“CoD has almost ruined a generation of shooter players.�

[Cyper 18]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/call-of-duty-red-orchestra-2-interview/

I found this quite amusing. Especially considering RO2s current state. I'll paste my commment on the issue from RO2 board.

It's not true that CoD doesn't require much skill. It does - at least if you want to be good at it. Anyone who doesn't believe me should pick up the game, go into a random server with competetive players and see for themselves. You must spend a long time to learn the maps, but most of all, to learn how people utilize the map. You must also use a bit of psychology in order to determine your foes next move, or to fool them thinking that you are about to do something that you don't do.

Difference is, that this game is what most people called 'dumbed down'. The game offers a lot of simplistic features and game mechanics. Every weapon is 'balanced', one of the ways to ensure new player's are not punished for their errors. The game must forgive. Singleplayer is made action-packed so that it never becomes 'boring' and it becomes very easy to predict what's supposed to happen next. Because everything is scripted. Enemies pop-up in front of you like dummies, doors are closed behind you, to ensure that you don't ''get confused where to go or what to do''. The game offers you a lot of artificial rewards.

It's a slot machine that throws out fake money at you to make you believe that you actually achieve something and give you a reason to keep on playing, but in the end, all that you achieve is what the game gives you for simply playing it, and funny enough this is what makes people keep on playing. The trail- and error proccess barely exist, because there is no real consequences for any error. Compared to RO2, or even better ARMA, when for example sticking your head up in the wrong moment that can erase 40 minutes of progress.

Another 'issue' with games like RO, even ''Realism'' Mode, is that the game is clunky; you can't act like if you were a ghost flying all over the map or jumping around (this 'great' movements may be great but far removed from realism), aiming requires more skill, shooting requires more skill, every step you take must be calculated or you're dead.

CoD created a new and successfull formula that other people followed. Since it has become a paradigm in the gaming industry and among gamers this is what people expect.

What I find ironic about this article, though, is that the the style of gameplay he seems to despise, and the players he seems to dislike (''dislike'' may be a strong word but I don't know how else to put it), was the very same players they (TWI) so blatantly obvious tried to appeal to, it is the very same game which their game (RO) was so much affected by, while seemingly neglecting their original fanbase.

It isn't a coincidence that there is enemy loadouts, spawn on squadleader, MkB, no command system, XP, unlocks, perks, smaller more streamlined levels, increased amount of HUD details, focus on more fast paced gameplay in RO2, and in general many 'complex' features from RO1 missing. It's a deliberate decision that in the end backfired. Now they (TWI) throw dirt at CoD, yet it was all fine copying features from CoD game and implementing them into RO2 but when it doesn't work CoD is the bad guy.

I do understand this decision, and it is partly what Mr. Gibson said:

CoD have ruined todays generation of gamers - the same thoughts that I have - because nowdays every game has to be like CoD and cater to CoD players, and any game that doesn't is bad.

Now,

with this article, I get the feeling that Gibson have realized how pointless it is to try to cater to CoDplayers with RO2.

That begs the question whenever another direction will be taken with Rising Storm. But that is also difficult, since RS is supposed to be integrated into RO2. So I think I keep my hopes low.

RO1 was indeed successfull and created its own formula. In the end I think games like CoD will eventually fade out into nothing. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right. The ARMA franchise is older than CoD and it keeps on growing.

To bad that it feels like Gibsons article is written only to get attention and act like if RO isn't as dirty as CoD, like RO2 isn't infected by the CoD virus, like RO2 stood ''above the filthy CoD'', when it in fact infected by it.

When the question about a spiritual sequel to R1 arise, I think what BIS said in an interview with the press should be taken into account:

''There are two main factors resulting in "accessibility": the complexity of the gameplay and game controls more or less coping with the complex possibilities of a game.

The titles in the Arma series are certainly very complex, and we could hardly make Arma 3 less complex without losing the unique gameplay, so the only way to increase accessibility is to make sure the player is properly guided, the controls are ergonomic and the rules are clear.

We’ve designed the campaign of Arma 3 in a way which would allow novice players to learn the basics first and get enough practice with the new features. If it would work as intended, playing through the campaign should turn a raw recruit into an experienced Arma veteran knowledgeable of all the features the game would offer. Of course, Arma 3 will feature tutorials for all major features, which worked nicely in Operation Arrowhead.''

[Tonci87 163]

I call it the instant gratification syndrome.

Younger players (Lets face it, CoD and similiar games are clearly aimed at people under the age of 18) don´t seem to have the patience to wait for a reward. They want it instantly and they want it often and they want it all over the screen and all over social media chanels so that their friend know how "great" they are.

Realism oriented games simply CAN´T cope with that.

There are no instant rewards, no achievement, perks and unlocks. Sometimes you have to wait a long time until something happens, you might be the first one to die during a firefight, you might play a whole evening without killing somebody. And yet you will enjoy it.

But you enjoy it in a different way. You feel awesome if you manage to hit somebody with a precise shot at a great distance, you feel awesome if a planed ambush succeeds, you feel awesome if a plan comes together or if the mission is a success and you feel awesome if you manage not to die during the whole mission.

A quick CoD killstreak is soon forgotten, replaced by the next one.

A special moment in Arma will be remembered for a long time and is ultimately more rewarding, you just have to wait for it to happen.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Younger players (Lets face it, CoD and similiar games are clearly aimed at people under the age of 18) don´t seem to have the patience to wait for a reward. T

Well, i disagree on that point, most of the people i know (and who are 40 yo +) don't play on computers but on consoles, and don't have much time to spend on understanding how games like ArmA work. They are looking for simple and entertaining games such as MoH or Cod.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Compare the amount of casual gamers with the amount of sim/hardcore gamers of the past decades and see how the difficulty of gameplay changes like "Easy" has become "Normal/Standard/Default". Of course its easier to jump into a random game/mission go on a killing spree and collect some points/credits to level-up or get some better stuff. In general there are differences in expectations and likings eg US market vs EU market vs Asia market. IIRC it was roughly said that Asia was somewhat colorful + arcade, US bit more casual + simple and EU closer to roleplay + simulations. Time goes on and priorities/spare time changes too.

Edited March 14, 2013 by NoRailgunner
e

[metalcraze 290]

I think more devs should speak about what they truly think instead of constant accessibility-streamlining-makinggameappealingtomodernaudience BS.

Granted Tripwire did try to appeal to CoDdies (went as far as adding simplified arcade game mode with health regen) and failed so that's the feedback they deserved. Can't appeal to two opposite camps at once - you will end up losing both.

Getting "hardcore" audience back is nearly impossible after you've lost them (see those RO1 vs. RO2 forum battles) and CoDdies/BF-kids will move on the moment a new flashy shooter arrives. So RO2 activity is barely there as a result.

BIS should take notes here.

I wouldn't be surprised if many of our 2013 members will move away from ArmA3 the moment BF4 is out.

Edited March 14, 2013 by metalcraze

[Smurf 12]

It is not a matter of "arcade vs sims" here but the state of the shooter genre as a whole. I see my brother playing BO2 in the PS3 (14 yo, good at it, not annoying with the mic at least...) and I can't figure out how so many people can spend so many time playing THAT! As Ramm said, it is so shallow that the only thing comes to mind is that they don't know any better. It is laughtable that this thing is even played in a competitive matter (even with

COD need skils? Pff... Try those old-school (no more made) shooters. I spent a good time playing games like UT (I skipped Quake, which is somehow even faster), RTCW\Wof:ET (one of the best MP experiences, IMO) and CS and can say that any of these have a far greater learning curve than COD and they required the player to actually learn to play instead of mask it with perks and killstreaks and so on. COD is a success because (read: lots of copies sold) they set the bar so low that anyone can play it, fell like a hero and they are happy with it, when they face a true challenge they just give up and go back to their comfort zone.

May sound like an elitist comment but isn't. Imagine if exams were made to accomodate those students with bad grades, the whole class would suffer and you would create a generation of dumbfucks. Guess what?

Luckly people seems to be getting tired of COD...

@RO2: Despite considering a good,solid game and really enjoying it, having some (new) features and mechanics that should be standard for the genre and an overall good technical side (animations, sounds, graphics), I can agree that they f*ck up the game with:

a) an utterly bad release with bugs and lack of promised features followed by a really slow fix for them (almost 2 years now from release and it still misses some features, even Rising Storm that was in development before the game came out);

b) bad map design for some levels;

c) 3 "play modes"? Really? Instead of focusing in one that they are good at they tried to hit a broader audience and ended with 3 so-so modes. COD syndrome right there...

I don't care about the XP\Unlock\Anchievements thing because you unlock stuff sooner than later. Statistics are cool.

[batto 17]

It is not a matter of "arcade vs sims" here but the state of the shooter genre as a whole.

+1

I've always seen CoD as very limited Quake. You have just one or two types of weapons (variations of automatic railgun), no rocket-jumps, no map items, ... But it's still much closer to Quake than to military game in terms of realism. Old-school shooters rewarded you for tactics (map control). New-school shooters reward you for madness (kill-streaks).

Edited March 15, 2013 by batto
more skills

[kavoven 4]

Its a matter of games. I think this is an observation you can make with many MMORPGs. Lets take WoW as example. When i started playing the game a decade ago you really needed to put some effort into the game. The needed to travel long distances and it took a while until you reached a goal. Then I quit the game for 5 years and was really suprised in how many ways Blizzard had made the game easier, because the younger crowds where whining about nearly everything that took time or effort.

This is indeed not about people who want to enjoy a fast game in front of their TV. I think its really about this instant award thing!

[dmarkwick 261]

I think it's generally a case of over-thinking it. We're talking about a simplistic pick-up-&-play game on a stable consistent platform, as such naming players as simplistic & dullwitted says more about us than them IMO :)

'Tis just a game.

[mr burns 131]

RO2 fell flat on it´s nose because the developers were better with their mouths than with their releases, simple as that.

Mouthing off now about how it´s the fault of a stumbling stone on the road they chose to follow fits the pattern.

[mrcash2009 0]

I think the issues come when you get the mindset of this genre, how can I put it, spilling into, and seeking out the games not of that genre (as it looks and feels like it) & shouting the odds to change things to suit that habit of expectancy to align more with that genre.

Everything has its place, but its when the lines blur that's when it gets "interesting".

I think we can all work out what I refer too :)

[Tonci87 163]

Its a matter of games. I think this is an observation you can make with many MMORPGs. Lets take WoW as example. When i started playing the game a decade ago you really needed to put some effort into the game. The needed to travel long distances and it took a while until you reached a goal. Then I quit the game for 5 years and was really suprised in how many ways Blizzard had made the game easier, because the younger crowds where whining about nearly everything that took time or effort.

This is indeed not about people who want to enjoy a fast game in front of their TV. I think its really about this instant award thing!

You just need to look a t the Arma 3 section....

Some People want Arma to become exactly like BF just with better Ballistics....

Problem is that these people will leave Arma as soon as the next flashy shooter is released...

[Heradon 1]

CoD is pretty much like a kindergarten. It keeps a lot of kids away from real games. The only reason i hate CoD is because it has nerfed all other games because everyone wants to make $$$ like CoD instead of making real games. Just like with EA games that destroy all the known titles. Just like they did with Battlefield series, which have become more like a CoD clone. We used to have LAN with tournaments, clans, prestige and game used to have expansion pack that actually gave you something. Today they make a half finished product and sell it. Later you can buy the rest of the game as DLC. Simcity is a good example for that, you can't play singelplayer, the game has shit tons of bugs, and you can only build cities on a very limited and small maps. But a DLC is already in development which will let you play on bigger maps. Why can't they just sell a game without the nazi DRM that requires EA games server to be up and running, without the shit tons of bugs and with bigger maps...

[mrcash2009 0]

You just need to look a t the Arma 3 section....

Some People want Arma to become exactly like BF just with better Ballistics....

Damn it, I was diplomatic scooting around this in my post and you come in here straight after me and undermine it all by telling it how it is! :p *shakes fist*

Why can't they just sell a game without the nazi DRM that requires EA games server to be up and running, without the shit tons of bugs and with bigger maps...

Control & $

[krycek 349]

CoD is pretty much like a kindergarten. It keeps a lot of kids away from real games.

This,a million times this.Just think about it guys how will these forums have looked if we had here about 500k of those CoD fans.CoD is the gaming MTV.As long as it exists it keeps us safe.

[Fuse 1]

I call it the instant gratification syndrome.

Younger players (Lets face it, CoD and similiar games are clearly aimed at people under the age of 18) don´t seem to have the patience to wait for a reward. They want it instantly and they want it often and they want it all over the screen and all over social media chanels so that their friend know how "great" they are.

All too true. Back in my day *feebly shakes a cane at no one in particular* the only reward you got was a feeling of accomplishment for doing well, and that was enough. Games are supposed to be fun because of the gameplay, not due to cheap psychological tricks.

[metalcraze 290]

CoD is pretty much like a kindergarten. It keeps a lot of kids away from real games.

Sadly you are wrong. CoD and the stupid marketing supporting it ensures that kids think that unless a game is a Generic FPS where all you have to do is put a crosshair over an enemy and hit fire in a boring TDM with gratification points flying at you from everywhere (+100! +200! +500! +100500!) - it's "broken" and should be "fixed" by making it "appeal to a wider audience" because that for some reason is a good thing.

Sadly you also don't need to look hard and far for examples.

[alecutheman 1]

I don't get what's with all the hate for cod, you should know what you're getting into and what to expect, I mean it's been around long enough :p

Sometimes you just want to play something for 15 minutes and cod mp is a great alternative to ios games

[Smurf 12]

I don't get what's with all the hate for cod, you should know what you're getting into and what to expect, I mean it's been around long enough :p

Sometimes you just want to play something for 15 minutes and cod mp is a great alternative to ios games

No problem there, sometimes you just want to blow off some steam or don't have the time to have a "proper" gaming sessions. Hell, I reached lvl 55 in BLOPS 2 just playing 10-30 min sessions, can't stand more than that.

The problem (or hate) starts when COD audience (those that have COD as their "main" game), and they have a huge audience, start to play something else and find it flawed because..... it doesn't play like COD.

Sadly COD became the benchmark for some people on how a game should be and the cause of so many generic shooters out there, some games even get burned because of that, RO2 for instance.

And I totally forgot what I would write here....

[nodunit 397]

So basicly you hate it when others, regardless of how large the group is, feel that every game shoulder cater to them and mirror another game they played in similar mannerisms to "appeal to more". With unproven garuntees that 'more people will buy it IF' while continuously fighting and calling your notions of defense of a mechanic a flaw and backward system because they feel you are indoctrinated by it whilst blindly turning the other cheek and admitting none of their own?

[dunedain 48]

What I find ironic about this article, though, is that the the style of gameplay he seems to despise, and the players he seems to dislike (''dislike'' may be a strong word but I don't know how else to put it), was the very same players they (TWI) so blatantly obvious tried to appeal to, it is the very same game which their game (RO) was so much affected by, while seemingly neglecting their original fanbase.

It isn't a coincidence that there is enemy loadouts, spawn on squadleader, MkB, no command system, XP, unlocks, perks, smaller more streamlined levels, increased amount of HUD details, focus on more fast paced gameplay in RO2, and in general many 'complex' features from RO1 missing. It's a deliberate decision that in the end backfired. Now they (TWI) throw dirt at CoD, yet it was all fine copying features from CoD game and implementing them into RO2 but when it doesn't work CoD is the bad guy.

This sums up exactly what I first thought when I read about John Gibson's words last thursday. It looks to me that they are in total denial about the fact that the first to give up on RO2 were Osfront fans themselves, me included. Tactical shooters were always a niche genre, COD didn't change that...

Asking COD players to help design a game mode for RO2? Oh come on...

They fucked up big time, and are the only ones to blame. They just got greedy and also took some very bad design decisions... Sorry but I'ld rather have full body awareness and a dozen of vehicles, rather than a floating camera and over detailed tank interiors that don't benefit the gameplay. Weren't they priding themselves in some interview saying that it took them three months to fully animate a single tank? Meanwhile we're still waiting for a couple of troop carriers...

Anyway It looks like Tripwire is too busy making over priced DLCs for Killing Floor. So I guess the only hope for fans of Osfront is to look forward to Festung Europe by the creators of the Darkest Hour 44-45 modification for Red Orchestra.

Edited March 19, 2013 by dunedain

[Lenbo 1]

I agree cod games are dumbed down no doubt and cod black ops 2 is one of the most dumbed down games ever. However bf3 is an outstanding game. i feel it provideds realizm in an atmospher that is for gamers ease of use. thanl you and a five babies to yall.

[Smurf 12]

So basicly you hate it when others, regardless of how large the group is, feel that every game shoulder cater to them and mirror another game they played in similar mannerisms to "appeal to more". With unproven garuntees that 'more people will buy it IF' while continuously fighting and calling your notions of defense of a mechanic a flaw and backward system because they feel you are indoctrinated by it whilst blindly turning the other cheek and admitting none of their own?

What? Was that for me?

[NeMeSiS 11]

I agree cod games are dumbed down no doubt and cod black ops 2 is one of the most dumbed down games ever. However bf3 is an outstanding game. i feel it provideds realizm in an atmospher that is for gamers ease of use. thanl you and a five babies to yall.

I am not entirely sure if you are trolling or not. In any case, your avatar is... interesting..

[metalcraze 290]

Yeah I hope he is joking.

BF3 is CoD with tanks.