I was referring to games that you could talk to others over mics.
Rage will occur whether or not you can direct it to the person who killed you or not. Quake and Unreal Tournament are difficult games that require good aim. It's years old (most of them) which means only the veteran players remain and the chances of them raging is close to nil.
From my experience all guns on CoD are used by many people, except for some of the pistols which I rarely see because the machine pistols make them irrelevant unless you want the commando pro knife lunge that the akimbo usp .45s offer.
UMP45, Intervention (or the Barrett. 50cal) and etc in MW2 are examples of weapons too vastly used. Compare it to LMGs, they're rarely used at best. Then consider that what you said in itself could be used as an argument.
I was referring to BF3's team deathmatch mode, where the spawns were random and you had to run quite a lot just to find one person, or a group of campers.
...
Battlefield is not kill based, that should be apparent by... what? 50% of the things you carry? Is the Mortar for kills? It's for suppression and consistency. Are rockets? No, they're for eliminating armored threats and aircraft (and for some other colorful uses).
Battlefield at its core has been PTFO (Play the ******* Objective), apparent in the prequel Battlefield 2 -- no Team Deathmatch, I believe it was only Conquest, actually.
Does that mean I disagree with you? I don't know, I've not played TDM. FPSs need more meat to them than their primary point, but they ought to be addressed. In the name of the thread I'll point out the same behavior in CoD. Zombies -- that's not shooting, that is strategy. Spec Ops? Same thing. The only thing that came close was MW3s system that wasn't nearly as predictable.
The others mentioned are simply theorycraft and strategy.
I've not much an issue with this as long as they make sure it's alright. In terms of BF3 I'm nowhere near worried about TDM. Infact I find it VERY difficult to make it a useful game mode because half of your items are ineffective.
My point is that people can still boost on BF3 and that people still care about those numbers on that game.
Two people boosting is a slow way of getting points, in comparison to other methods. Maybe if you have a guy reviving. At either point -- who the hell cares? If anything the boosting is less harmful than CoD's because hey, you have bigger teams.
Both is going to be filled with idiocy. Can there be doubt?
Also, for a little bit on Battlefield as a series, Battlefield 2 has a dedicated playerbase (still) that doesn't consist of that much stupidity as they're gone. Same reasons for Quake and Unreal in a way.
Call of Duty 4 can be portrayed in a FAMILIAR way. The competitive mod (ProMod, there are variants) can help ensure a strong eSport and it still runs today. Not that big, sure, but nonetheless it's there. However, my brother is a pre-invite at this point if I remember right, and the discussions I hear him having sounds like it's utterly stupid.
I have different philosophies on how professional gaming should work. Quite frankly, if my brother can get through to "that level" when he thinks that having "chance" in professional games is a good thing (pretty much contradicting the entire point), then I can't see how others are too much better.
Of course, I dare not generalize. It would be like me showing you EGIdrA (which is an acronym for I rAGEd). Don't know him?
Used to have anger / personality issues when playing Starcraft II, was notorious for "bad manner" and calling the game imbalanced, effectively. He's cleaned up a hell of a lot now, but him 6 months ago would be a great example.
That was directed at Stephen's post, hence the quotes.
I know.
WTF! Battlefield has a terrible camapaign and you need to have an american account to play online (I'm brazilian).
BF3 Campaign? TERRIBLE. Yes.
CoD Campaign? 4 Hours.
That and consider how poorly made MW2's story was. MW3 has no real story with MW2 being made of utter stupidity.
Which one beats in terms of campaign?
I'll go for neither. I find them both equally awful. Because anything worse still isn't worth mentioning.
That and what you said about CoD is your point, not your explanation.
Here's mine for MW2.
Ultranationalist terrorist raids ultranationalist airport with American to cause a war between ultranationalist country and America. Making what are effectively his own allies lose their lives for little to no good reason.
His other crimes (human trafficking) and such I can understand. Funds right? But really? What the heck was that about?
- H
