When I say "shield shooters", I'm referring to shooters in which the player has some sort of defense mechanism that deflects gunfire (such as in Halo or Crysis). For example, in Halo, every player has a Bubble Shield, and in Crysis (2) every player has "Armor mode". Hence, in these games, it requires much more skill (IMO) to take out an enemy player because you have to maintain accuracy when firing at them for a period of time much longer than in games where there are no shield mechanisms. Essentially, these types of shooters aren't opportunistic shooters, where you can easily kill someone by catching them off guard. For example, in a game like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Call of Duty, if you catch an enemy off guard and fire at them, you'll almost always kill them with ease because they have no protection against the gunfire. So, I'd say that these "non-shield shooters" rely more on opportunity than on actual skill. Anyhow, this is just my opinion. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?
If your skilled enough, you won't be caught off guard. :P
Its a different type of game, and thus require different type of skill....
Urworstnhtmare
That pretty much sums it up I'd say. If you know the area well, you can sneak up on people more easily, and if you are careful you won't get caught off guard easily.
It doesn't matter what an individual is or is doing. Making good out of opportunities is what leads to success. About what you're saying TC, it's relative. If you don't believe me, just take off the shield setting in Halo multiplayer and increase health in Call of Duty.
I think they work both ways. In some cases it's considered skill when taking down your enemy when having shields, but it can also work as "easy way out" when using these shields, because they can save your life.
"Skill" is a rather nebulous term. Someone who is good at baking bread is skilled. Someone who is good at first person shooters is skilled. Different types of games require different types of skills.
[QUOTE="Treflis"]Disagree. It takes more skill to have no protection and still manage to survive, then to have extra protection that helps you survive. This statement is only true if you're the only one with protection. If the enemies have one, too then the advantages equal out. I neither played Halo nor Crysis or any other game with such a mechanic. If the shields are triggered manualy and only hold for a limited time than yes, these games take more skill as there is one more thing you have to consider when you think about your tactics.
Not really. Even in games where it's one hit kills, the top players didn't just stumble into the top spot. In every random match, there's always a few players that always place on the top of the scoreboards. That doesn't correlate with random luck. I appreciate the idea of people having to plan an attack so that they can maintain damage, but I don't see how it's any less twitchy to maintain your aim on a strafing opponent than to meet someone in a hall and shoot first. If headshots were more of a big deal in those games, I might think differently, but if I end up having to shoot more than one bullet directly into someone's head, it makes me feel as if something is wrong with the game.
Not really sure. All I know is that twitch shooters require the most skill, by quite a large margin.
foxhound_fox
This. Maintaining a high K/D ratio in games like Unreal Tournament or Quake takes the most overall skill of any shooter type. They require more than memorizing maps and being good at staying locked on opponents, as making use of your agility also becomes really important. The pacing of matches is also more demanding.
I think generally it's easier in games if I'm viewing them on PS3 on blu-ray in high def because you can get the kill easier! Regardless, I think Crysis 2 is an average game that relies more on tech than anything. I found the game a tedious trek really.
Btw you remind me of someone, can't quite remember but oh well, people pass through here and there I guess =P
Your thread confuses me, at one point I thought you were saying non-shield games like halo and battlefield took more skill then you say otherwise at the end.
I think generally it's easier in games if I'm viewing them on PS3 on blu-ray in high def because you can get the kill easier! Regardless, I think Crysis 2 is an average game that relies more on tech than anything. I found the game a tedious trek really.
mywalletsgone
I agree.
Btw you remind me of someone, can't quite remember but oh well, people pass through here and there I guess =P
Well in crysis 2 shield was like a god mode. On crysis 1 it was pretty weak. Bringing this to health regen, it depends from the game, for example sof payback was agame that while you had health regeneration it went down and regenerate so fast that the game actually took skill such as killing quickly and taking cover for a short time to heal.
They're different. They're more of the "instant gratification" breed. People don't like to wait, or are impatient in general. I remember the days of Counter Strike, where players were actually used to waiting for the entire game to end if they happen to die.
When I say "shield shooters", I'm referring to shooters in which the player has some sort of defense mechanism that deflects gunfire (such as in Halo or Crysis). For example, in Halo, every player has a Bubble Shield, and in Crysis (2) every player has "Armor mode". Hence, in these games, it requires much more skill (IMO) to take out an enemy player because you have to maintain accuracy when firing at them for a period of time much longer than in games where there are no shield mechanisms. Essentially, these types of shooters aren't opportunistic shooters, where you can easily kill someone by catching them off guard. For example, in a game like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Call of Duty, if you catch an enemy off guard and fire at them, you'll almost always kill them with ease because they have no protection against the gunfire. So, I'd say that these "non-shield shooters" rely more on opportunity than on actual skill. Anyhow, this is just my opinion. What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?CryTeknician
to me...a regular shooter is quake live or unreal tournament and counter strike...they all have a sort of armor/shield system in them...i think real shooter games are fast paced and require pinpoint accuracy and the greatly acclaimed "fps dance"...mostly cause it requires more reflexes...a good sense of awareness and knowin ur surrounds and anticipation...try playin quake live after playin halo 3...completely different game...but they implement the same "shield armor thing"...and they both require almost completely different approaches and skillsets...for me i find halo to be infinitely harder mostly cause im dealin with the 360 controller and the much slower game play...so im fightin the game cause i want to play it like my typcial fps experience...and ive challenged some of my friends to quake/unreal tournament and they completely bombed at the game cause it was too fast and "twitchy"so to say that one requires more skill or that one is harder inately than the other...kinda difficult to say...but requiring different approaches and different skillsets yes...definitely...same can be said for cod...but i find that game to be nothing but a nadefest and its gotten old cause i usually end up gettin 10 deaths at spawn in black ops when i play...so i dont enjoy it...but people can be good at that game as well...if u can find a good server that bans nade spam and noob toobs and nade launchers and the such...
Log in to comment