no it does not because if fighting games like street fighter and mortal kombat does not have this why should shooters or why should every shooter have this

RPG fans are obsessed with how close to the tabletop experience video game are(n't) because there is a tabletop experience to compare it to, which most games don't have.

Wait.. I feel like I've read that somewhere before...

again my previous relpy:"oh so multiplayer shooters without the unlockables are not addicting enough with high replay value? where have you been during the unreal,quake,counter strike,halo 2, and battlefield 2 days?"

Again, my previous reply.
I guess the publishers/developers think not....

lol :) this is getting tedious

torqual76 for Chancellor! Seriously, nice post, you know you're seeing someone who really cares about RPGs when they downplay the role of the paper.

Well, I never was a huge fan of Unreal/Quake/Halo 2 multiplayer. Battlefield 2 does have RPG elements (leveling, unlockable weapons). Counter-Strike is fun but also has RPG elements (getting money for kills which allows you to purchase better guns) so I'm not sure where you're going there.

did not know about battlefield 2 having rpg elements I only assumed since shooters before COD4 never have them and Battlefield 3 was the first to emplement them also when did Counter Strike introduced that because doubt it was there from Counter Strike 1.0

I don't like it in some but it does give the player a feeling of progression. In games like Borderlands it works fairly well and indeed is quite integral to the game, I'd hate not to have it in that game.
Games like Battlefield 3 though, I really don't see any benefit in it... I mean the guns are all meant to be balanced and once you find one you get on with you tend to stick with it so why have them as unlocking, especially the attachments? I'd have been happier if it was purely aesthetical things that unlock as you level such as more indepth character customization, (such as Halo Reach,Rainbow 6 Vegas)

well the only thing I like is the attachment system in shooters like putting scopes/sights, grenade launchers,bayonets, and suppressors on your weapons.

I'm pretty sure CS had the purchasing system since beta 1. RPG elements have existed in the most popular FPS games for quite a while.

does counter strike uses attachements systems I.E. Scopes and suppressors on your guns?

I'm not an expert in psychology but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me. If memory serves me right, Bethesda has shown interest in creating an MMORPG for some time now. If there was development done towards this end, why not tack it onto the next game and test the waters first? Maybe do some tracking with xbox Live and Steam?

I made it to level 47 in Skyrim. One day I started the game and wondered to myself, "Why am I playing this?" The only answer I could come up with was that I had an idea of how I wanted to get to level 50. There weren't any compelling reasons. I turned it off and haven't played it since. That was 4 months ago. There were a few moments of ohhs and ahhs but other than that, the only part I truly enjoyed about the game was the Dark Brotherhood storyline. The same with Oblivion except I liked killing dremora in that game too. In Morrowind and the newest Fallout games, I at least get enjoyment out of exploration. In Skyrim, people can craft better items than the legendary daedric items. This seemed intentional to me to encourage grinding.

I hardly ever hear anyone I know IRL talk about how awesome Skyrim is for story or exploration. They just talk about how uber their character stats are. Most of them were disappointed with how easy and anticlimactic the ending to the main quest was.

Here's a somewhat humorous and yet still informative take on it - http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

quote <snipped>

Fair. I see what you're saying and I know a lot of MMO buffs use the term like that, it just annoys me mildly (perhaps more than most) since my Master's thesis was on something related.

All in all though, I don't think Skyrim goes off the rails until the Third Act. I think most people stop playing before that. In truth, I think I'm one of 5 people who actually beat most of TES games.

Still, like I said, it's mostly just the levelling system. Skyrim lacks a lot of hallmarks of the more addictive end of MMOs or even reinforcement you get from other players. The social aspect is lacking at present too, obviously.

MMOs also have other things regarding reinforcement. In SWTOR/WOW light shoots out of your crotch when you level. People you don't know congratulate you. All positive reinforcement - not just from the game but from the community.

I'll give you an example of the "social" aspect of the games is helpful for loss reduction - one the community acts as a solidifying element. Even when you burn out of the game, you're still staying for "the community" which, esp if you're hopelessly addicted to the thing are probably the only people you know besides immediate family. It's the same reason it's hard for a lot of people to quit drugs. Strong negative reinforcement.

There's actually even punishment for failure to play the game for long periods. Ever notice the lack of a pause button? This is intentional and discourages casual play. Console RPGs don't do that. It's because they don't care how long you play.

MMOs have terrible stories and 9/10 involve you killing rats for the first 5 hours. The reason people like them is because, basically, they function like gambling or other similarly addictive (and fun!) activities. There's nothing wrong with them in moderation, obviously, but some people are prone to addiction.

I do play MMOs, and I can stop whenever I want, LOL.