PlayStation 3

So apparently, approximately half of us said "yes", and the other half are idiotic.
---
Favorite 2012 Games: Sleeping Dogs, Mass Effect 3, Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3
Gamercard: http://ps3heroes.com/hero/Carib2g

COD definitely takes skill, but I'd say it takes good strategy more than anything (You know like actual war does). As someone who was MLG for COD4 I can tell you that knowing the map is one of the biggest factors. Formations, routes, predicting where your opponents will be, etc... are keys to being great.

I bet that everybody here saying the game takes no skill just plays public TDM. Well, duh, of course that takes no skill. Most people are idiots and you'll be playing with a bunch of little kids. Everybody does the same thing and if you know anything about choke points then you'll dominate.

I saw some guy talking about how Socom is better because in COD you can keep respawning, sorry to burst your bubble but there's a thing called Search and Destroy where you only get one life and the gameplay is a lot more tactical. This just shows that some people bash the game without even playing it
---
PSN: s1l3nt_x_cha0s GT: xziT4L3NTZx
*slips of cliff*

@NessEggman


FPS does not take same amount of skills due to environmental variables. The other genres listed gives you full control & focus with pure skills being rewarded. FPS games, no matter how good a player is, he will get sidebusted due to environmental variables & not being able to control his surroundings. This gives it a slight luck factor (although players can raise the probability), that is a no-no for pure skill games.

No, pressing R1 isn't a skill.
---
I am Mogar, God of Irony and The Devourer of Topics.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2hwco6d.jpg

From: VIETNAM- | #083

@NessEggman


FPS does not take same amount of skills due to environmental variables. The other genres listed gives you full control & focus with pure skills being rewarded. FPS games, no matter how good a player is, he will get sidebusted due to environmental variables & not being able to control his surroundings. This gives it a slight luck factor (although players can raise the probability), that is a no-no for pure skill games.

I'm not sure that really matters. "Skill," in this case, involves knowledge of a map. Knowing where to be and where the other guys will come from definitely helps keep this from being a problem. Building the right load out in a CoD or BF style FPS also falls under the same umbrella. You don't have to worry about people sneaking up on you if you drop some (god forsaken) Bouncing Bettys, a stun rod, or a motion tracker down to take care of them for you.

You_Need_A_Life posted...

kcypher2000 posted...

But it definitely takes some level of skill.

Well, if you put it that way, turning on your TV and sliding a disc into your PS3 also takes some amount of skill.

I think you're confusing basic gameplay functions with "skill." Having the hand-eye coordination to move the sticks and press the buttons to make the game do what you want, while technically requiring a certain type and level of skill to do, is just basic gameplay.

As far as gameplay skill is concerned though, it's not really the same thing. Using the old SOCOM as an example, if two people end up in a head-on gunfight, it's not as simple as whoever aims at the other and shoots first wins. If both start reacting at the exact same time and both start shooting square at the other at the same time with the exact same gun, the winner will be whoever controls their recoil the best while reacting to the incoming fire. And then, since health didn't regenerate in those days, to continue into another gunfight and win that one was a bigger display of skill because 1.) they had less health, and 2.) ammo didn't come from a central pool - each mag had 30 rounds and if you reloaded after firing ten rounds, you now have four mags with 30 rds and one with only 20. After a few gunfights, it wasn't uncommon to end up with five mags that all had around 10-15 rounds per, and even with such little equipment and low health, some players were still able to make that sliver of health and those five 10-round mags count and take out a few more players. And if they did die, that was it, they were dead until the next round. No health regen, no respawn. You did sometime stupid and you paid for it; there was no leniency back then - you play to win or you die hard. THAT was skill.

In CoD, if you get hurt, you hide for a few seconds and you're good to go. If you shoot 20 rounds, you just reload and your magic mag never goes dry until your ammo pool has less than 30 rounds. If you die, no biggie - just hit Respawn. And worst of all, if you get a kill streak, you hit a button and a chopper comes out and kills enemies automatically for you. It'd be one thing if you had to actually control it, but often you don't. And the Perks...interesting idea, but it can cause balancing issues in some cases, like Stopping Power. Two guys face off, same health, same weapon, both fire the same amount of rounds at the same time just as accurately as the other. One dies, one lives. That's not skill.

Classic BS. It takes as much skill and hand eye coordination in CoD as Socom. Who cares about regenerating health. If you die, you were less skilled than the other. What do you think hand eye coordination is? Its a skill. Cod has recoil too and tactics.

To any of the people trying to talk like big shots on here that CoD has no skill, have you ever played it? If not then shut up. If you have then explain how a game without skill has huge discrepancy in players with different amount of kills and points. If there was no skill then everyone would have equal kills. It doesn't work that way.

This is just moronic gamefaqs where black sheeps are trying to act like free thinkers just by hating on something because its popular.

DocDelicious posted...

No. No it does not and I am proof.

Picked up Blops2 a day or two after release. Last CoD I had played was 4 and had touched maybe two shooters since (neither of which were first-person or competative in any way). Played for maybe a week, walked away with Prestige 1 level 34, a 2.49 KDR and a handful of Golden Guns.

That just means you played a lot. Does not imply you are good or that you did well.

Yes it does... I know goddamn well it took skill for me to get the CoD Classic platinum!

I dislike every CoD after the first one, but yes, they all require skill.
---
PSN- BlackRain8782
Now playing: Assassin's Creed III, Okami HD, Nier, Folklore, Dishonored, Dragon Age II, The Lone Ranger

kcypher2000 posted...

To any of the people trying to talk like big shots on here that CoD has no skill, have you ever played it? If not then shut up. If you have then explain how a game without skill has huge discrepancy in players with different amount of kills and points. If there was no skill then everyone would have equal kills. It doesn't work that way.

Just because a game has a low required level of skill to be good, doesn't mean players who spend a lot of time in the game can't get better. Required skill level is simply the amount of effort needed to get to good stats (ranging from 0.90+ to 1.0+ K/D), not how good a player can potentially become at it.

Pong takes little to no skill whatsoever to play due to it's overly simplistic gameplay, but there's still a gap between new players and players who've been playing for years.
---
My first born, Jackson was born on Friday, May 11, 2012.
'I just wanted to be the best Pokemon Master I could be." - Michael Vick

I think regenerating health actually adds to the skill in CoD. Because without it, if you're caught with your pants down, you still get another go to outsmart the person you're having that shootout with. Without it, you can get flanked and then you're disadvantaged and handicapped in a sense.