[QUOTE=tokamak;381200]Cheers for that question, I hope I can explain this because it really tends to get over people’s head for years now.
There’s a difference between fidelity and difficulty. I suspect you like the ‘difficult’ movement not because it’s prestigious but because it offers a player a lot of freedom to act within a game. It’s the decisions to make certain movements (out of the countless ones that are possible) that is rewarding rather than the execution itself.
But correct me if I’m wrong, would be easier if I was then I can treat you and Inferno as the same stance.[/quote]
Yeah there is a difference between fidelity and difficulty, fidelity is being loyal to something. I’m not sure where you’re getting difficult movement from, all games have forward, back, left, right, jump and crouch… I like expansive movement where effort yields rewards, and where using that system is a choice and doesn’t effect the core game itself. But yes you’re right on the last part, it’s my movement ability that opens up new decision paths for me, therefore providing a greater scope for reward… ergo… I give myself a better chance of success through my own skill rather than having it artificially supplied to me. I like that I can be given the chance to expand and progress, it’s not the difficulty that draws me to it.
I like spread with high fidelity. Brink’s spread is artificial as you can exert very little influence on it. Raven Shield has a much higher fidelity, the shooting is still pretty simple, but it’s that wide field of tension between spread and movement what makes it so rewarding and where skill is determined. It’s determining what kind of movement you need vs what amount of spread you pay for it that determines your advantage vs the opponents.
In that way I regard movement by itself as well. I think the decision to make a certain move should weigh much heavier than the execution of that move. If someone has a brilliant, well thought-out idea, then he shouldn’t be hampered by finding out the right way to finger his keyboard. After all, you’re playing a video game, it’s a battle of ideas.
When you reach the levels of advanced movement, then that does indeed weigh much heavier, because the execution of that move becomes much more difficult land, and as such, increasing the chances of failure. If someone has a well thought out idea, he should have the means and capabilities to convert theory to practice. Do you think great ideas suddenly come into practice just by thinking it? If you want a high accuracy, you practice, if you want to land a difficult jump, you practice… this cotton wool molly coddling of players who aren’t willing to dedicate to learning something and demand that it be given to them free of effort is ludicrous.
There’s a place for cognitive-based shooters with a deadly, point-precise ballet rockets, I like those as well, but in my eyes they’re a completely different sub-genre compared to shooters like ET, and the attempts at letting that genre encroach on the tactical shooter are somewhat harmful if they actually had a chance.
At the end of the day, I was querying why you think it’s easier to aim in the likes of Q3 that has an even spread of projectile and hitscan weapons compared to games that are 99% hitscan. In those games, you can choose to always be on hitscan with low spread.
