He's talking about quickscoping in general in any game. You just can't assume that he's talking about CoD when you bring up quickscoping.
You have more effectiveness quickscoping with a Shotgun on Battlefield (with the scope) than with a sniper.
Quickscoping is the most horribly impractical action you could do on Tribes Ascend.
Given the mechanics of Crysis 2, quickscoping is hardly viable even there.
Call of Duty is the primary point of discussion when it comes to quickscoping -- and that's excluding the fact that it has a much larger playerbase then at least two of those games and a more vocal fanbase, here, on Armor Games.
Unless it's a game I missed -- which would probably only be if it's old, then it's reasonable to assume this is about CoD. Even if it were not, the topic of quickscoping only leads to terribly shallow debate about its balance and etc. Unless you're one of those guys who think it's actually just fun or cool to quickscope, in which case, you are on the CoD thread.
is it a exploit? yes...
If you classify quickscoping as an exploit then the vast majority of only the slightly-intricate game mechanics / actions made could be considered an exploitation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying that your term of an "exploit" hardly constitutes anything given its premise.
reasons why quickingscoping is unrealistic
You go on from mentioning playing Black Ops and then seemingly complaining about the lack of realism involved in quickscoping.
CoD, and even Battlefield -- neither of them are realistic. Which is why I think "
It's a video game relax. You want to play a realistic FPS game then go play BattleField." is either one of the most idiotic or ignorant statements made in this thread. Battlefield is only more authentic -- and surely slightly more realistic, but that's not the aim by DICE.
DICE intends to add features that are present in real life to the game in order to add either an additional layer, finesse, skill requirements (or indeed skill capacity) or teamwork. If you think being able to repeatedly revive a constantly exploded team-mate is realistic, you're doing it wrong.
ok fine i'll give you guys the fact that FPS's aren't supposed to be realistic
That's not a fact. That's your opinion based on perception of what I'd imagine is a relatively small amount of FPSs. They don't require a lack of realism -- it's just that it's reasonable to assume that including a superfluous amount of realism would make it incredibly boring, or incredibly technical / mechanical that most players -- especially those of the FPS genre, would not invest the time in order to learn.
as i have said before, takes out the gun balance by making snipers weakness disappear.
You nailed that. Quickscoping in Call of Duty leaves so few options to actually defeat it in terms of a person who can actually quickscope (which is so incredibly easy as it is), that the amount of options most people see is actually simply bull.
the aim down sight is not as fast as in the Infinity Ward CoDs but quick enough for you to use snipers in close encounters.
Except you're screwed in most instances because of the sway of the sniper and the fact that under fire you're blurred. It takes a lot of precision and accuracy of mind / sight to be able to reliably snipe a close target, something which the majority of BF players don't have and also considering that most weapons I think do kill fast enough in those closer quarters.
Again, you're better off quickscoping with a Shotgun in this scenario. In Battlefield you can pick your fights much more easily -- a Recon using a sniper would be inclined to stay further back and thus only when the enemy takes the initiative would he be truly in danger. With that being said, he is genuinely vulnerable to cautious opponents.
is unrealistic and suicidal.
1) You need to elaborate on the unrealistic element -- by answering the question "What difference does it make?".
2) Suicidal? It's effective. That, and you're not really fighting to survive in Call of Duty unless you're playing a specific game mode, I'd imagine.
It doesn't even prove anything
Well, thus far, neither has your thread.
That, on top of you discussing games -- CoD specifically. You don't achieve anything from coming to the population of AG to . . . 'debate' on the matter and it's furthermore the point of it being an FPS that people don't play to prove anything (meaningful). The last Call of Duty that did anything remotely significant in that regard is Call of Duty 4 and ProMod, where people would play it
professionally.You want to prove something? Day[9]'s words at the end of his
100th Day[9] Daily is pretty darn meaningful and pertinent to games, but realize it's not about any form of FPS.
The most productive thing you can generate from this thread, is its balance in Call of Duty. Even that is stupid and precarious, if you persist on this thread and I'm still here.
I've already explained why you can't really put it in the context of another game. It would be like saying picking up power-ups in Battlefield 3 -- it does not reasonably happen.
It does in Call of Duty, and
only Call of Duty (unless you find a fair substitute, which would almost certainly be hardly renowned and of little substance to the majority of people who would visit this thread).
I'm off, good night.
- H
