The metagame is great because it gives you a reason to keep coming back, but personally I think the moment you reward someone for having fun, a fun activity becomes less about the fun and more about the reward until you get to a point like where we are now with shooters in that a game can't just come out and be a fun time; it has to have all of its stat tracking (which has its own, more insidious issues) and its unlocks/progression system to stand a chance.
To me, having to unlock stuff in shooters (such as your Call of Duties and your Battlefield 3s) is just busywork. I shouldn't have to feel obligated to continue playing just to unlock a new toy to play with. It makes me feel like a test subject more than someone who just wants to plug some dudes in the face to unwind.
It's unfortunate, because shooters are my favorite genre, and nowadays it seems more of them are built to dangle carrots in front of your face by means of metagames than they are to just be a fun time.
If you make a game capable of providing its players with a good time, they will continue to play it. People still play Counter-Strike. People still play Halo 3 and Quake.
I guess the short answer would be: Yes. I would absolutely play Call of Duty (more often) if it went back to basics. No stats. No leveling. No perks. Just a handful of dudes running about shouting nonsense at one another and laughing their asses off at the manic chaos going on.
Log in to comment