Ranks, Rewards and the sad truth of gaming.

Community General Discussion
1

I know a bit of gaming history. I’ve played a good amount of classics and new games. I won’t say new games are bad, or better, but some things make me sad about the current gaming world, or at least the online aspect.

The first online game I can remember playing was Counter Strike {or Unreal Tournament) either way I remember. I remember getting money when you won and using it to spend on weapons, But the weapons were open to anyone overtime, it was balanced, and so on Counter Strike was my online game.

I played other games online too. And well when I got a kill the only points I got were points, I wasn’t given extra armor, weapons, attachments, I just played, Everything was open to anyone and the game was about SKILL (or maybe luck, who knows). That and I wasn’t a rank, I was a name, I was random and well I knew my worth at the end of a game, and that was fine.

Skip many years and games and we have Halo 2. Halo 2 online made me stop playing PC online and went with XBL (and I still am). It changed gaming for consoles, changed the way I played games in general, People were talking, on mics, people seemed to be more connected. It was beatiful.

Yet Halo 2 had ranks. It was a simple idea, pitting GOOD players with other GOOD players (didn’t always work). Yet the ranks changed people. Some didn’t care for fun, they didn’t care to win or just enjoy themselves. It was no longer about the cap of a flag or the winning kill…No it was about a number. It made monsters out of people. Cheaters, Hackers, Standbyers and more flooded and infected the game.

Halo 3 comes out and has some other rank system. Who cares. Not the point.

BUT CALL OF DUTY. Call of Fraggin Duty changed more people. It ruined the fair balanced world of gaming, or at least fair to a degree gaming. It has changed peoples views of a good multiplayer game.

Modern Warefare wasn’t too bad. A few really bad ideas and such but it was simple bad, at least it was a change, hey why not? Yet instead of keeping it modest and working out the kinks and balancing it they decide to -Yoink- on gaming more and just ruin Modern Warefare with the crappile Modern Warefare 2.

Now you have kids who need A.I assisted dropships, turrets, sentrys and airstrikes to win games. It’s no longer best man wins, best team or best tactics. It was about who had the more weapon attachments, Who had “X” perk or “Y” care package. Kids would camp and get airstrikes, and airstrikes, racking up kills by pressing a button.

In Halo 2 the ranks changed people. Yet you were on an even level. Sure a game may have been annoying, BR -Yoinks!- spawn killing you when all you had was an SMG. But Bungie fixed that, or at least things would turn around. And yea in all Halo games when the enemy team had all the vehicles and power weapons it was PISS ANNOYING…but it was PLAYERS USING THEM. It wasn’t a.i, or a press of a button. You were fighting humans, other people, who were just either better then you or had more luck.

People stop playing games because they can’t rank up. Because they can’t get special weapons or attachments. I’m not against the idea, It’s fun and new, and the gaming world needs newer things. However instead of being a good part of gaming it’s changed KIDS and PEOPLE into monsters.

People can’t be happy with just winning a game. Having kills, and some cool stats. Now you need to be rewarded more points and extras to make you feel “Special” and “rewarded”.

And you know if people liked the idea but didn’t dawn upon it so much it wouldn’t be a problem to me. Yet I see kids trading in Halo or Gears or other pretty decent games for COD and Battle Field because they need to feel like they won more then what the deserved.

Sadly ranks and rewards just don’t belong in gaming. At least, Not until people grow up and play for fun, to win, with fair balanced gameplay and not button pressing.

Peace.

2

so which side are you exactly on

3

couldnt agree more.

well-put, my friend. very well-put.

4

This thread needs to be renamed “Ranks, rewards, and the sad truth of HUMANITY”. People see K/D and ranking systems as some sort of power, and history has shown that if people have power of any kind, they tend to exploit it unless it was used in the hands of the right people.

5

I think that unlocking things are a nice addition to the game. Unlocking weapons, killstreaks, perks, care packages, etc? Not so much. I don’t really care as long as the rewards don’t effect gameplay.

6

Some points I will make out

1-I know ranks and rewards existed way before Halo or COD or whatever

2-Side? I would say games that have fair game. Good players are good becuase they have mastered map layout, weapon knowledge and general tactics. Not because they have a super doped out M4.

3-I don’t hate COD. I like Modern Warefare, (HATE ME WHATEVER) I play Mw3 and I enjoy it. However regardless of how much fun I have on COD I will always go back to Halo, becuase it is truly the true champ.

4-I’ll say Halo Reach’s “Gain armor” or Halo 3’s gain armor or such is ok. But still people take it way toooo far.

7

I 100 percent agree with you OP and I am a oldschool gamer as well. Unless your a casual or dont really care about balance and skill-based gameplay the new “innovations” in the FPS genre such as kill-streaks, weapon/item unlocking based on how many games u play,ADS,and just a overall emphasis on gimmicks and noob-friendly gameplay have been for the worse.

Regenerating health/shields- Some people say because Halo made this popular its “Catering to noobs” but Halo is a game that is designed around a core game mechanic of a regenerating shield and actually adds depth to the gameplay and encourages movement/re-entering of battles and balanced gunfights. The armor and health model(No regen health) would not make since for Halo’s gameplay. Tactical shooters and Military shooters(like CS+ old Rainbow Six games as the OP understands) I think work better without regenerating health as you are supposed to avoid fire as much as possible and the kill times are short adding depth to the gameplay. In Halo’s case it works and adds depth, but I dont think tactical shooters or even military shooters like CoD should have regenerating health as in that case it takes depth away from gameplay and doesnt make alot of since.

Weapon/item unlocking- This feature is purely to get people hooked on the game, as there is nothing balanced about it. I never will play a shooter with this feature as having better access to items and having an advantage because of playtime is pretty much killing the balance and competitive value of the shooter.

Killstreaks- Same thing extremely random and unbalanced “Hey lets give the guy whos racking up kills a unfair advantage over the other team so he will get even more” that has got to be the worst feature in a shooter ever it really is just a gimmick catering to k/d whores and promoting camping for them. Its not like they are small advantages like moving faster for 30 seconds either, they are basically free kills many times sometimes multiple depending on how high your kill streak is.

ADS(Aim Down Sights)- I understand this is to make military shooters more “Realistic” but it really slows down gameplay as when your trying to aim with the ADS you cant move very well. I prefer how CS does it making your shots more spread out when moving and accurate when standing still there is no need to lock the player into a small window of view and encourage stand-offish gameplay.

This is how the lead Designer on CS:GO put it: In line with this commitment to incentivizing improvement, the game won’t feature some of the more modern features that many gamers have come to expect from FPS experiences. First and foremost, Call of Duty-style ironsights are out. “We don’t say, Well we need iron sights because everyone else has iron sights,” Magal continued. “If they could figure out a way for them to make sense, we’d add them, but right now we think iron sights just make people move slower because they’ll be afraid to put their gun down.” This guy knows his -Yoink- I will certainly be checking CS:GO out as I know it will be a real FPS that doesnt pander to casuals or have unbalanced gimmicks.

So those are my takes on some of the major “innovations” of the FPS Genre over the last decade or so. Some may call us hipsters OP, but the facts are some of these new innovations make for unbalanced gameplay and are strictly casual features.

8

I disagree. You cannot control your fellow players like that. If you have problems then there always settings to make you avoid certain people. (Ignore features, matchmaking search settings and so on).

I only think that you, original poster, are annoyed to the point to take the whole video game industry down and claim that rankings, rewards and statistics only work against its competitive behaviour.

It is like pointing to sports and say “Hey, you guys know, statistics and sponsor money kills whatever you do.” which is not true and the same is valid for video games.

If some kind of people are not mature out there then its only their responsibility to become mature people meanwhile they are playing a video game.

9

It’s true, FPS were far simpler than they are today back in the Unreal Tournament and Quake days leading up to Halo 3. I think what you are really pointing out is the distinction between two different types of FPS games, class based shooters such as Battlefield and Call of Duty, and more traditional power weapon based shooters like Halo and Unreal Tournament.

Also, many of the innovations to FPS games over the years, such as rewards or milestones that can be met to unlock new weapons or perks have changed to motivation of players. The goal is no longer playing the game for fun, since the introduction of player rewards players will continue to play the even if they aren’t having fun, because they want to unlock whatever rewards are available.

10

I can certainly relate. Though My first online forays were truly in Halo 3, a few years after it released (I got an Xbox and H2 right when Microsoft stopped online support sadly). I’ve seen these issues. Some people just care too much about their Rank or their K/d, then having fun with the game. I can’t count how many times i’ve played CTF in Reach only to see no one make the push to get the flag. You have to get the right players just to see teamwork.

I can certainly say that I’ve gotten more good ‘war stories’ out of Team Fortress 2 than Halo, just for the fact that more people are willing to work towards the goal(be it blowing up a base with a bomb on a cart or taking a flag) rather than worrying over a number.

I’ve witnessed that mentality first hand in Black Ops and been subjected to it in Battlefield 3 (To the Tune of teammates behind me in cover, unwilling to roll the dice and get into the room with the Mcomm)

It would take all the prizes and rewards in the world to equal the satisfaction you can get from just taking a chance and helping your team, but titles like CoD have drawn the newer gamers away from that mentality.

11

When I bought MW2 I had enough of it after 2 months then sold it. The game doesn’t know what a game is suppose to be about playing for fun fairly and competitively. Thats where halo wins.

12

> I think that unlocking things are a nice addition to the game. Unlocking weapons, killstreaks, perks, care packages, etc? Not so much. I don’t really care as long as the rewards don’t effect gameplay.

That’s exactly how I feel. I like the addition of unlockable items (such as armor in Reach), as it rewards those who play the game the longest. Yet, one of my biggest gripes with a game is when those unlockable items put players on an uneven playing field (as in CoD).

13

amen

14

Well said and thought out. I too played Counter-Strike and even Half-Life was far more enjoyable than what we have today.

On an other note; Counter-Strike Global Offensive is releasing soon as an XBLA title

15

> couldnt agree more.
>
> well-put, my friend. very well-put.

Couldn’t agree more.

Stats are everything to most people now days. I asked one of my friends to play Halo with me the other day and he said “No thanks, the only reason I ever played Halo was for the gamerscore, and MLG.” This response is so common. Not very many people play Halo just for the fun of playing Halo.

I find myself stressing over K/D, and getting mad because I lost the game, a lot, and then I think to myself, “Hey, it’s a game, I’m supposed to be having fun!”. If I play as a guest on my brothers account, I have a blast because I’m not worried about winning or K/D! Imagine if everyone did that!

I’m not saying stats are a bad thing, but if you obsess over them, it will make you a monster. Money is the same way, it is a tool, not an object of affection. I think unlocking armor is a cool feature, except Recon. I like a challenge, enjoy a challenge, just don’t obsess over it and it’s fine. I’m glad Bungie didn’t put a Recon equivalent in Reach.

People judge other people on their rank and stats, not if they are fun to hang out with.

If people played games for fun, and to play with friends, and to relax, you wouldn’t have NEAR as many people being pigs on LIVE. People should just play for fun, not for stats. I think that is why the Halo 2 community was so much fun, most people… most random people respected other players.

16

Im sorry to say that sometimes i get addicted to games just for unlocking levels and weapons and such. Skyrim is an example of me playing to become ore powerful.

17

> Im sorry to say that sometimes i get addicted to games just for unlocking levels and weapons and such. Skyrim is an example of me playing to become ore powerful.

Same here… only I played Dark Cloud 2.

18

I believe in unlocking weapons. as long as they are balanced ie: M4A1 vs. ACR

19

The amount of times I saw “Halo 2” in the OP just gave the point away.

Everyone is also forgetting the immense build of RPGs over time that that is the main genre to filter into every other genre on a regular scale. People like earning things. Problem?

20

I’m inclined to agree, but I don’t think ranks and rewards are inherently to blame, but rather how they are integrated. For example, Reach’s system rewards individual performance as evaluated by individual player-vs-player interactions as opposed to game- or team-level interactions. What I mean by this is that it rewards people for racking up as many kills as possible and doesn’t give any incentive towards winning the game or working as a team. This encourages the exploitation of the system rather than good gameplay.

A solution would be that a winning team gets a 10% boost to earned credits (decreasing as time remaining in game approaches 0, to discourage “objective holding”), while a losing team takes a 30% decrease in earned credits (A tie should be a 20% decrease to both teams to discourage intentionally-tied boosting games). In this way, individual performance is still rewarded, but winning becomes essential lest the individual take a massive cut to his/her earnings for that game.

As far as what the rewards are, I think the purely-cosmetic armor that can be bought is a good reward. This way, newer players are not disadvantaged for simply being newer (Such as with CoD-style weapons and killstreaks), successful players feel they are justly rewarded, and poor players also gain access to the same rewards, just over a much longer time period. Because the rewards are still in place, the game retains its “hook” to keep players interested, while also encouraging players to improve and to play competitively so that they can access rewards sooner.

Finally, I’d like to point out that the transformation of the online gaming community into “monsters” is a natural consequence of availability. Back in the “good old days” of Unreal, Quake, and CS the community was much smaller, and thus more personal. There was an exclusivity to it due to much more restricted availability, which lent itself to a kind of camaraderie. Now, any schmuck with an internet connection can plug in an xbox and get playing, which causes the community to bloat, losing that feeling of exclusivity and replacing it with anonymity. Having an exploitable reward system, whether that reward is in-game tools, cosmetic changes, or a superfluous number next to one’s online handle, coupled with the anonymity of a large community, makes for a perfect storm of -Yoink- and pointless exploitation.

It’s not ranks and rewards that are the problem, it’s the human condition.