Here is the video:
Now one thing I do like about this is the fact that it shows some good streaks – even if the enemy seem to be lining up like a target range for her, but that’s the way the game goes. I’m not disparaging the shooter’s reactions and skill with the sniper rifle, but the clip is still a montage. And as I mentioned in previous posts, montages generally showcase what went right – they rarely show the mega-fails (how many times did the shooter attempt to get a million degree quick scope before it finally happened on Derail?).
Which is why it’s nice to see players like Bobby Moodie – aka TheMoodieSwede – who are not afraid to post complete quickscope gameplay and even comment about how what he’s doing is rarely seen as people only post the juicy bits and “forget” about the misses, fails, and embarrassing mistakes. So here is his gameplay (there’s no commentary until after the first kill):
Now here’s my take on it this – montages are the fantasy of what people think Quick Scoping should be. But the reality is that it doesn’t always work out. Even more confusing though is the whole 1337 paradox. I don’t really get how quickscoping is considered “leet”.
You get a one shot kill from a varying range of distances using a very powerful weapon – the only thing you have to do is get it on target and you have dozens of shots to do it with.
But what about the Pro-Pipe? I’m not on about the flinging a round across the map with Danger Close – but the close up unexploded round hits. You get two ammo and quite a long reload time – but as soon as you load that up you become noob-tube noob!? Like SRSLY! Both the sniper rifle and the Pro-Pipe are one shot kills, but the latter does not rely on the aim assist so why the difference, the disparity, and the disparaging?
What are your thoughts on this? Why is one acceptable but the other is not?
Peas and loaves.
Find me on PSN – evaDlivE