It's not true that CoD doesn't require much skill. It does - at least if you want to be good at it. Anyone who doesn't believe me should pick up the game, go into a random server with competetive players and see for themselves. You must spend a long time to learn the maps, but most of all, to learn how people utilize the map. You must also use a bit of psychology in order to determine your foes next move, or to fool them thinking that you are about to do something that you don't do.
Difference is, that this game is what most people called 'dumbed down'. The game offers a lot of simplistic features and game mechanics. Every weapon is 'balanced', one of the ways to ensure new player's are not punished for their errors. The game must forgive. Singleplayer is made action-packed so that it never becomes 'boring' and it becomes very easy to predict what's supposed to happen next. Because everything is scripted. Enemies pop-up in front of you like dummies, doors are closed behind you, to ensure that you don't ''get confused where to go or what to do''. The game offers you a lot of artificial rewards.
It's a slot machine that throws out fake money at you to make you believe that you actually achieve something and give you a reason to keep on playing, but in the end, all that you achieve is what the game gives you for simply playing it, and funny enough this is what makes people keep on playing. The trail- and error proccess barely exist, because there is no real consequences for any error. Compared to RO2, or even better ARMA, when for example sticking your head up in the wrong moment that can erase 40 minutes of progress.
Another 'issue' with games like RO, even ''Realism'' Mode, is that the game is clunky; you can't act like if you were a ghost flying all over the map or jumping around (this 'great' movements may be great but far removed from realism), aiming requires more skill, shooting requires more skill, every step you take must be calculated or you're dead.
CoD created a new and successfull formula that other people followed. Since it has become a paradigm in the gaming industry and among gamers this is what people expect.
What I find ironic about this article, though, is that the the style of gameplay he seems to despise, and the players he seems to dislike (''dislike'' may be a strong word but I don't know how else to put it), was the very same players they (TWI) so blatantly obvious tried to appeal to, it is the very same game which their game (RO) was so much affected by, while seemingly neglecting their original fanbase.
It isn't a coincidence that there is enemy loadouts, spawn on squadleader, MkB, no command system, XP, unlocks, perks, smaller more streamlined levels, increased amount of HUD details, focus on more fast paced gameplay in RO2, and in general many 'complex' features from RO1 missing. It's a deliberate decision that in the end backfired. Now they (TWI) throw dirt at CoD, yet it was all fine copying features from CoD game and implementing them into RO2 but when it doesn't work CoD is the bad guy.
I do understand this decision, and it is partly what Mr. Gibson said:
CoD have ruined todays generation of gamers - the same thoughts that I have - because nowdays every game has to be like CoD and cater to CoD players, and any game that doesn't is bad.
Now,
with this article, I get the feeling that Gibson have realized how pointless it is to try to cater to CoDplayers with RO2.
That begs the question whenever another direction will be taken with Rising Storm. But that is also difficult, since RS is supposed to be integrated into RO2. So I think I keep my hopes low.
RO1 was indeed successfull and created its own formula. In the end I think games like CoD will eventually fade out into nothing. Maybe I am wrong, maybe I am right. The ARMA franchise is older than CoD and it keeps on growing.
To bad that it feels like Gibsons article is written only to get attention and act like if RO isn't as dirty as CoD, like RO2 isn't infected by the CoD virus, like RO2 stood ''above the filthy CoD'', when it in fact infected by it.
When the question about a spiritual sequel to R1 arise, I think what BIS said in an interview with the press should be taken into account:
''There are two main factors resulting in "accessibility": the complexity of the gameplay and game controls more or less coping with the complex possibilities of a game.
The titles in the Arma series are certainly very complex, and we could hardly make Arma 3 less complex without losing the unique gameplay, so the only way to increase accessibility is to make sure the player is properly guided, the controls are ergonomic and the rules are clear.
We’ve designed the campaign of Arma 3 in a way which would allow novice players to learn the basics first and get enough practice with the new features. If it would work as intended, playing through the campaign should turn a raw recruit into an experienced Arma veteran knowledgeable of all the features the game would offer. Of course, Arma 3 will feature tutorials for all major features, which worked nicely in Operation Arrowhead.''
