Without killstreaks accumulating for the other team as a negative result of poor gameplay decisions, how can one be expected to make better decisions over time? Without tangible rewards going to their enemies, wouldn't each player refuse to care about their kill/death ratio? Despite these differences, there is clearly enough space in the industry for games of each type to succeed, as has been shown with the contrasting examples of the "Call of Duty" and "Halo" franchises. On the flip side, proponents of killstreaks argue that without them each life in these games would mean less and less. Playing against or with campers is frustrating - instead of playing for the team, they would rather hide in a random corner and shoot unsuspecting passersby. So I've only played the game for about an hour so far but I noticed yesterday when playing with friends that their scorestreaks were based of Press J to jump to the feed. Killstreaks are, at their core, an extrapolated version of kill/death ratios, so giving players rewards for maintaining a high kill/death ratio encourages safer gameplay. Opponents of killstreaks, as cited by Redbull, also dislike that killstreaks promote 'camping', an unfun playstyle where players take as little risk as possible to make sure that they are dying as few times a match as possible. Ever since Black Ops II, the newly dubbed scorestreaks became the norm, but some games, like Call of Duty WW II, allowed players to utilize killstreaks through the use of a perk.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |