|
Post by pooneega on Feb 2, 2011 4:15:26 GMT -5
I've been trying to grasp the definition of a competitive shooter and it really shocks me when people deem a game not competitive for x reasons when I could point to another game that in some merits is just like it. Now before I get flamed Ill have you know that my CS background is very, very limited so my knowledge of the game isnt too far beyond the Steyr AUG probably being my favorite gun . Like the heading says, why is CS:S considered a competitive game when COD isnt? Theres glaring similarities in how the game plays, how fast people die, gametypes, really the only difference that I can see is that the accepted way of aiming is a bit different (as far as I remember ADS'ing isnt the way to go in most cases in CS) but besides that I'm a bit baffled. I can understand where most shooters these days cant be taken seriously especially when theres been games like UT, Quake, GoW (sans the net code) where you have to really work for you kills and the majority of people that jump in a lobby are going to struggle to get any more than 2 frags in a given match, but why COD isn't deemed truly competitive is beyond me.
|
|
Den
He's That Guy
Posts: 4,294,967,295
|
Post by Den on Feb 2, 2011 4:30:39 GMT -5
Elitism.
|
|
dog
True Bro
woof
Posts: 10,608
|
Post by dog on Feb 2, 2011 4:47:01 GMT -5
Other than killstreaks, I don't see why CoD can't be taken seriously as a competitive game.
Not like the perks are gonna tip the balance since everyone can use em.
EDIT: and the only attempt to make CoD competitive was so different from the original game, it can't be considered CoD anymore (yes, I'm looking at you, "Pro"mod.)
|
|
|
Post by chip sandwich on Feb 2, 2011 10:39:42 GMT -5
According to fans of CSS, it takes more "skill" than CoD.
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Feb 2, 2011 13:19:37 GMT -5
According to fans of CSS, it takes more "skill" than CoD. It does... CSS it comes down to map knowledge and gunskill. I remember in CSS competetive matches, the top tier players would have to get headshots in order to win 1 on 1s. In CoD, gunskill is much less important. It's more jus having fast aim, and knowing the maps/communicating.
|
|
|
Post by chip sandwich on Feb 2, 2011 13:28:35 GMT -5
According to fans of CSS, it takes more "skill" than CoD. It does... CSS it comes down to map knowledge and gunskill. I remember in CSS competetive matches, the top tier players would have to get headshots in order to win 1 on 1s. In CoD, gunskill is much less important. It's more jus having fast aim, and knowing the maps/communicating. I guess so. Still, less emphasis on "gunskill" shouldn't prohibit a game from being competitive. Good teamwork and "game exploitation" (urgh) can still create a large and prohbitive skill barrier.
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Feb 2, 2011 13:33:29 GMT -5
It does... CSS it comes down to map knowledge and gunskill. I remember in CSS competetive matches, the top tier players would have to get headshots in order to win 1 on 1s. In CoD, gunskill is much less important. It's more jus having fast aim, and knowing the maps/communicating. I guess so. Still, less emphasis on "gunskill" shouldn't prohibit a game from being competitive. Good teamwork and "game exploitation" (urgh) can still create a large and prohbitive skill barrier. It's "competetive", just not as competetive. Just like Command & Conquer can have a competetive scene, but it'll never be as competetive as StarCraft...
|
|
|
Post by didjeridu on Feb 2, 2011 14:28:06 GMT -5
It's something I've wondered as well, especially considering I've never played CS. People always say that CS takes more skill, particularly gun skill. They always recite recoil and headshots as the primary reasons. Now, I'm going off of an assumption here, so I'm probably wrong:
I've played a fair bit of DoD:S, which I believe is based off of CS:S somewhat. If the gunplay in DoD is anything like in CS, then all the players are pulling the skill argument out of their ass. There is a slight amount of more recoil, but it's very easy to deal with. Plus, the fact that most weapons just "hipfire," really takes away from the experience in my eyes. Sure, the average CoD player would get stomped in DoD if they were new, but all it takes is a little map knowledge and common sense to get into it. This "skill canyon" that separates CoD from other shooters doesn't exist in my eyes. People are just elitist.
|
|
phale
True Bro
Posts: 635
|
Post by phale on Feb 2, 2011 17:13:25 GMT -5
I think it is quite simple actually. CS:S is several years old now, but there have been new CoDs every year. The people who play CS competitively now are very focused and take the game very seriously. They've been playing for years, so they know every trick, every tactic, every nook and cranny on every map by heart. Everyone playing now has practiced enough that they are mostly on a level playing field, and "gunskill" is the only factor that can distinguish them. The casual gamers have all gotten bored by the game, and the level of play would discourage any new player from trying to burst onto the scene. And, of course, when you've dedicated years of your life to an elite circle of experienced gamers, there will obviously be a lot of elitism that separates you from the more casual gamers.
|
|
|
Post by effingee on Feb 3, 2011 0:18:34 GMT -5
The less a game relies on chance, the more viable it is as a competitive shooter. Sure, you can play BlackOps competitively, but in order for it to provide a fair competition experience, the following things need to happen:
1. Dedicated servers, or at least the option to manually assign and migrate hosts. In a p2p served game, the host has an advantage. Unless the game provides a way to share that advantage equally to both players/teams, the match will be unfair.
2. Tournament mode where all options and aspects of the game can be configured, enabled/disabled, and modified. I'm talking about round times, weapon loadouts, maps, spawn locations, objective locations, killstreaks, the works. This will allow competitive leagues and gamers configure games and matches as they see fit.
3. Removal or minimization of random, AI-controlled, and unfair actions and events. Second-chance invincibility, lock-on knife lunge, AI controlled killstreaks, you can even make an argument that lag-compensation should be removed. The point of a competitive shooter is that you are better than your opponent, not that your AI-controlled killstreak did better than their AI-controlled killstreak.
4. Competitively balanced maps. The maps either need to be completely symmetrical so that neither side has the advantage, or clearly defined with an Assault vs. Defense mindset--while still allowing both sides a reasonable opportunity to win the round. An Assault vs. Defense map with only one route to the objective is going to result in a lot of ties, and nobody likes ties.
What BlackOps has going for it:
Perks, and to a lesser degree, weapon choices. The COD series allows for elaborate customization and specialization that's far more interesting than simple pre-set classes like in Team Fortress. Sure, a lot of teams are going to run all rapid-fire AK's or FAMAUG's, but you at least have the opportunity to split your team into a rush/suppress/support stack with SMGs, ARs, and LMG/Snipers.
Playability and popularity. COD has a huge install base and reasonable system requirements. More teams, more players, more competition.
|
|
|
Post by ][nquisitor Mateo on Feb 3, 2011 0:25:24 GMT -5
Perks, and to a lesser degree, weapon choices. The COD series allows for elaborate customization and specialization that's far more interesting than simple pre-set classes like in Team Fortress. Sure, a lot of teams are going to run all rapid-fire AK's or FAMAUG's, but you at least have the opportunity to split your team into a rush/suppress/support stack with SMGs, ARs, and LMG/Snipers. What's wrong with variety in TF2? Have you even played recently? Or do you have the shitty Console version?
|
|
|
Post by Contrary on Feb 3, 2011 0:26:32 GMT -5
Don't they have CoD MLG and stuff like that?
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Feb 3, 2011 1:08:34 GMT -5
Don't they have CoD MLG and stuff like that? Yes but they nueter the game to the point of lunacy. Biggest problems competetive CoD faces is the maps are so imbalanced, especially for competetive play.
|
|
|
Post by effingee on Feb 3, 2011 1:35:14 GMT -5
Perks, and to a lesser degree, weapon choices. The COD series allows for elaborate customization and specialization that's far more interesting than simple pre-set classes like in Team Fortress. Sure, a lot of teams are going to run all rapid-fire AK's or FAMAUG's, but you at least have the opportunity to split your team into a rush/suppress/support stack with SMGs, ARs, and LMG/Snipers. What's wrong with variety in TF2? Have you even played recently? Or do you have the doo-dooty Console version? There's probably nothing wrong with TF2, but I don't know for sure because I've never played it. I was referring to the original Team Fortress and just used it as an example of a class based game.
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Feb 3, 2011 8:05:38 GMT -5
Search and Destroy is competitive. Other gametypes are just headless chickens running around.
But I'm just talking about public games. I think that in a Gamebattles setting any gametype could be very competitive.
|
|
|
Post by adyc00l on Feb 3, 2011 9:21:20 GMT -5
Black Ops isn't only restricted to nerds lol
|
|
niteshadex
True Bro
Xbox GT: The Beastly 117
Posts: 688
|
Post by niteshadex on Feb 3, 2011 9:31:27 GMT -5
Search and Destroy is competitive. Other gametypes are just headless chickens running around. But I'm just talking about public games. I think that in a Gamebattles setting any gametype could be very competitive. Can't stand the SnD elitism. It is not more competetive or skillful than other CoD gamemodes. It just has one life. In public games, it's an excuse to camp.
|
|
|
Post by 418Y on Feb 3, 2011 9:52:28 GMT -5
Every COD mode is competitive if you add the right setting, like Respawn Time and ban Equipment (they slow down the game) and Killstreaks. The fact is that the P2P system, imho, doesn't suit a competitive role; that requires dedicated servers.
|
|
|
Post by natsuterran on Feb 3, 2011 10:24:52 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with niteshadex on this one. I have never played a CS game, but if it's anything like the difference between Starcraft and other RTS games (which is what I've been led to believe) then I fully understand where they are coming from. It's not just elitism in that case. From what I have seen of CS you have people hipfiring perfectly accurate weapons (so it's like ADS while not aimed) while strafing and jumping around. That sends gunskill through the roof compared to cod. You can't even dodge shots in assault rifle battles in cod. Try altering steady aim in a BO private match so that it is perfectly accurate and then have jumpstrafe battles with someone with a lightweight SMG class. That should be only a taste of how much more skillful CS is. I have also heard that recoil is completely predictable, which obviously helps gunskill.
You can't just say "oh but cod has map knowledge and positioning etc." Strategy in general in a video game is not enough to base the whole game around. No matter what, every FPS is going to have its own strats, tactics, map knowledge etc that can give you an edge. Going back to my SC experience, after everyone had been playing the game for over a decade, it got to the point where everyone *knew* the best strats and tactics to win. Everyone knew "if they do this, you do that" for every situation in the game. The thing that separated pro Koreans was their insane machanical and dextrous skill. Rightfully so. Every game deemed competitive has a tilted focus on the actual ability in your hands. Just because playing SC was almost the equivalent of a speed typing competition, it still had a huge layer of depth and strategy that no other RTS had. I would argue that specifically because it was such a mechanical game, that opened up different strat branches. But yeah, everyone knows the best things to do once it gets to a really high level of play that mechanical skills are what really make or break a player, so the game needs to be based off that. Every skilled cod player knows how and when to "clip" cover, to set up a spawn trap, to dropshot, to place a nade etc. Once everyone figures this out you no longer have a competitive game without players being able to consistently outskill each other. Note that all this only applies to skillbased games in the first place, so don't bring up a TBS or something.
|
|
|
Post by effingee on Feb 3, 2011 15:17:56 GMT -5
Every skilled cod player knows how and when to "clip" cover, to set up a spawn trap, to dropshot, to place a nade etc. Once everyone figures this out you no longer have a competitive game without players being able to consistently outskill each other. This is where map design, perk selection, and team tactics come into play. Once the game reaches a skill plateau of sorts at the higher levels, the ability to make and execute choices is what keeps the game alive. If you can assume that everyone will make their open shots, then you have to give players the tools to work as a team to achieve victory now that they cannot simply out-shoot their opponent. Smoke grenades and timed pushes are important here. I have played competitive matches where the outcome depended entirely on how well the assaulting team executed a daisy-chain of intricately timed flash-bangs. If you missed a flash toss and allowed the enemy to pass through a corridor, winning the round became almost impossible. Switching sides, the entire defensive round depended on somehow dodging between 3 to 8 flash-bangs to allow you the opportunity to win a gunfight and secure the round. The reason this was competitive (and fun) was that the outcome of the round depended entirely on how sound your flash-bang strategy was and how well you executed it. If your flash strategy was bad or you bounced one off a pipe (and flashed your whole team), then your team lost. There was very little left up to chance. It was Team A vs. Team B, not Team A's net connection vs. Team B's host. Competitive players like to be able to connect their wins and losses to themselves, not the AI or the net code.
|
|
|
Post by kobefan012345 on Feb 3, 2011 15:27:21 GMT -5
Hey, wtf is CS:S?
|
|
aranshada
True Bro
But woe betide thine enemies, for thee hath created thine Bullet Hose.
Posts: 231
|
Post by aranshada on Feb 3, 2011 15:30:47 GMT -5
|
|
phale
True Bro
Posts: 635
|
Post by phale on Feb 3, 2011 15:42:31 GMT -5
Reminds me of Adobe Photoshop CS5...
|
|
|
Post by kobefan012345 on Feb 3, 2011 15:49:48 GMT -5
Oh, ok i thought it stood for Cock sucking: superman
|
|
oTradeMark
True Bro
youtube.com/oTradeMark
Posts: 312
|
Post by oTradeMark on Feb 3, 2011 22:25:21 GMT -5
Oh, ok i thought it stood for Cock sucking: superman Is that your favorite game/comic?
|
|
phale
True Bro
Posts: 635
|
Post by phale on Feb 4, 2011 2:05:31 GMT -5
Just so everyone is absolutely clear, this is what CS is:
|
|
|
Post by imrlybord7 on Feb 4, 2011 13:29:59 GMT -5
Search and Destroy is competitive. Other gametypes are just headless chickens running around. But I'm just talking about public games. I think that in a Gamebattles setting any gametype could be very competitive. Can't stand the SnD elitism. It is not more competetive or skillful than other CoD gamemodes. It just has one life. In public games, it's an excuse to camp. Or rush, but to each his own.
|
|
|
Post by smallrabbit on Feb 8, 2011 22:37:17 GMT -5
I have played a little bit of counterstrike and it takes more skill in my opinion but my view of skill is how much of a skill gap it has. In counterstrike anything but a head shot won't do any player who has spent 6 months playing would beat any player who has been playing for 1 month. Also there is a lot of recoil in counterstrike going full auto is a disaster.
Aother thing that I like about Conterstrike is the money system first round its pistols only do you want to buy some armour or a better pistol mayby a grenade. This adds more tactics to the game a player can save his money and get an awp sniper with a desert eagle and if hes any good last quite a few rounds with it.
Cod is not taken seriously competetively because of the lack of headshots going for a headshot in cod is just a bad idea. This decereases the skill required as any player can land 3 body ahots and get a kill while a skilled player can only get so good its hard to get much better at shooting someone in the chest 3 times.
This is the reason it's not that cod takes less skill it's that there is less of a skill gap there is too much of a limit on how good you can be at cod.
I haven't played a lot of counterstike though only 1.6 lan games with friends and I was never very good at it.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Feb 21, 2011 5:45:38 GMT -5
I definitely agree that the host advantage in PtP is a large problem. Personally I think that the host should be forced to have simulated lag, probably based on the average latency of all the host's opponents. You still need dedicated servers, though, because a group of players that live locally and party up for playing will have the advantage when one of them is the host even if the host is taken out of the equation, because they will all probably have a better ping to the locally located host vs enemies who have random locations and quality of service.
However, I also don't really agree with neutering a game for competitive play. Like how a lot of MLG'ers wanted Bungie to change how reticule bloom works in Halo:Reach. (Basically it works just like hipfire, but they don't like the randomness.) If you go changing all the fundamentals of the game then it's not the same game anymore. Frankly if you're going that far I say just go develop your own game for competition from scratch.
That's not to say I'm against trying to make matches as fair as possible. But when it comes down to it, that is really my only concern. Is it fair. I don't care if player X's KS reward does better than player Y's, because even though they are AI controlled it's still up to the players to determine what their KS's are, when and how to use them, and how to defend against or counter them. It's not gunskill... but that still involves skill, tactics, and strategy. As long as it's fair I don't care. In fact merely taking out KS's makes a huge change in the game. It affects the classes, strategies, and tactics in all sorts of ways aside from just removing AI's. Without KS's in MW2 you have little reason to use CB, which is normally hands down one of the best perks in the game. No reason at all for HL. Pretty much might as well go SP.
In fact a lot of the mods that get used seem to me like they really are focused on banning just enough stuff so that everybody will use exactly the same things. Same weapons, same classes, no variety. Just level it all off... IMO that doesn't make a game competitive... it makes it repetitive. But meh...
I also don't see the need for such a huge skill gap that you can tell which player is more "skilled" within 5 seconds of them facing each other. It can and should take a whole game, or maybe even a few games. At least if you want anybody but the people playing it to care about it. But then maybe competitive gaming is destined to be just another racquetball, or lacrosse instead of a baseball, soccer, or football.
I giveup on the whole thing. I just no longer care. To me games are supposed to be fun. It's cool if they can be competitive too, but when we get to the point that we have to make our games less fun or they aren't "competitive" then I'm out, sorry. If we can't do both then I pick fun and the rest can hang. Call me when we can do both and the competitive players play the same game I love and enjoy, and then maybe I'll want to actually care.
For example, I love watching Chris Smoove. He's not the best player ever, nor pretends to be. Even I catch mistakes he makes as he's making them a lot of the time. I actually admire that he doesn't edit out all that and try to make himself look 1337. He's better than me, though I think I could be that good if I'd play enough to get in practice. I've been that good at various games in the past IMO. He's also entertaining. But the thing that really seals it is that he plays the same game I do, with the same weapons and frustrations, ect.
If he were playing some MLG variant with half the game banned I'd loose interest. I'm sure not everybody agrees with me on that, but just look at CS.
Do you care who's the best CS:S player in the world right now? I don't. It's a cool game and all, but I never really got into it. I played some of the original CS for a while and got okay, though not really good. But sadly CS:S didn't work out for me.
I AM all for making the game more competitive in ways that make sense and don't take away from the fun or variety in the game. I'm just not really inclined to sacrifice much for it, because I think there's probably a better way to achieve fairness and let the better team win out in a tournament.
|
|
|
Post by chip sandwich on Feb 21, 2011 10:28:18 GMT -5
I also don't see the need for such a huge skill gap that you can tell which player is more "skilled" within 5 seconds of them facing each other. It can and should take a whole game, or maybe even a few games. At least if you want anybody but the people playing it to care about it. But then maybe competitive gaming is destined to be just another racquetball, or lacrosse instead of a baseball, soccer, or football. It's for this reason that I don't like games which so easily allow for spawn tactical loitering/exploitation. Oh, hey, you got the spawn trap first, now you get to sit back and watch a futile attempt at retaliation. I don't get why people don't like "circular" spawning. Ok, it could be better than what Treyarch does (lol summit lol Jungle), but a good spawn system allows the game to be won as a whole game, rather than a 5 second lockout. It forces the players to actually pay attention to when spawns might flip and adjust their strategy accordingly. If you've already lost in the first few minutes, why bother playing the rest of the match? Of course this doesn't apply to competitive CS, but you get what I mean.
|
|