'Call of Duty Has Almost Ruined a Generation of FPS Players' Says Tripwire Interactive's John Gibson

[Shawn Zipay]

In an interview with PC Gamer, the President of Tripwire Interactive, John Gibson, called out "Hollywood" style shooters like Call of Duty. Gibson goes so far as to specifically call out the Call of Duty series for ruining an entire generation of gamers.

How do you feel about the state of FPSes?

John Gibson, President: "I think that single-player shooters are getting better. I think they’re finally coming out from under the shadow of the Hollywood movie, overblown 'I’m on a rail' linear shooter. I’m talking about Call of Duty-style shooters. In the late ‘90s, you had the original Deus Ex, which was an RPG-shooter. And those kind of games almost took an eight year hiatus. And I’m so excited to see them coming back with interesting gameplay. Like the Fallout games, even though their shooting mechanics could really use some improvement, just mixing a really cool story, but not a linear story, one that you create yourself. The melding of RPG elements and shooter elements has been great. I’ve seen this reflected in a lot of the reviews, it’s like, 'Okay guys, we’re tired of this on-rails experience.'

On the flip side, I’m really discouraged by the current state of multiplayer shooters. I think that, and I hate to mention names, because it sounds like ‘I’m just jealous of their success,’ but I’m really, I feel like Call of Duty has almost ruined a generation of FPS players. I know that’s a bold statement, but I won’t just throw stones without backing it up. When I was developing Action Mode [for RO2], I got a group of people that I know that are pretty hardcore Call of Duty players. And my goal was to create something that was accessible enough for them to enjoy the game—not turn it into Call of Duty, but try to make something that I thought was casual enough but with the Red Orchestra gameplay style that they would enjoy. And we iterated on it a lot. And just listening to all the niggling, pedantic things that they would complain about, that made them not want to play the game, I just thought, 'I give up. Call of Duty has ruined this whole generation of gamers.'"

When questioned about what it was that the play testers complained about, Gibson says that they really couldn't justify their reasons.

It’s the gameplay mechanics that they become used to. The way that players instantly accelerate when they move, they don’t build up speed. “The weapons really don’t have a lot of power” [in RO2]. They’re all very weak. The way they handle… They’re like: “I hate Red Orchestra, I can’t play it.” Well, why? “Because the guy doesn’t move like he does in Call of Duty. Call of Duty has great movement.” Why is it great? “Because it just is, I just like the way it works.” So you don’t like the momentum system in Red Orchestra? “Yeah, it sucks, it’s clunky, it’s terrible.” Well, why? “It’s just because I’m used to this.”

Gibson's argument about why Call of Duty is so successful is because it compresses the skill gap. He says, "and the way you compress the skill gap as a designer is you add a whole bunch of randomness. A whole bunch of weaponry that doesn’t require any skill to get kills. Random spawns, massive cone fire on your weapons. Lots of devices that can get kills with zero skill at all, and you know, it’s kind of smart to compress your skill gap to a degree. You don’t want the elite players to destroy the new players so bad that new players can never get into the game and enjoy it."

So, just how badly has the Call of Duty compressed this skill gap? "But the skill gap is so compressed, that it’s like a slot machine. You might as well just sit down at a slot machine and have a thing that pops up an says “I got a kill!” They’ve taken individual skill out of the equation so much," Gibson stated.

There is plenty more to take away from PC Gamer's interview with John Gibson. He goes on to say that a lack of patience is a huge problem with this generation of players along with a near complete lack of tension.

[K-16]

Uhm... Call of Duty is an easy target. Speak with actions, not words Tripwire Interactive. Unknown Worlds Entertainment is trying harder to renovate the interests of the industry more than you are. Uh yeah, that kind of sums it up. Sure.

[spoiler=Oh God... Why do I keep doing this? I only spent a few minutes on this, how did it fill up the page?!]I believe the real problem is that the industry hasn't come up with a new trend for multiplayer shooters that consistently resonates with customers. A multiplayer FPS core feature, mechanic, or foundation that turns into a "long-term meme" so to speak.

Speaking from a deathmatch point of view:

• We started off with Faceball that allows us to move in 3D space and fight in real-time with other players.
• Then we have DOOM where players use selectable weapons to fight in arenas featuring different elevations and faster-paced gameplay (we can now run).
• From there Duke Nukem 3D and Quake allowed precision shooting (no more excuses to justify auto-aim) with the introduction of the vertical plane (jump-dodging, rocket jumping, etc.). I think Quake stood out as the more prominent foundation of deathmatch for its time, because D3D still wasn't too friendly with vertical fighting unlike Quake.
• Counter-Strike brought in in-game currency for arsenal customization with realistic looking weapons, as well as round-based gameplay (suddenly death had a consequence as there are no respawns within the same round).
• Call of Duty grabbed our attention with RPG mechanics of character upgrades through accumulation of experience points; suddenly your kills aren't just for achievements anymore, as you can now get rewards with the perks system.

And from there... We have copycats until somebody else comes up with a way to renovate deathmatch.

And what about CTF?

• Team Fortress introduces class-based CTF; now we have something different from a paintball scenario!
• Starsiege: Tribes shows how vehicles can make anything fun, especially CTF.
• Battlefield 1942 shows how to remake CTF into control points. Now it finally looks different. The victors of World War to be determined through who can switch flags faster yeah!
• Uhm......... Well, at least Team Fortress 2 polished the control points gameplay to look pretty different. I liked Payload and the Special Delivery modes, but I don't think there are any copycats, because it wasn't an industry-wide appeal.

So... Not many popular changes to CTF apparently.

How about survival modes?

• Max Payne 2 introduces Dead Man Walking where the point isn't to win, but to last as long as possible in a final stand (with tons of beneficial goodies to prolong your eventual doom).
• Gears of War 2 made people realize survival mode was even a thing, why it's fun, and how catchy the name "horde" is.
• A Counter-Strike mod within VALVe showed how fun it was to have one team with knives go up against one person on the opposition who was armed to the teeth. 28 Days Later reminded us on how zombies aren't restricted to walking, and how dangerous that revelation can be... Left 4 Dead was born.
• Call of Duty: World At War's only redeeming quality was the zombie mode, because we're ****ing sick of World War II shooters.
• Survival mode virally degenerates into a zombie theme in every game, whether built from the ground up, or through DLC.

Well ****... I don't even think survival mode looks fun anymore. All I know is the current trend that has yet to change is zombies.

So until Mr. Gibson has a suggestion on what the next trend the industry will follow should be, it's a cheapshot for him to mock easy targets on why first-person shooters are so predictably generic, and why "Hollywood" shooters with their cinematic experiences are continuously appealing. I mean, I could just as easily compare Killing Floor with Call of Duty's zombie modes and find more variety with Treyarch's offering, but that's not the point now is it? It's difficult to determine what the next generation of players will be, because there are no new trends that interest us in the long-term. Blaming the current generation will only waste time in figuring out how to make the next game "click" for the industry and customers.

I had hoped Natural-Selection (and its sequel) would gain traction, so it's a shame it didn't spawn copycats (Savage didn't really last), but at least Unknown Worlds is trying hard at renovating multiplayer first-person shooters by cramming in another genre that isn't an RPG. C'mon Tripwire Interactive, show me something people would want to rip off from you.[/spoiler]

[cikame]

I think CoD nails a good feeling first person shooter, it takes little time to get used to, the physics are very approachable and it's great to be in a server full of people who all understand the basics due to its simplicity.
I also love how RO feels, i like getting on top of the beefy guns, forcing them to stay on target, being hindered by the movement model and knowing everyone i'm playing with is dealing with it aswell.

I play alot of other games, so i come back to CoD more than RO because i don't always have the time to invest in a harder shooter.

Also, i think the movement in CoD is more realistic, i can move around very freely in real life and stop on a dime, calling it out on that doesn't hold up.

[Shawn Zipay]

Uhm... Call of Duty is an easy target. Speak with actions, not words Tripwire Interactive. Unknown Worlds Entertainment is trying harder to renovate the interests of the industry more than you are. Uh yeah, that kind of sums it up. Sure.

[spoiler=Oh God... Why do I keep doing this? I only spent a few minutes on this, how did it fill up the page?!]I believe the real problem is that the industry hasn't come up with a new trend for multiplayer shooters that consistently resonates with customers. A multiplayer FPS core feature, mechanic, or foundation that turns into a "long-term meme" so to speak.

Speaking from a deathmatch point of view:

• We started off with Faceball that allows us to move in 3D space and fight in real-time with other players.
• Then we have DOOM where players use selectable weapons to fight in arenas featuring different elevations and faster-paced gameplay (we can now run).
• From there Duke Nukem 3D and Quake allowed precision shooting (no more excuses to justify auto-aim) with the introduction of the vertical plane (jump-dodging, rocket jumping, etc.). I think Quake stood out as the more prominent foundation of deathmatch for its time, because D3D still wasn't too friendly with vertical fighting unlike Quake.
• Counter-Strike brought in in-game currency for arsenal customization with realistic looking weapons, as well as round-based gameplay (suddenly death had a consequence as there are no respawns within the same round).
• Call of Duty grabbed our attention with RPG mechanics of character upgrades through accumulation of experience points; suddenly your kills aren't just for achievements anymore, as you can now get rewards with the perks system.

And from there... We have copycats until somebody else comes up with a way to renovate deathmatch.

And what about CTF?

• Team Fortress introduces class-based CTF; now we have something different from a paintball scenario!
• Starsiege: Tribes shows how vehicles can make anything fun, especially CTF.
• Battlefield 1942 shows how to remake CTF into control points. Now it finally looks different. The victors of World War to be determined through who can switch flags faster yeah!
• Uhm......... Well, at least Team Fortress 2 polished the control points gameplay to look pretty different. I liked Payload and the Special Delivery modes, but I don't think there are any copycats, because it wasn't an industry-wide appeal.

So... Not many popular changes to CTF apparently.

How about survival modes?

• Max Payne 2 introduces Dead Man Walking where the point isn't to win, but to last as long as possible in a final stand (with tons of beneficial goodies to prolong your eventual doom).
• Gears of War 2 made people realize survival mode was even a thing, why it's fun, and how catchy the name "horde" is.
• A Counter-Strike mod within VALVe showed how fun it was to have one team with knives go up against one person on the opposition who was armed to the teeth. 28 Days Later reminded us on how zombies aren't restricted to walking, and how dangerous that revelation can be... Left 4 Dead was born.
• Call of Duty: World At War's only redeeming quality was the zombie mode, because we're ****ing sick of World War II shooters.
• Survival mode virally degenerates into a zombie theme in every game, whether built from the ground up, or through DLC.

Well ****... I don't even think survival mode looks fun anymore. All I know is the current trend that has yet to change is zombies.

So until Mr. Gibson has a suggestion on what the next trend the industry will follow should be, it's a cheapshot for him to mock easy targets on why first-person shooters are so predictably generic, and why "Hollywood" shooters with their cinematic experiences are continuously appealing. I mean, I could just as easily compare Killing Floor with Call of Duty's zombie modes and find more variety with Treyarch's offering, but that's not the point now is it? It's difficult to determine what the next generation of players will be, because there are no new trends that interest us in the long-term. Blaming the current generation will only waste time in figuring out how to make the next game "click" for the industry and customers.

I had hoped Natural-Selection (and its sequel) would gain traction, so it's a shame it didn't spawn copycats (Savage didn't really last), but at least Unknown Worlds is trying hard at renovating multiplayer first-person shooters by cramming in another genre that isn't an RPG. C'mon Tripwire Interactive, show me something people would want to rip off from you.[/spoiler]

Have you played either RO1 or RO2? For that matter, have you played the CoD games these past few years?

[K-16]

I was trying to summarize my wall of text with fewer words and came up with an dumbed down comment, which is why I threw in "sure" at the end. Red Orchestra 1 and 2 certainly has more substance than the entire Call of Duty series combined, no question about that given its realistic movement, weapon physics, body damage, etc. However, that wasn't the point I was driving at. The focus on the realism of tactical shooters isn't the current trend, and the success of that theme isn't mainstream enough to change the generation of players that make up the consumer majority of the industry. I will admit, there may be some who were turned off the moment "World War II" was mentioned, as that trend just started to decline so that didn't help the Red Orchestra series either.

If it really is a huge thing, then there should be a flood of games following this formula for multiplayer shooters. Takedown: Red Sabre shouldn't need to rely on Kickstarter to prove market demand to investors (and even then the fundraiser didn't achieve record-smashing results with only $220K achieved out of their requested $200K). Instead, the current "tactical shooters" are now streamlined to include third-person engagements inspired by Gears of War (blind-firing, increased FOV, etc.), and various other changes to reduce slower gunplay (Tom Clancy games are one example).

The generation of hardcore deathmatch had many Quake-inspired games, much like how the current generation has many Call of Duty influenced games. Blaming Call of Duty and its player base is an easy target, but it's a cheapshot way of realizing the current efforts to change the trend in multiplayer shooters haven't succeeded yet. The truth remains that Call of Duty has successfully come up with a successful formula that defeats Quake deathmatching (even Epic Games couldn't pull that off with Unreal Tournament despite my preference for UT's variety over Quake any day), and they won't deviate from said winning formula. Those frustrations should've instead be used to focus towards coming up with new multiplayer shooter mechanics that are appealing in the long-term.

[Shawn Zipay]

Btw, in talking to TWI's Yoshiro right now, he glanced at your post and just wanted to point out that Call of Duty did steal features from games like RO. Iron sights for one thing.

[K-16]

Regarding iron sights, Red Orchestra is one of the earliest to introduce 3D iron sights instead of a 2D sprite-based afterthought, which is a huge improvement over what the industry was used to (Operation Flashpoint, America's Army, etc.). So first we had two ways of aiming (hip/iron sights), and then we had true iron sights without any visual tricks or reliance on crosshair reticles with 3D iron sights.

And now many games copied this feature as it's one of the many mechanics used as a foundation for a multiplayer shooter that follows the current trend. I'm still not seeing how Call of Duty almost ruined a generation of FPS players, when we have yet to see the next trend in what appeals to us. How many features did Call of Duty steal to create the new trend that achieved mass appeal? And how did they put it together to make it a winning formula, and what was their execution in being a successful copycat? What new formula should be introduced that will make us forget about the current ideal combination of realism and arcade gameplay through perks-based deathmatch?

Use that frustration to help motivate you towards focusing on what that formula could be. Some people are experimenting with entirely different control interfaces, though that is rather pricey and complicated, as there can be cheaper solutions that are either just as effective or more effective (though possibly even more complicated). You've done it before with iron sights, you can do it again. Just remember somebody out there will mix your mechanics with others to make an entirely different game, and that game may set the industry standard for the time being as the new trend.

Gamers may be seem to be getting more casual and spoiled over time if we continue to expose ourselves to "Hollywood" shooters, but why on Earth would you think this trend will last? As far as I've seen from my first day of gaming until now, first-person shooter trends never last. Sooner or later, Call of Duty will have to copy from a newly throned game in order to become relevant again, as gamers' interests will suddenly turn away from perks and overpowered weapons in favor of whatever the new trend is. I suppose my point is, is it wrong to love Call of Duty's renovation on multiplayer shooters? And how long do you think this love will last? And so does it really matter if it actually did ruin a generation of FPS players?

[Shawn Zipay]

So again, you haven't played RO1 or RO2...

[K-16]

*Scratches head.*

Did RO really introduced that many features that turned into mass appeal the industry would later copy? Hmm... I'll take a closer look at the series and refresh my memory then. I really don't recall there being that many revolutionary changes to how we play multiplayer FPS, so this warrants another playthrough to prove otherwise.

[CptainCrunch]

I think today's CoD ruined a lot of things and not just FPS players. You look at BF3 and how much DICE felt they had to add to draw people into the game with features CoD has.

I personally feel a Battlefield game is better than a CoD one when it comes to FPS, but previous BF titles had its issues as well. The Close Quarter expansion pack had CoD players written all over it. It's a run-n-gun paradise expansion where only quick reflexes and constant movement wins out most the time. Or camping. Comparing it with the other map packs, its the least of my favorite for sure.

Though I like the regenerative health in BF, I dont like regenerative armor, but you cannot count on engineers in BF3. Unless you play with people that you know or are role oriented, you are doing things yourself. The incentive is gone in the roles and thats how people like it.

Dont get me wrong, regardless of what others will say, BF2 was like that a lot as well when it came to pubbing. Getting that clanmate with you made a huge difference vs. hoping someone does what they should in BF2. Though that can be said in BF3 as well.

So anyway, is CoD to blame for all this? I dont know. I think the industry wants customers that will drop their game to move to the next one in a blink. Thats how money is made. DICE put in the rank system in BF2 and after that everything had to have ranks. I doubt they were the first to do so, but they made it important.

[defragen1]

Regarding iron sights, Red Orchestra is one of the earliest to introduce 3D iron sights instead of a 2D sprite-based afterthought, which is a huge improvement over what the industry was used to (Operation Flashpoint, America's Army, etc.). So first we had two ways of aiming (hip/iron sights), and then we had true iron sights without any visual tricks or reliance on crosshair reticles with 3D iron sights.

And now many games copied this feature as it's one of the many mechanics used as a foundation for a multiplayer shooter that follows the current trend. I'm still not seeing how Call of Duty almost ruined a generation of FPS players, when we have yet to see the next trend in what appeals to us. How many features did Call of Duty steal to create the new trend that achieved mass appeal? And how did they put it together to make it a winning formula, and what was their execution in being a successful copycat? What new formula should be introduced that will make us forget about the current ideal combination of realism and arcade gameplay through perks-based deathmatch?

Use that frustration to help motivate you towards focusing on what that formula could be. Some people are experimenting with entirely different control interfaces, though that is rather pricey and complicated, as there can be cheaper solutions that are either just as effective or more effective (though possibly even more complicated). You've done it before with iron sights, you can do it again. Just remember somebody out there will mix your mechanics with others to make an entirely different game, and that game may set the industry standard for the time being as the new trend.

Gamers may be seem to be getting more casual and spoiled over time if we continue to expose ourselves to "Hollywood" shooters, but why on Earth would you think this trend will last? As far as I've seen from my first day of gaming until now, first-person shooter trends never last. Sooner or later, Call of Duty will have to copy from a newly throned game in order to become relevant again, as gamers' interests will suddenly turn away from perks and overpowered weapons in favor of whatever the new trend is. I suppose my point is, is it wrong to love Call of Duty's renovation on multiplayer shooters? And how long do you think this love will last? And so does it really matter if it actually did ruin a generation of FPS players?

Do you even understand how the current game industry works? Call of Duty isn't popular because its a great game. It's definitively not the "award wining formula" since COD is bad game. It feels like those crappy counter-strike knock offs Combat Arms or Crossfire but made for creatively repressed people who couldn't get out of CAL-O ( that's counter-strike amateur league back in the day ). COD pros look like casuals compared to CS players or maybe try looking at Quake3/Live for that matter.

The mainstream is not casual, its subjected to it. The masses appreciate bad games. Look at System Shock 2, were talking about one of the most well designed games ever and yet it sold poorly. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you didn't grow up playing games in the 90s its very likely that you don't know jack shit about them.

[Shawn Zipay]

*Scratches head.*

Did RO really introduced that many features that turned into mass appeal the industry would later copy? Hmm... I'll take a closer look at the series and refresh my memory then. I really don't recall there being that many revolutionary changes to how we play multiplayer FPS, so this warrants another playthrough to prove otherwise.

"Playthrough" is really the key to answering the question I asked you here that needed only a simple yes or no answer. It shows me you haven't played RO1 or RO2. Because while RO2 does have a SP component, both games are largely multiplayer focused, just as the CoD series is.

[K-16]

Hello, I'm back. Sorry for taking so long to reply here, but I wanted to make sure I did another playthrough of the game before I answer to a couple of posts. And it took me a while, because I needed to get to a friend's house to play his copy, but not before writing an exam of mine (last day of studying was pretty much when I was posting comments here). Speaking of friend's house...

[spoiler=Replies for both Zips and Defragen1]

I asked you here that needed only a simple yes or no answer. It shows me you haven't played RO1 or RO2. Because while RO2 does have a SP component, both games are largely multiplayer focused, just as the CoD series is.

You're right. There was completely unnecessary for me to dodge the question, and for that I apologize and will answer right now to confirm everyone's thoughts. All of my playthroughs of the series back then were at my friend's house (combined total time of a week); the games I played there were the UT2K4 v3.3 version and RO2 (can't remember if he owned it or if it was a free weekend), but not the original UT2003 nor Ostfront 41-45. I think my friend noticed the game after the mod won the Make Something Unreal competition, though I still wasn't a huge fan of it after I played it (I was still more interested in vanilla UT2004). Needless to say your perspective of the game is rightfully far more reliable than mine, as you have been invested more time into the series than I have. It is very fair and valid to say I have not played the RO series enough compared to what is expected of a person expressing their opinion about it.

So why the Hell did I claim TripWire Interactive isn't trying hard enough to renovate multiplayer first-person shooters when I'm not a veteran player of any Red Orchestra game? Well, because at the time, I don't remember anything in Red Orchestra that stood out as something other games will copy for generations to come, though my actual counter used the example of Killing Floor versus CoD's zombie modes, and how attacking either game is counter-productive to raising awareness of the declining state of quality gaming communities (I was more familiar with Killing Floor than Red Orchestra).

Also, I did not at any time stray from the multiplayer first-person shooter topic, and am beyond aware that the Red Orchestra series is largely focused on multiplayer. I don't really understand why you thought I was under the impression that I can approach this topic as a single-player... Wait a minute...

• I really don't recall there being that many revolutionary changes to how we play multiplayer FPS, so this warrants another playthrough to prove otherwise.
• I did another playthrough of the game before I answer to a couple of posts.
• All of my playthroughs of the series back then were at my friend's house.

"Playthrough" is really the key to answering the question I asked you here that needed only a simple yes or no answer.

Oh crap! Of course! You even pointed it out to me. I must apologize and thank you, as well as request that you hear my explanation. In my mind, the definition of playthrough is to "play until one gets the gist of the game," which is why I used it to incorrectly associate with all games, including those that have no definitive end (I associate it with Counter-Strike for that matter). Hard to believe this, but I actually do know the correct definition of the word playthrough, which is to play the game until completion. Unfortunately, I have seen some YouTube videos that also incorrectly use the word playthrough in the title for multiplayer games that have no ending, so that doesn't help in reminding me. This definition switch in my mind is a terrible habit, and I will definitely repeat this in the future, so the next time you see me type that (and you will), please point that out to me so I can one day break that stupid habit.

Ok so as you have rightfully pointed out that I need to be more familiar with the games I am criticizing about (as I claimed TWI has pulled a cheapshot, instead of productively researching and working towards changing the trend that appeals gamers), I have gone to my friend's house again and replayed on his computer to do my homework. I also had him play while I watched so I could take notes and try to see what the TGN community sees. The games I took notes on were for Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad, and Red Orchestra Ostfront 41-45, though I have no idea why he has Ostfront 41-45 all of a sudden. Now I avoided redundant notes, so Red Orchestra 2 will have fewer features written down, but it is very obvious RO2 has more to offer than Ostfront 41-45. It's also likely there were features in Ostfront 41-45 that I listed under RO2 instead, because I wasn't observant enough to catch it in the predecessor.

Red Orchestra Ostfront 41-45:

• Team selection and weapon loadouts before spawning in.
• Objectives with detailed map (includes simple to follow legend).
• Weapon attachments (bayonet).
• Body damage tracking/dismemberment.
• Realistic reload animations (not just shoving bullets from the stripper clips to the magazine).
• Sprinting.
• Melee.
• Diving, prone, and crawling.
• 3D iron sights.
• Tracers.
• Leaning (admittedly not very common in modern first-person shooters and I don't know why).
• Weapon resting indicator.
• A ton of particle effects.
• Motion blur.
• Fog.
• Directional compass.
• Realistically minimal HUD (no ammo counters, crosshairs, etc.)
• First-person view of vehicles (including detailed cockpit and crew inside).
• Vehicles allow multiple players with differing roles (tank crew); bots can join your vehicle.

Ok so from this list, I see that they contributed 3D iron sights, minimal HUD, directional compass, diving (I don't remember Day of Defeat having this), and first-person view of vehicles. I especially liked the vehicles, as they took Steel Batallion's single-player idea and made it work in a multiplayer first-person shooter. Other first-person shooters plays it safe with chase-cam views (no peripheral vision issues), or a hacked together cockpit afterthought (which most would not use due to the aforementioned peripheral vision issues). Red Orchestra made first-person vehicular control functional and practical, while making it look asthetically pleasing.

Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad:

• Spawn location selection.
• Class selection.
• First-person wall cover and weapon deployment system (with blind-fire available).
• Context-sensitive vaulting.
• Persistent statistics tracking.
• Realistic weapon ballistics.
• Using scopes does not black out peripheral vision (and the zoomed image warps based on the shape of the scope's lens).
• Snipers' breathing.

From this list, I'm seeing Red Orchestra 2 was the earliest to showcase context-sensitive vaulting, first-person wall cover and blind-firing. I'm pretty sure Ostfront 41-45 also had realistic weapon ballistics, but I believe this one was improved to the point that it was more noticable. That said, Sniper Elite was one of the first to introduce that, while Red Orchestra would be considered as one of the early adopters of this mechanic.

So what was my point this entire time? As Tripwire Interactive is clearly talented enough to introduce mechanics to the industry that are appealing enough to have imitators, why would they attack Call of Duty players for not being able to appreciate games with more substance? Furthermore, I am puzzled at how many people agree with this perspective (I read Ben Kuchera's editorial article and once again had to scratch my head), because I see these things as temporary trends and believed TWI would also see things that way given their experience. They have what it takes to change the trend, so all they need is time to R&D, and a marketing team to determine the best timing to change our tastes in gaming.

With so many people agreeing that Call of Duty dilutes the quality of the industry, and how so few people agree that the success of Call of Duty is built upon successful gaming mechanics (or at the very least, the execution of the mechanics they copied), I really feel strongly about my opinion that this trend will end soon. I don't know how many years, as I'm not an experienced veteran in the industry. If anything, I would ask TWI when this trend will end, because I feel they would know the answer. Activision will prolong this trend through powerful and expensive marketing campaigns (location events, third-party promotions, etc.), but if the game continues to be a shell of its former glory, then customers will answer with their wallets and requests for refunds. Eventually we might even have a news report of refunds not being honored to those who pre-ordered and later hated what they played. That's when new executions of more refined mechanics can be showcased to change how we enjoy multiplayer first-person shooters. Criticising CoD fans isn't necessary and seems counter-productive to me. Yet, TWI are not the only ones who did just that. I mean, the TGN community and the PAR community agree with this viewpoint, so clearly I am missing out on something important here.

Do you even understand how the current game industry works? Call of Duty isn't popular because its a great game. It's definitively not the "award wining formula" since COD is bad game. It feels like those crappy counter-strike knock offs Combat Arms or Crossfire but made for creatively repressed people who couldn't get out of CAL-O ( that's counter-strike amateur league back in the day ). COD pros look like casuals compared to CS players or maybe try looking at Quake3/Live for that matter.

The mainstream is not casual, its subjected to it. The masses appreciate bad games. Look at System Shock 2, were talking about one of the most well designed games ever and yet it sold poorly. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If you didn't grow up playing games in the 90s its very likely that you don't know jack shit about them.

Actually I don't know how the current game industry works and honestly can't claim to know. I've been striving to understand it by learning from others, including your post right now. It's a bit of a passion of mine to do so. I'll admit calling CoD an award winning formula is a stretch, but I don't think 2.5 million people would wait for the midnight launch of a bad game (Call of Duty: Black Ops 2). If I find out that many people lined-up for a retail version of Soda Drinker Pro, then I'll agree with you on that one. As another example, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 HAD to have done something right with the game itself to win the AIAS and BAFTA awards, which aren't something you can rig with money and peer pressure. I also don't believe 2.5 million people are creatively repressed people, so I don't think Activision was targetting gamers who were unsuccessful with their competitive efforts. At least, that's not how you move gamers from Doom to Quake to Counter-Strike to Call of Duty. You'll need a bigger audience that that.

I'm mostly impressed that Activision has discovered the formula to doing the "sports game" business on action shooters (regular periodic releases with minimal foundation changes, while maintaining appeal); it's what Epic Games and Digital Extremes tried to do with Unreal Tournament 2003. I expected EA to come up with this first, given their history and experience on sports titles. What about Battlefield you say? Well, their releases are somewhat inconsistent, because the titles in between are spin-offs rather than direct sequels. Also their development is likely more expensive than CoD's with the significant technology changes (and greater focus on PC features versus CoD), so the formula doesn't exactly work in terms of record-breaking sales numbers (or at least the non-direct sequels approach doesn't resonate with the audience as much it seems). It seems Battlefield 3 is the only title to have minimal retail spin-offs before Battlefield 4, if you count Battlefield: Vietnam (which I do).

Also, I believe CAL-O stands for Cyberathlete Amateur League - Open and not Counter-Strike Amateur League. I used to follow both the Cyberathlete Professional League and the Cyberathlete Amateur League until Frank Nuccio left to focus on his pizzeria business, and Angel Munoz sold the business to... Well, what it is now. Damn... I miss them. Also Zips had awesome coverage of it, with custom templates to accommodate the scale of CS-Nation's reporting on the CPL.

I find your theory that the mainstream is subjected to bad games, instead of games being subjected to the mainstream's reception. If the masses appreciate bad games, then to me it seems that you are implying that powerful marketing practices will convince us to desire bad games and will buy them. If those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, then what historical lessons were we supposed to learn? That we don't really vote with our wallets, but rather on who has the best control of peer pressure through marketing? As for System Shock 2, that was release in August of 1999 so the timing was really bad to come out. For one thing, it's not popular for games to come out in August. Furthermore those who have a nervous disposition would prefer the newly released Counter-Strike or Team Fortress Classic over a survival horror, so Irrational Games lost out on a bit of that market as well. To be honest, 1999 had a crapton of great games to play, so the competition was absolutely intense for market share. System Shock 2 had really bad timing and suffered as a result, becoming one of the best games not many played.

I don't believe those who didn't grow up playing games in the 90's will be completely ignorant about the state of the industry, because we have technology to help them not miss out on such experiences. From digital stores, to remakes of games, to independent developers doing retro-style games, to Kickstarters of classic games, new generations are enjoying what the old generation enjoyed, and though not everyone understands why they're good (I've read a CS-Nation article about children playing Donkey Kong and saying the graphics aren't as good as Splinter Cell; they also call the damsel in distress Peach/whore instead of Pauline), the demand is strong and may even contribute to changing the dynamic trends of the industry. This, in turn will also change what a mainstream audience is. I'm just saying it's currently a more casual audience, but it won't stay that way for long. Even this entire discussion is only temporary, because eventually we'll all see our theories and points change to something completely different. Who knows? I might even say the industry is retarded in a decade from now. Either way, I'll be keeping an eye on the industry to see how well your theory applies to it. It's an interesting possibility.

Thanks for all your time in these discussions. I know I don't have credibility in the things I say, but I can only hope to learn from it.[/spoiler]