There are many things I disagree with the OP.
MrDragonzord wrote:I want to know why people think this game is so good though. It destroys the competitive nature of the shooting genre. The focus has shifted away from skillful, balanced, and intense competition as well as teamwork over to mere spectacle and the wow factor of gaming. Video gaming used to be an elite skill. Now since Call of Duty is plastered in every casual's face, people see gaming as a joke and this series is to blame. If that's all you have to say you really don't have much faith in this game either.
Let's go back further in time, before Quake came around and certain people suddenly labeled themselves "hardcore games". Let's take a look at games like Star Control II and Ultima Underworld, where "wow factor" (at that time) was actually part of the game's appeal. Yes, such games doesn't require "elite skill" as the OP mentioned, but they are still great game nonetheless, and they still require skill - although not exactly "arcade skill".
I'm not saying games should put wow factor over gameplay. In fact, the 1995 FMV era was something I wish I'd never see again. But there are certainly other types of skills besides quick-action skill. I'd really like to see the OP apply his so-called "elite skill" in Delta Force or Falcon 3.0, and let's see how things turn up.
Besides, before Quake era, I believe what so-called "hardcore gamers" were those who play PC games - games that requires wider array of skills than just quick draw skill. "Mainstream gamers", on the other hand, were those who played console games, who obviously excelled in the so-called "elite skill" required to complete Mario Bros without the ability to save games. But then again, I'd like to see how Mario players would apply their "elite skill" in Sword of the Samurai.
Me, I was one of those who got bored with Quake after its wow factor (true 3D, as opposed to 2.5D) got old, and I enjoyed this game instead when those self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" boasted their multiplayer Quake sessions. Does it make me "less hardcore" because I played a very detailed role-playing game instead of multiplayer Quake?
So excuse me if I laughed everytime the Quake crowd or Command & Conquer crowd proudly proclaimed themselves "hardcore gamers". I mean, where were they when we were playing this game? Or how about this game? It should be noted that I don't proclaim myself a "hardcore gamer"; in fact, I'm not. I enjoy Their Finest Hour more than F-16 Combat Pilot (although both games are enjoyable). I'm not saying Quake or Command & Conquer are bad games either; they are good games in their own right. However, calling oneself "hardcore gamer" simply due to her/his "elite skill" in a specific kind of genre is ridiculous.
Next.
MrDragonzord wrote:•In Quake, there is no proning, encouraging players to get in their face of their enemies and fight directly.
•In Call of Duty, the proning feature encourages you to hide from your enemies instead of getting up close and personal like a man
Hello? It's called realism. I would like to see the OP and his "hardcore gaming fellows" survive the first five minutes of Delta Force. Even Dennis "Thresh" Fong, the most famous professional gamer, admitted in a CGW issue that he had trouble playing Rainbow Six. And no, he didn't complain that Rainbow Six' gameplay is being unfair to his "elite skill"; he honestly admitted that Rainbow Six requires different kind of skills than Quake. And IIRC I never read Thresh self-proclaiming himself as "hardcore gamer" either, despite he's a pro.
MrDragonzord wrote:•In Quake, there's no reloading whatsoever. It's a good thing as if reloads are too long, they can break the pace. Picking up and swapping weapons is also instantaneous.
•In Call of Duty, reloads take forever. The game encourages you to hide in the middle of a battle as you replace your empty clip, rewarding p**** players who keep their distance and stay away from the action instead of those who are up close and personal and fight their enemies directly. It also serves as a major pace killer. Switching weapons may also take a while.
Again, it's called realism. And again, I wonder how would the OP survive the first five minutes of Delta Force.
MrDragonzord wrote:•In Quake there is an emphasis on map control, which is the act of securing all goodies that spawn on the map as well as controlling power positions. As stronger weapons and powerups spawn on the map, there will always be opposition when you're trying to get them, rewarding more skilled players with better equipment. It also encourages map memorization and it means it's possible to predict where enemies will be. You also have to to master trickjumps, exploits in the physics engine that allow you to navigate the map more effectively but require tons of practice, timing, and concentration. Also in Quake, your starting equipment is weak. You have to gear up in the battlefield as fast as you can, then battle. Nothing is handed to you at spawn.
•In Call of Duty, there's no structure whatsoever due to the lack of equipment that spawns on the map. Everythings just a mess of scrambled chaos. You don't have to memorize spawn times, and there's no trickjumping. Instead all weapons and items can simply be handed to you at spawn.
So the OP's idea of good gameplay is map memorization, jump memorization, and where-to-grab-the-weapon memorization?
MrDragonzord wrote:•In Quake, weapons are usually balanced and are to be used in different situations, requiring extra strategy. Kill times are also slow, making it more about who has consistent aim instead of who shoots who first. 1sks are very rare, even with rockets (Q3A requires a direct hit on an unarmored target to kill).
•In Call of Duty, SMGs and especially Snipers overpower other primary weapons due to extremely fast kill times. SMGs have fast reload and fast ads times and Snipers are also easy to use at any range. All weapons kill in less than .5 seconds. Attachments further ruin balance. Pistols are underpowered secondaries.
Untrue. I only played the first Call of Duty, but I can say with a straight face that bolt-action rifle is such a pain in close-quarter combat, that finding an SMG in such situation is really a treat. Heck, even a pistol is better in such situation than the slow-firing bolt-action rifle. On the other hand, having only SMG in open air while the Germans uses Kar98k is an equal pain.