Ed MOTHEREFFING G
Chances make champions
Allow me to explain
traditionally, in all things (sports, poker, washing your car, checkers, weightlifting, etc) you get better as you train and do the activity more often, through a combination of muscle memory, learning and adaptation, and building skill/stregnth.
First person shooters had always followed this pattern as well. All variables were equal (same guns for everyone, same skills for each charactor etc), so you KNEW that when you got killed it was because the other guy was better. He plays more so their skill improved or is naturally better, but its apples to apples. Quake III arena is the purest example of this ever.
Somewhere along the line, and I'll allow you to tie a game to this conversation, it got broken. RPG style power ups and level ups get attached to how often you play and how much you kill....so...people who played more...and did get better...got better weapons and skills...so they became even better...so then they can grow quicker because of the have-nots...so NOW, the guy killing you isn't because he's better because of the stuff I described earlier, hes just better because he has the ability to live longer because of powerups and has a gun you can't get....its inherantly broken.
Fighting game fans, Imagine in street fighter, if it was 100% online, and you started out as SF2 Ryu with NO hadoken, and just a LP dragon punch...
and you had to jump into arena with SSFIV Sagat and Oni, Gouken...and they destroyed you...and its your fault because you need to level up or get better to get hadokens and Shoryueppas and stuff.
To the point
This will come across as sour grapes or old man
talk, but the purity of shooters has been derailed by the stuff I discussed. To this day I say QIII is the goat shooter because when you got railgunned through the top of your dome because someone rocket jumped above you and switched weapons in mid air.......he was better 
your thoughts?
traditionally, in all things (sports, poker, washing your car, checkers, weightlifting, etc) you get better as you train and do the activity more often, through a combination of muscle memory, learning and adaptation, and building skill/stregnth.
First person shooters had always followed this pattern as well. All variables were equal (same guns for everyone, same skills for each charactor etc), so you KNEW that when you got killed it was because the other guy was better. He plays more so their skill improved or is naturally better, but its apples to apples. Quake III arena is the purest example of this ever.
Somewhere along the line, and I'll allow you to tie a game to this conversation, it got broken. RPG style power ups and level ups get attached to how often you play and how much you kill....so...people who played more...and did get better...got better weapons and skills...so they became even better...so then they can grow quicker because of the have-nots...so NOW, the guy killing you isn't because he's better because of the stuff I described earlier, hes just better because he has the ability to live longer because of powerups and has a gun you can't get....its inherantly broken.
Fighting game fans, Imagine in street fighter, if it was 100% online, and you started out as SF2 Ryu with NO hadoken, and just a LP dragon punch...
and you had to jump into arena with SSFIV Sagat and Oni, Gouken...and they destroyed you...and its your fault because you need to level up or get better to get hadokens and Shoryueppas and stuff.
To the point
This will come across as sour grapes or old man
talk, but the purity of shooters has been derailed by the stuff I discussed. To this day I say QIII is the goat shooter because when you got railgunned through the top of your dome because someone rocket jumped above you and switched weapons in mid air.......he was better your thoughts?
Those were the days.
....word to the pistol with the powers of a sniper rifle WITH a scope
