoD is because it adds so little into each installment and people still praise it as the second coming of Christ. Personally, that's what annoys me about it, but I won't say they're bad games.