Kill-cam discussion : please be civilized

[greenlemonade]

I have met loads of people who are very hateful towards the kill cam.
Now that I'm sure some of us have took some time to get to know the RO2 Kill-cam, I'd like to hear peoples opinion aside from "I HATE IT! GO PLAY COD!!!!"


What I've heard and how I feel:

"It's unrealistic. You don't magically see who shot you in RL."

But you also don't "re-spawn" with all knowledge from previous life in RL. If you get a look at who shoots, or even see a muzzle flash you have the same info the Kill-cam gave you. Is the RO2 Kill-cam that much more unrealistic?


"It gives away good camping positions."

Isn't this also a good thing? From the realism perspective, a sniper will almost always relocate after 1-2 kills in RL. It can also be good for gameplay. Camping is perfectly fine in RO2, but it can be TOO easy. On Grain Elevator, I've camped a certain spot inside point A and earned 23 kills and 0 deaths with my PPSH. A Kill cam would've broken this up a bit and relieved those poor Germans of there frustration.
Furthermore, after playing both with and without I've noticed that the two teams seem to be more balanced with Kill-cam "on". Without it, attackers usually seem to be at a disadvantage. (this isn't the case for every game/map of course). It is worthy to note that TW probably balanced the maps with the Kill Cam in mind.


"It's just there to make CoD fans happy."

It's very different from the CoD cams. It only shows the general direction and zooms a small amount. If you are sniped from 200+ m away, its very hard to see your attacker. CoD on the other hand shows you exactly where your attacker was. Also, I hate CoD with a passion, but I'm beginning to like the RO2 kill-cam.
Games have Kill cams for a psychological reason as well. Humans dislike losing without a clearly perceptible cause. The "Killed from location" functions to lessen the frustration of being killed by an unseen or unexpected opponent and to turn the player's demise into a learning experience.




Anyhow, feel free to post your thoughts. I'm not trying to start a flame war. Just a friendly discussion.

 

[Dee0342]

Its not a very CoD like killcam, it reminds me more of the way its implented in Bad Company 2 although here you only see the location.
I find this alright as it gives you a idea where the shot came from so you wont make the mistake a second time.

 

[ightenhill]

Whats the issue though ..If you don't like it (I don't particularly) just play on a server where its not used

 

[greenlemonade]

Whats the issue..If you don't like it (I don't particularly) just play on a server where its not used

The issue is that very often people will join a server with Kill-cam and start complaining that its there very loudly. I've personally seen this at least 4 times in the past 20 hours. That's what sparked me to come here for the Forums opinion.
Certain people REALLY hate it for some reason. Seconds after Dee342 replied that he didn't mind the kill cam, someone "Disliked" his completely civil and intelligent response.
I guess I'd like to talk about specifics. Like why people hate it or like it.

 

[MeFirst]

Why really bother? The Killcam is a server setting. Find a server that you like, put it into your favourites and play on it.


On your points

But you also don't "re-spawn" with all knowledge from previous life in RL. If you get a look at who shoots, or even see a muzzle flash you have the same info the Kill-cam gave you. Is the RO2 Kill-cam that much more unrealistic?

Kind of correct but you often dont know where you got shot from because the enemy was smart enough to go into a not obvious position. With the killcam on you will exactly know where the enemy shot you.

Isn't this also a good thing? From the realism perspective, a sniper will almost always relocate after 1-2 kills in RL. It can also be good for gameplay. Camping is perfectly fine in RO2, but it can be TOO easy. On Grain Elevator, I've camped a certain spot inside point A and earned 23 kills and 0 deaths with my PPSH. A Kill cam would've broken this up a bit and relieved those poor Germans of there frustration.
Furthermore, after playing both with and without I've noticed that the two teams seem to be more balanced with Kill-cam "on". Without it, attackers usually seem to be at a disadvantage. (this isn't the case for every game/map of course). It is worthy to note that TW probably balanced the maps with the Kill Cam in mind.

If you manage to find a good spot that is not bug or glitch abusing, it is good and the player(s) who manage to get there are effective while staying hidden enough not to be found should keep their benefit of being there until somebody finds them, nothing wrong with that.

It's very different from the CoD cams. It only shows the general direction and zooms a small amount. If you are sniped from 200+ m away, its very hard to see your attacker. CoD on the other hand shows you exactly where your attacker was. Also, I hate CoD with a passion, but I'm beginning to like the RO2 kill-cam.
Games have Kill cams for a psychological reason as well. Humans dislike losing without a clearly perceptible cause. The "Killed from location" functions to lessen the frustration of being killed by an unseen or unexpected opponent and to turn the player's demise into a learning experience.

Sorry but RO has always been a bit about positive frustration. Just because you dont know the exact position of a enemy that killed you does not mean you have not a single clue where could be. At least in RO1 it made a lot of fun figuring out where somebody was hiding and taking him out.

 

[Limz]

Whats the issue though ..If you don't like it (I don't particularly) just play on a server where its not used

This.

I wouldn't really bother arguing the fundamental 'truthiness' of the issue. There are both pros and cons to having the 'location of where your killer was at, in sometimes a vague but other times precise area, for a few seconds'. Without arguing that fundamental 'truthiness' it really boils down to opinion and anyone who says otherwise should start throwing up facts or framing the discussion in a meaningful fashion.

Are we talking about tournament play? Or are we talking about casual play? Are we talking about TDM , CD , or TE? When you've figured out the entire question then we can talk more about the said location-kill-cam-thingie.

 

[Cyper]

I have met loads of people who are very hateful towards the kill cam.
Now that I'm sure some of us have took some time to get to know the RO2 Kill-cam, I'd like to hear peoples opinion aside from "I HATE IT! GO PLAY COD!!!!"


What I've heard and how I feel:

"It's unrealistic. You don't magically see who shot you in RL."

But you also don't "re-spawn" with all knowledge from previous life in RL. If you get a look at who shoots, or even see a muzzle flash you have the same info the Kill-cam gave you. Is the RO2 Kill-cam that much more unrealistic?


"It gives away good camping positions."

Isn't this also a good thing? From the realism perspective, a sniper will almost always relocate after 1-2 kills in RL. It can also be good for gameplay. Camping is perfectly fine in RO2, but it can be TOO easy. On Grain Elevator, I've camped a certain spot inside point A and earned 23 kills and 0 deaths with my PPSH. A Kill cam would've broken this up a bit and relieved those poor Germans of there frustration.
Furthermore, after playing both with and without I've noticed that the two teams seem to be more balanced with Kill-cam "on". Without it, attackers usually seem to be at a disadvantage. (this isn't the case for every game/map of course). It is worthy to note that TW probably balanced the maps with the Kill Cam in mind.


"It's just there to make CoD fans happy."

It's very different from the CoD cams. It only shows the general direction and zooms a small amount. If you are sniped from 200+ m away, its very hard to see your attacker. CoD on the other hand shows you exactly where your attacker was. Also, I hate CoD with a passion, but I'm beginning to like the RO2 kill-cam.
Games have Kill cams for a psychological reason as well. Humans dislike losing without a clearly perceptible cause. The "Killed from location" functions to lessen the frustration of being killed by an unseen or unexpected opponent and to turn the player's demise into a learning experience.




Anyhow, feel free to post your thoughts. I'm not trying to start a flame war. Just a friendly discussion.

It's not realistic at all not even in a videogame. Claiming that respawning isn't realistic is as stupid as it gets: Would people pay for a videogame that you can play one time? No. A business like that would fall straight down into a empty hole. Because it's a videogame and only certain aspects of realism can be included.

Killcam is simply there as an aid for the player hence the reason why it's possible to remove it; because some player don't like it. From the camping perspective, it is your enemies fault that they let you kill 25st of their men. If they can't locate your position it's their own incompetence to play the game. If they get frustated it's only their own incompetence to blame. People should adept themself to the game instead of the other way around.

''Games have Kill cams for a psychological reason as well. Humans dislike losing without a clearly perceptible cause. The "Killed from location" functions to lessen the frustration of being killed by an unseen or unexpected opponent and to turn the player's demise into a learning experience.''

Exactly, that argument kinda speaks against your other arguments. It's quite obvious that Killcam is there to appeal to the mainstream

 

[Limz]

Appearance of less frustrating does not necessarily equal more forgiving. If you bring psychology into this just be more aware of all the other variables that come into play when you do have a 'after death report cam' like we have in RO2 .

 

[greenlemonade]

Good points MeFirst.

I think that you have articulated why there are people who prefer gameplay with the Killcam "Off" and others who like it "On".

It is a matter of preference. I personally think the gameplay is a bit more fresh and realistic if I can't just lie down in a bush and get 23 kills 0 deaths NOT because of my great skill, but because of my knowledge that a certain spot is nearly magical.
With killcam "on", I know I've got to move soon after I shoot or I'm dead meat. That's realistic. It stirs things up a bit. Nothing would stop you from running off and finding an even better hiding place or even using the killcam to your advantage. Wait for them to creep around to your old spot and hit them again from someplace else.

I think another thing I like that I failed to mention, is that it just gives you more interesting visual feedback when you die. Starring at a black screen can get old.




So again, thanks for the great response MeFirst. I'm still wondering why certain people HATE kill-cam with a passion.

 

[grothesj2]

I can't stand it myself with a possible exception of training situtations. I prefer to not know from whence my death from a distance came. It ends up altering my play in a rather unrealistic fashion. The re-spawn is supposed to represent some sort of reinforcement, not the same soldier just gunned down. I would rather not have the knowledge beyond what my team communicates to me and my "new soldier's" own observations.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Exactly, that argument kinda speaks against your other arguments. It's quite obvious that Killcam is there to appeal to the mainstream

 

[greenlemonade]

It's not realistic at all not even in a videogame. Claiming that respawning isn't realistic is as stupid as it gets: Would people pay for a videogame that you can play one time? No. A business like that would fall straight down into a empty hole. Because it's a videogame and only certain aspects of realism can be included.

Killcam is simply there as an aid for the player hence the reason why it's possible to remove it; because some player don't like it. From the camping perspective, it is your enemies fault that they let you kill 25st of their men. If they can't locate your position it's their own incompetence to play the game. If they get frustated it's only their own incompetence to blame. People should adept themself to the game instead of the other way around.

''Games have Kill cams for a psychological reason as well. Humans dislike losing without a clearly perceptible cause. The "Killed from location" functions to lessen the frustration of being killed by an unseen or unexpected opponent and to turn the player's demise into a learning experience.''

Exactly, that argument kinda speaks against your other arguments. It's quite obvious that Killcam is there to appeal to the mainstream

 

[MeFirst]

You also seem very resistant to a RO2 thats more accessible to people. Killcam is an option and you need not hate on it if there are servers without it available to you. In fact, most servers have it disabled, so you should be happy instead of being so angry.

Thats exactly why we dont really need a thread for this. On the other hand both "sides" wrote down their arguments already.

 

[greenlemonade]

Thats exactly why we dont really need a thread for this. On the other hand both "sides" wrote down their arguments already.

But that was early on. I feel like a lot of people will change their opinions once they spend some time with the Killcam. When I first saw that RO2 would have a Killcam, I was a bit reluctant, but after playing with it I feel it actually sometimes improves the gameplay and always gives you more interesting things to look at.

 

[Cyper]

I think you misunderstood some of my points.
I am pointing out that the Killcam is just as "unrealistic" or maybe even less "unrealistic" than "Respawn" with all knowledge of previous life. I'm not saying they should remove "respawn" (though countdown is a great mode). I'm just saying that people seem to hate it because it gives players knowledge of the enemy, you also recieve knowledge from beyond the grave with every respawn. Calling my argument "stupid" is a little harsh and so was the gratuitous "neg".

You also seem very resistant to a RO2 thats more accessible to people. Killcam is an option and you need not hate on it if there are servers without it available to you. In fact, most servers have it disabled, so you should be happy instead of being so angry.

I also fail to see how the "psychologically soothing effect" and "player educational value" of the Kill cam invalidate my other arguments. It sounds like you just hate CoD and are prejudice towards anything that seems "CoDish".


Again, I don't want to start a flame war. I just want a discussion.

Killcam is there to make the gameplay forgiving, and as you say, I am quite resistant to a RO game that is accesible, and that's 100% correct. IMO there is absolutely no reason for ro to be accessible. It already have it's own crowd to survive. I have nothing agianst COD at all, even thugh I don't play it myself, but I often play games such as Far Cry 2, which is highly diffrent from RO2, but I do it because those games are good at what they're doing and they hold on to their own meaning. If FAR CRY2 became more realistic I would certainly not like it simply because it would move away from It's own genre. That's exactly what RO2 does with killcam IMO and that's the reason why I don't like it. If people find it frustating they can go and play 90% of all other games. I don't go to the COD forums and complain about the game and say that it's to unrealistic etcetc. Because COD have already built up its own genre and thats about it. Games like RO doesn't have to appeal to everyone simply because games like RO barely exist and I don't want RO to fade away from it's own genre into something else. Because then, there is no reason for me to play it. Some people on the board seems to want this game to head that way. To fade out into the sand. I am absolutely not pointing that towards you, but there are, other people that think like that. Those people have loads of games to choose from why I basicly have two games to choose from - RO and arma - and yet some people want to take this away from me.

 

[Richey79]

I play on both hardcore and 'relaxed realism' servers. I suppose the mini-map annoys me, but on the whole I don't even notice which type of server it is.

The kill-cam rarely shows you anything useful anyway (a view of a brick wall, some stairs or a speck in the distance). If it means that people have to relocate after firing, then that's not altogether a bad thing.

I think the deeper problem is that there needs to be some genuine differences between the different 'realism' levels in the server settings. At the moment, it's all just minor tinkering with the HUD.

 

[UsF]

I think the killcam has its uses, for instance learning maps and finding out positions on the maps that might kill you.

But I disagree with the realism mode having a killcam by default. That should be forced off. Having a killcam on that mode makes it less realistic, because people cannot occupy tactical positions. The respawning soldiers will just force lots of fire down that place the next time they come along,making combat more fast paced, which it shouldn't be.

 

[Defekt]

Whenever I join a server with a kill cam I leave and find another. I'm quite fond of sitting in concealed positions with a bolt action rifle and do not enjoy it when my hiding place is given away by a feature that makes no sense.

IMHO servers with kill cams should not be marked as 'Realistic' in the server browser, though as some people enjoy them perhaps it would be a good idea to add another tickbox to the server filters so you can specify whether the server has kill cams switched on.

 

[[SP]Alfonso]

I think kill cam has it uses when you are learning the map and for balancing the use of third party VOIP (TS, Ventrilo and the like).

Still, I don't like it.

 

[Josef Nader]

I love the popularity contest aspect of this. SOMEONE LIKES THE KILLCAM! QUICK, DOWNVOTE HIM!

Frankly, I like it for the same reason I like the TF2 killcam. It really helps newer players learn from their mistakes and figure out what sorts of things to look out for. Once the player has a good feel for the game it's more or less useless, but it's an invaluable tool to prevent alienating newer players.

I remember that was one of my biggest frustrations with ROOST. I'd get killed and have no way of knowing where it came from, what happened, and how I could avoid it happening again save by sheer virtue of trial and error. It's frustrating to die 15 times and never have any idea where you're getting killed from. The killcam alleviates this and helps you figure out how to -not- die.

Again, more for newer players than the pros, but still a useful feature.