The Contrarian Corner - Smashing Modern Warfare 2
This is "The Contrarian Corner" where you post your contrary opinion against the popular one about video games.
I found Modern Warfare II multiplayer gameplay awful.
Rewarding the winners is the worst way to make unbalanced gameplay in a shooter, and even more the rewards also incentive people to camp (nothing against it, unless everyone does it).
I found the new Mortal Kombat bad.
Some moves are stupids, the game play is awful, the teleports are stupid, and it's not for casual gamers anymore (you need to practice, and you practice in a not serious game).
So tell your opinion.
Last edited by ClockHand; 04-27-2011 at 05:25 PM.
So its the Gen. Discussion's unpopular opinions thread, video-game style?
I disagree with MW2. The core mechanics of the game are so addicting. Plus it had plenty of customization options and ways of taking down killstreaks.
Okay, Red Faction Guerilla deserves to be a top-played online game right now. Amazing weapon balance and super fun mechanics.
Same with Blur. People couldn't get past their own super-specific demands as to how that game should function. It was mad fun and strategic.
The addiction of the game play doesn't make the game good, only popular. MW2 is bad, you can't tale serious a game that reward winners to keep winning, is stupid.
I have played and is easy to kill anyone, it's so easy that even a kid can kill you (there is not technique behind killing). I have proved this, playing against experimented players (I don't play this game at all), and I have not only kill'd them, but also I have win.
After that little experiment, I threw the control away a I did a oath to never play that game again.
101 Dalmations Member
So age automaticaly makes someone inferior at games? But I agree on how it's stupid to reward players for being good, but reawrding them for being bad is even worse.
Originally Posted by ClockHand
its not a matter of age (age is just an example to show how silly the game is), its a matter that the gave doesn't need you to think to much, and rewarding players is bad, it doesn't matter if they are winning or losing, but it take away the interaction of real skills to manage the game.
Example: I play halo reach and I love it (it has his flaws but I'm going to keep with the example), and many times my team has been losing for 20 points and in some way we manage to turn it upside down and we won the matches (using the power up with strategy and working as a team). Now think how silly this would be if the other team would have been rewarded, while my team, for being losing, has no rewards. The game become impossible to turn it upside down, and not even that, skills and tactics become something less important than the killer streak (which obviously if you start winning, you are going to keep winning). And also, the weapons on the maps (which are always powerful and some kind of bully weapons) are easy to stop, its not like there is going to be a missile that I can't stop and is directed to my ass, and if there is one, I still have my armor lock, so fuck you invisible over powerful missile.
A nice example of how you can reward players and keep the competition serious, is Counter Strike (I grew up with that fps), this is because you are rewarding by winning with cash (which is used to buy weapons), but you to know how to spend it. When you start you can buy a Desert Eagle, a great gun, but doing that is going to let you without money for the next round, and if you don't buy it and you win, you have enough money for a AK-47 which is damn good. But you need to win. I'm rewarded for winning, but I have to know how to use this reward.
Last edited by ClockHand; 04-26-2011 at 06:53 AM.
101 Dalmations Member
Halo and the old school(pick-up power weapons on map style) in general is probably the best way to handle the rewards, as winning, and map control give you access to power weapons, making winning easier, but not guaranteed, and the rewards can be taken from you if you die. Seriously, there need to be more old-school style shooters.
I made a reply but it failed I lost everything.
Basically is said COD killstreaks work because most people who play COD play like individuals, not teams, so KSs boost their enjoyment.
Lord of Death
So killstreaks work because it promotes hiding in a bush while the rest of your team actually tries to accomplish objectives. In a team based shooter.
Super Senior Member
And the inexperienced get fucked over...
Ayashi@ more than old school shooter, old school shooter which respect a balanced game play (I don't say to take away powerful weapons, but that those weapons can be stopped if you play the game correctly) and team work. I think Gears of War 3 new team vs team mode is kinda going to the right direction, where every team has a equal amount of respawns at the beginning but of course when the respawns run out you lose.
I would combine that with small tasks in the match, which can gave you extra respawns. Example: Your team has 4 respawns left, the other team has 10 respawns left. You can go to kill the other team with the respawns you have left, or you can do a small task that the map gave you (example: carry the grenade launcher for 30 seconds or move something from place to other) and if you accomplish you can have 2 respawns extra. This make the game to reward team players and good strategy but its work for both teams (so everyone can use it and can back fire you). Also it would focus the clash of the team in entire map and not just a section (and will force teams to move on). Also this is because with the respawn system, no one is going to want to play with less skilled players (and there is always going to be a carmein in the group), but if we add this, maybe having a carmine might not be such a big weight.
Last edited by ClockHand; 04-26-2011 at 06:30 PM.