Stop trolling the hardcore guy, he’s got some decent points. But ultimately the reason more people have gotten into the online gaming scene is because people have been taking better care to balance their weapons. Why do you think Halo 3’s multiplayer has worked for so long? Or Modern Warfare 2? Or hell, even Counter Strike Source.
I personally hated Halo 3’s multiplayer for it’s community- far too many assholes for my liking. I generally had better luck with MW2, despite it’s infamy in having squeaky-voiced pre-pubecents taunting over the airwaves. The reason it worked is because the skill progression made players feel powerful and consistently rewarded for skillful play. In fact, I actually managed to make a perk set that made the game play more like an old school shooter- Commando Pro and Marathon Pro extended knife melee range, made falling damage irrelevant, and gave the player unlimited sprint. So I could just zip about the battlefield knifing people and setting up sniper shots, which was perfect for my play style. MW2’s customization options are one of the many reasons the games sell so many copies. Granted, I was a recreational player, but I still enjoyed myself.
Counter Strike Source also gleans a huge amount of the online market due to it’s finely tuned gameplay, combining great level design, a high lethality among all players, and a balanced weapon set. This is a similar design that made the original Rainbow Six games a very popular online game to play- If you get caught in the crosshairs, you’re probably dead.
I suppose my general thesis to counter your argument is something along the lines of “fairness in online multiplayer is not counter-intuitive to the process of having fun.”
