And I blame partly reviewers for the popularity of these wannabe-realistic camp-fests, but partly players too. When most gamers start playing multiplayer games, they go for things that are easy to pick, in other words they go for games with high reviews and easily understood general idea with simple controls (walk, always-run on, turn, shoot, throw a grenade). That's easy to pick.
You could make a shooter that is high speed, has movement techniques, where weapons aren't these one-hit-kill automatic spam weapons Camper-Strike has; a game where you need to have the skill, the guts to face your opponent directly. A game where you couldn't look for back-shots and hide behind obstacles.
Problem with a game like this is that, even if is general idea very simple (frag your opponent), the gameplay has much more layers than a game like Camper-Strike. You don't have one-hit-kill automatic weapons, you cannot hide behind obstacles (or you can, but you will be killed quickly), movement isn't just using WASD+mouse. You have a game that requires speed, movement, only provides more or less hit/miss weapons (rockets, rail guns, shotguns) with no one-hit-kill automatic spam weapons. A game like this would require more raw skill and speed of thought, more precision and more determination.
But game like that also requires more practise, time to grasp how to play it and than learn it. That's why it isn't possible to create a game like that because all games are reviewed within a month of release and there's anyway prevailing bias in favour of these wannabe-realistic camp fests.
All multiplayer games should get at least six months of playing before any reviewer has enough skill, enough understanding to know what the game is all about. But because multiplayers don't get that time, anything that isn't CoD or CS get bad scores, because all shooters are reviewed by these same morons who only know CoD and CS.
Basically this is what kills all attempts at creating multiplayer shooters with completely different approach from these camp fests like CoD and CS, because these ideas are shot down by reviewers and players before even the understanding the idea and learning how to play the it.
In the future, all shooters are probably these same wannabe-realistic camp fests, and unfortunately this approach is also much more about latency (ping) and who's on your side.
I rush on MW3 and when I played Blops 2. Every now and then you have annoying campers. That is why I like the small maps on MW3. It reminds me of MW1, when you get camped you know exactly where to rush and kill the guy.
Also portable radars work. I'm always surprised how people have complained about assassin pro, but I rarely see people use it.
I was thinking of CoD earlier though. I was wondering with the next gen coming, will they stay on top?
They dominated this gen, but I'd like something fresh. As much as I do enjoy playing CoD, it feels as though MW1 was still the best, and it got slightly worse after each installment.
Got rid of MW2 and BO1 and just played MW1 until MW3 came out. The only flaws are juggernaut and final stand. That stuff can be so annoying.
I also do not believe they are trying to go for a realistic style shooter. It feels like an arcade shooter with modern skins. You can sprint with a sniper and get kills for crying out loud. I do not think I would enjoy a game that is too realistic. --- I served 8, in war... my father served 23, in war... both of my grandfathers served, in war. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, GWoT, etc. - ScarecrowES