Topic: Making games challenging again...

I'm guessing it was tendoboy.

That's not what he said. At all.

That is what I said. Both comments.

I don't play games to be on top of the leaderboards. I'm not into competitive gaming. What I meant was, the basic elements of a shooter (aiming and shooting) are simple to learn, but they can be difficult to master. I never once mentioned competitive multiplayer. I was referring to the single-player missions where you have to shoot your way through dozens of enemies while dodging oncoming fire.

Multiplayer is a whole different breed where you have to take notice of your surroundings, observing where your opponents are on the map so you can find them before they find you.

It can be applied to multiplayer too. Which is insulting. Applying to offline you're still wrong. Go play Modern Warfare 2 offline on Veteran. You will need much more than aiming and shooting if you want to survive.

Beyond that is the fact that you can breakdown, simplify and insult just about any genre of gaming and call it whatever you want.

What I meant was, the basic elements of a shooter (aiming and shooting) are simple to learn, but they can be difficult to master. I never once mentioned competitive multiplayer. I was referring to the single-player missions where you have to shoot your way through dozens of enemies while dodging oncoming fire.

Dude, in archery or rifle shooting, you're doing one thing - shooting at a stationary or moving target that doesn't even fire back. There's no ducking, no life bars, and just the one target at a time.

The point I think everyone else will get is this: The skills involved in a FPS are transferable; you need hand eye coordination, twitch reflexes and a steady hand to be good at any form of shooting - simulated or otherwise.

And the skills are exactly the same multiplayer or single player, BTW.

Think about it another way - the modern FPSer is essentially an evolution of the Carnival game where you'd shoot rows of ducks with an air pistol. As simple as that game is, it takes real skill to be any good at it.

Also, you do realise that there are some shooter games that are used by the really real military for training, right? And that these days FPSer games have military consultants to ensure authenticity, right? It's not nearly as simple as you seem to think.

Yes I know that, but not all first-person / third-person shooters strive for authenticity. Games like Halo, The Darkness, Black, Gears of War, Bulletstorm, TimeSplitters, Bodycount, Brink, etc. are more arcade-style than anything.

They still require the same base skills, though.

That's their purpose though. Games like Brink and TimeSplitters are supposed to be as fictional and fun as possible. Not every FPS tries to capture realism. Developers like to be creative in their own little way sometimes.

You just made the same point that I was trying to explain.

And as usual, we've jumped to an entirely new topic... It's so hard keeping a line of discussion going on this forum sometimes.

It doesn't matter whether the FPS is realistic or a complete arcade shootathon, they require many of the same skillsets. The difference is in the higher-level skills, such as tactics and military strategy. Arcade games obviously don't need those. Those base skills, though, are applicable to the equivalent, real world shooting skillsets required, which is why the realistic shooters are able to exist at all.

Welcome to the Internet.

Yawn, this thread became monotonous quickly. I'm getting tired, so I'll be going to bed now. Good night everyone.

Another successful encounter between humans on the internet.

For the love of Pete, guys.