cod bestest, quake doods jelly of cod skills

Crash Team Racing best skills. It's harder than quake to strafejump and aim

i think i played crash tag team racing or something like dat. lots of funs and skills

posting in a ... hey wait a goddamn minute, this isn't a monkey_business thread!

it's definitely cod cause it has the largest playerbase and everyone knows competition creates the skillcap and not the game itself.

I'd crush you in a coin flip contest.

I'm only a beginner at coin flip but with practice could probably beat most mid-level players.

Everyone's a mid-level player in that game, and so would you be, regardless of how much practice you put into it. :)

my flicking technique and probability calculations will be the deciding factor.

you can program a finely tuned robot to flick the desired result with 100% success rate, as long as it knows the initial state of the coin.

can a human, with sufficient practice, imitate the robot??????????

within a certain duration of time... possibly. a robot once programmed to give certain results will not deviate and only mechanical issues will vary its success where as a human is contending with more interferences that will impair consistency.

although you have a clue... you have the wrong one.
Let me help you a bit:
"it's definitely cod cause it has the largest playerbase and everyone knows competition creates the skillcap and not the game itself."

The people who play cod don't do so for the competition.

But I will agree with that the competition has a much larger role than the actual game in the necessary skill to be succesfull. Although it must also be said that the game shouldn't be "extremely limiting the players" but rather must allow players to punish eachothers choices.

well I was being half facetious because of the pointlessness of the thread but yeah you understood the sensible half. in any game with involved mechanics it is the players through competition that create the metagame. if quake was vastly popular we would potentially see many new phases of play or perhaps another game could develop a much deeper metagame that would surprise us. without seeing every game played to its limit it is hard to say which has the highest skillcap.

which brings me to the reaason why this thread is pointless. there is no one alive that has played all of these games at the very highest level who could even somewhat objectively declare which game has the highest skillcap therefore it becomes a pissing contest. my game is better because it's my game.

Quake 2

All I can say for sure is that the complexity these games offer is very high, and so they can feature a very very wide range of skills levels:

Doom 1v1
Quakeworld 1v1
Quake 2 1v1
Quake Live 1v1
Quake 4 1v1
Counterstrike

I don't see the Call Of Duty games as being in the same category.

I'm not familiar enough with RTS to comment on them, so leaving these out:

WarCraft 3
Brood War
StarCraft 2
Dota 2
League Of Legends

I'm surprised that people left out Quake 3 1v1

Why is Doom on that list?

I guess he meant doom2.

on your list, i mean.

..because it belongs there?

as far as teamplay goes, I personally think 6v6 promod Enemy Territory:Quake Wars has never been matched: classes, vehicles and heavy weapon/artillery restrictions added so many equally viable possibilities that made the metagame never predictable and spectacular, with every team having totally different setups and strategies.
nothing like, let's say, QL tdm/ctf where tactics are naive in comparison and it relies much more on the single player.

then again, when personal "skill" is involved ETQW is so much easier (weapon spread, slower, few weapons,etc) than any of the idsoftware games of your list

he did not even consider ETQW, but CS i mean WTF !

FPS
-------------
If we are talking about pure FPS skills, it's hands down Soldier of Fortune 2 with the leaning mechanic at high level play (and basically everyone uses AK-74 as their primary weapon.

In second position is Quake Live (but I can't tell for Quake World, 2 or 4).

In third position is Counter-Strike.

And Call of Duty shouldn't even be listed as a competitive game. It's the rock bottom of casual FPS games.

Moba and RTS
----------------------------
No clue

"if we are talking about pure FPS skills, it's hands down Soldier of Fortune 2"

Stopped reading there.

Solider of Fortune 2 not so much, It was Always Quake from the longest time.

I'm really not sure that you guys understand how huge the skillgap is in Soldier of Fortune 2 at high level play, because players can finally take full advantage of the leaning mechanics in CQB. Because of the leaning mechanic, there are 4 ways to dodge headsots, a fifth with the crouch and a sixth with the jump. This is insane and I've played that game to a very high level Online and there is no other game like it. It almost feels like the Gunkata we saw in movies like Equilibrium, G.I. Joe Retaliation, etc.

It's a shame that it didn't get more support from eSports league because those high level fights would have been crazy to watch on TV. In my book, SoF2 is by far the most underrated competitive FPS game of all time. oh priceless kills with throwable knives ;)

my problem with some elements of cpm and this dodging mechanic you mention is the options available are so many that it goes beyond a threshold of ability in which you can punish an opponent for mistakes. predicting where the opponents head is going to be in what I assume is an instant switch between 5 possible positions becomes a lottery. a game doesn't need multitudes of technical possibilities to create a wide range of skills, infact too many can be detrimental.

It doesn't go beyond the treshold, because... I've played at the level and it's humanly possible. But I agree with what you said. Even if the leaning takes a lot of skills, the problem is that new comers and advanced players cannot use it at all, so they aren't really playing the game fully and only the most advanced high level players will be able to use it. (less than 0.2% of all players, that sucks)

Because of that, I think a generic dash that moves the whole body or a roll is a better alternative for all categories of players.

Still, I give the first place to SoF2 ^^ in terms of skillgap.

Having a tonne of gimmicks* available at your disposal doesn't make a game more skillfu.

i'm really excited by your expression. can you post some video links? i really want to watch it by my own eyes)

In SoF2, the leaning wasn't thát important. In CTF it all came down to teamplay and individual skills.

I also played it at a fairly high level and to me, the game was more about timing attacks with a solid defender (or two on some maps).

I agree that SoF2 could have been a game with bigger support and community. I guess this didn't happen because configs and flaws in the game were too prominent. Ofc higher skilled players all had a decent config and yes the skillgap was big.

I miss that game :(

ive enough experience to make an estimate on 3 of those games :D

Just post hardcore death metal then.

Stick to what you're good at.

okay, but only because you said im goo at it. hf!

First to point out that this song:

a) sucks
b) isn't even close to death metal
c) sucks

I'd also like to point out, I love death metal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I2_b6K_2_Y

Awesome.

Some more techy/proggy stuff:










Not as proggy (but still fun):

Awesome bands. Personal supreme favorites have to be Anata and Spawn of Possession. But I love all those bands.

i always just call it punk tho :D

quakeworld 1v1

cpm 1v1(still waiting for someone to master it. hal is close tho ;p psst go back to a crt, hal)
qw tdm(obvious answer)
qwctf (i dont know if it's the most hardcore, but i loved it so much that i'll include it)
honorable mention:
q4(most underrated quake game)

reasoning:
less luck than other fps games and high mechanical skill is mandatory.
"the best player ALWAYS wins."

anyways, all pros/games deserve respect, even console pros.
you guys have fun arguing. fuck this thread im out of here.

less luck

you always know how to make me smile :-)

counter-strike

I laugh at people that say cod doesn't require skill and isn't competitive. Theres a whole league mode which requires players to play more competitively to get to the top!

When someone says that CoD isn't a competitive game, it means that the skill requirements are so low, that it would be a waste of time to compete on such title, because there is nothing there to master. Just the machinegun in Quake Live takes more skills than CoD. And the fact that a game has a bigger pool of players doesn't make it more competitive either, that's a concept for delusionals, because the value of each player is limited by the value of the game they play. The best CoD players are a joke compared to the ones from Quake, CS, etc.

I'm also of the opinion that most people who talk shit about it havent played/watch it at all or enough.

totally true

I've never done heroin either. But I'm still pretty sure it's bad for you.

I played about 15 days online gametime with CoD on PC and watched come ClanBase matches as well.

My first EVER online match in CoD 4 was a 50 - 5 ownage (by me) with 50-75 fps (yuck) and 80ish ping, on an unknown map. Banned after that from there, because I'm "obviously cheating". LMAO.

After that, several bans and kicks from various servers in the first week, because I owned them SO HARD, even if they played the game for 3 years straight, that it was laughable. Huge strafes, violent flicks, wallhugging, Quake-style rampage ---> crying lows everywhere.

After ~5 days on online gametime (make it a week, if you like), I played 1v1 with a national player and gave him a serious challenge, even when I didn't wear headphones at all. He prolly won, because he could hear me with his headphones, which he admitted as well. LOL.

Even tried promod on private severs, not much difference, just sniping was even more ez, and less effects obscured my vision.

Can be fun sometimes (via idTech 3-based engine), but EZ as hell.

And I'm just mid-skill in QL, after...well, not weeks, or months.

so you didnt play league play?

Played with "high-skill" league players on promod private servers. Compared to Quake, it's quite ridiculous.

So no, ok.

Read again.

http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/League_Play

so no.

So playing with other 7 league players on their own server is not good. Interesting.

The skill compared to Quake was ridiculous as I could play with them on equal terms after a week's of online time as I wasn't even the last on the scoreboard. lol.

you werent last, but did you guys win?

its a team game

We played quite a few games. Won more than lost.

actually cod is on same level as cs, just more popular as public game

Right, and how did you come to such conclusion? That's like saying Halo is on the same level as Quake Live, which would be absurd.

halo and ql have nothing in common, while cs and cod just have different setting.

2 teams, one attacking, one defending, blowing up the objective/killing opposite team. very strategical and positional gameplay with insta kills via headshot. cripple effect when being shoot. etc etc.

dont talk crap about games you only heard :-)


however, tbh, cod went in casual way, and tbh last decent comp mp was in cod4. and imo they broke the gameplay in cod2 by adding breath holding when sniping.

What you just mentionned are superficial elements around the core gameplay of both games.

In CS you got the sneaky gameplay, the fact that you get a better accuracy when crouched and have to control the recoil, player movements and jumping are more important, hitboxes, shoot from the hip which is a huge difference, buy menu meta games, 1-2 headshots depending of weapons and helmet, usually more than 3 bodyshots to kill, damage that varies depending of range, etc.

There is almost no recoil whatsoever in CoD and you always need to go ADS, players can prone, your crosshair moves on its own, it takes 2 headshots most of the time will it takes 3 bodyshots to eliminate an opponent which means it's a freaking no skill FPS game, you got radar, killstreaks and a lot more casual elements.

If you really think that both games are still on the same level, I recommend you to play them a lot more.

you described a lot of elements that are turned off in competitive gameplay.

It doesn't make a difference. Just in terms of gunplay, you are comparing a bicycle to a F-1.

funny it doesnt make a difference, but you listed it as a element talking against cod.
so i guess it did make a difference.


and if we compare "gunplay" then quake is very simple compared to cod.

Bahahahaha Oky I'm outta here. Happy Christmas.

at least you're smart enough to know when to back off.

cheers

When someone tells me that Quake is very simple compared to CoD in terms of gunplay, I'm either talking to a slightly inexperienced player or a joker.

For your own good, I hope you were joking.

you got no spread and no recoil in quake. how is it more complicated than cod?:>

+ZOOM

Quake features a list of completely different weapons and each serves different one or multiple purposes in combat. CoD features over 20 variations of the same weapon. Player movements in Quake requires you to lead your shots milliseconds or seconds before they land and those mind games just do not exist in Call of Duty. Plus, there is the difficulty added from the jump pads, teleports and Z-axis gameplay. It's rare in CoD that people jumps over you from a second or third floor on a regular basis. The rocket can be used to hit enemies on wall corners before they appear in your screen, the grenade launcher can block paths and be used defensively, the grenade launcher can be bounce on geometry, block paths, etc. And all the weapons I just listed can be used in combo with the others. The Railgun can be used to push back people in mid-air effectively, etc. At the top of that, plasma rifle can be used to climb walls and rocket launcher can be used to rocket jump.

I'm sure I'm missing a few details, but even without recoil, the gunplay of Quake is years ahead of most shooters available out there.

"It's rare in CoD that people jumps over you from a second or third floor on a regular basis."

Not, if you play against me. : D

Lows <333d Quake-stlye massacre and corridor-long strafes ending up in a 270 degree knife in the back. : D

Machine Gun, Shotgun, Lightning Gun, Railgun, those are all hitscan just like the majority of CoD's weapons. They require no leading at all. Call of Duty uses a real world weaponset therefore yes, there is little variation in weapon design compared to Quake. However there are different rates of fire, damage per bullet, bullet damage dropoff distances, clip sizes, reload speeds, recoil degrees/angles, which all differentiate the weapons. Within its own game universe these make each weapon different enough.

CoD has projectile weaponry which requires leading much like the projectile weapons of Quake, but on a smaller scale as they are of far more limited use due to the constraints of "realism".

The RPG or Grenade Launcher in CoD can be used to hit enemies on wall corners before they appear on your screen, the claymores and various other pieces of equipment can block paths and be used defensively. Weapons can shoot explosives which is a form of combination attack.

I agree Quake is the better game, but the reasons you use are awful.

basiclly what vor said, but could you please explain this:

"Player movements in Quake requires you to lead your shots milliseconds or seconds before they land and those mind games just do not exist in Call of Duty."

Sure...
- Rocket Launcher
- Grenade Launcher
- Nailgun
- Plasma Rifle (the hardest)

The rocket launcher and plasma rifle alone, because also of the player movements are more skill intensive than CoD.

mind games with rl. you must be really bad at quake.

you shoot at feet, and you hit. always.

JUST LIKE DAT

plasma rifle? get out!

Bad troll. : D

If you're going to try and make CoD look bad, you could at least do it without resorting to lying or using the console version. You're comparing it to CS, a PC game, your crosshair does not move by itself in CoD when playing on a PC. If there were no skill in CoD I wouldn't be able to annihilate the bad players that play it, I'd be on par with them. Can you explain what a casual element is?

You're clearly biased, either against CoD or for CS. I've played both, and personally, I think both are pretty much trash. However CoD is the far superior franchise because it knows that there's more to getting people interested than just the gameplay.

I don't really like CS, but it's much harder than any CoD, that's for sure.

I'm very surprised that nobody ever mentioned Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow Multiplayer, because that's one of the most intellectual shooter out there ever made, lot of mind games.

Does high skillcap mean, that the better player always wins? If that's the case, then duel with timelimit 15 would have a higher skillcap than duel with timelimit 10, right? Because there are more decisions to be made and in the long run, the better player will win. It's like poker - the better player always wins, it's just a matter of how long you play. From the game you mentioned, probably SC:BW.

it's always about the player and not the game, what's the skillcap of football or basketball ?

The skillgap in most competitive games is usually defined by 2 major universal factors:

- The quality of the execution of each action (dexterity)
- Mind games (intelligence)

CoD requires few dexterity and few almost no mind games.

CS requires a lot of dexterity and a bit of mind games.

Soldier of Fortune 2 isn't as demanding as CS on recoil control, but its simple leaning system makes it one of the hardest games to master at high level play, but it just shows how much depth player movements can add to a game.

Quake Live requires both a lot of dexterity and a decent amount of mind games.

Fighting games are always a bit less demanding than FPS games, but they tend to be a lot more demanding in terms of mind games, well except for the games that are all about juggles - but I'm not getting into this crap.

But basically, your value as a competitive player strongly depends on the games you play and master. If you want to waste your time and stagnate, play CoD.

And obviously, the higher the skillgap, the more likely it is that the best players will win both a match and every encounters.

have any of you actually played the first call of duty?

I don't think anyones played anything but quake.

It's the only one I played and I liked it. I liked Medal of Honor: Allied Assault as well. Both on single-player only though.

Different skillsets and genre >.>

warsow 1v1

Appart from the point that you can't really compare all those games in one ranking because they all require different skills, let's try.


Brood War
Quakeworld 1v1
Quake 4 1v1
Quake Live 1v1
WarCraft 3
StarCraft 2
Counterstrike
Dota 2
League Of Legends
Call Of Duty*

CoD's ranking heavily depends on which one of them you mean CoD4 would be somewhere slightly below CS, BOII wouldn't even deserve to be on this list...

Appart from the point that you can't really compare all those games

i completely agree with you if you stop there :)

100% agreed.

Something like this.

Case closed

hm well as far as I can tell no one has reached a skill cap on any of those games

Don't get hung up on the semantics, you know the idea is about the perceivable skill cap based upon what we've seen.

ITT:

People trying to feel superior by being picky about details even though they agree
(once they realize they could teach instead of being dicks, most cba cause being a dick is apparently more fun)

People implying any discussion about skill caps is trolling
(use it in any discussion to disprove validity of anything -> win discussion. Might work even easier on non-internet people)

People implying that since no skill caps are reached, players create the competition and skill caps are irrelevant
(therefore, the amount of talent, time and effort put into a football players' skills is equivalent to
whatever is put into whatever as long as there is enough competition;
even if in most of the skills in the game, you stop improving after months and not much but a couple of skills is left to differentiate high skill players)

in.every.goddamn.thread.of.this.kind

thank you

Real life is the hardest game of them all. I suck at it.

Ever considered trying to nolife it the way most of us have "nolifed" games? If one spends 10+ hours in life trying to improve on whatever he needs in life, you don't even need talent or anything to farm those archievements.

but that would make him a timelifer

yeah you wouldn't want that

Wouldn't that be terribly boring?

Depends on your ability to challenge yourself and take that challenge seriously.

Farming GTA V driving skills > life driving skills

who am I to argue

Kind of pointless to compare apples to oranges BUT:

Quake>WC3>EVERYTHINGELSE

lol wc3 sc owns

Ok retarded and uninformed posting ends here.

There is no skillcap to any of the games, if there is it so astronomically high that it is unachievable by mere humans so it is pointless to discuss.

I had a discussion with gekko, while I agreed with him on some aspects, we still didn't agree on most of it.

Let's compare some games:

tic-tac-toe, a simple game, if you have half a brain and think a bit you can always draw, there is no way to expand, the game as a laughable skill cap.

8x8 checkers. it's still a simple game, yet it is challenging for most and offers good competition. However, a learned player knows- white starts and wins, calculated and found by brute force.

Chess- still a very simple game, I could write all the relevant rules on 2 pages, yet the game offers such a great complexity, that it has had centuries of strategical development that still does not stop. But from the limited amount of moves and positions it is still believed to be a hard-skillcapped game, but completely astronomically hard to calculate by brute force compared to checkers. Although it might have a skillcap we still regard this the king of all games unrivaled by anything aside from Go.

Now let's get to the list of video games. They have skill caps many of orders of magnitudes above chess. You can always be faster, more precise on the pixel with your movement aiming blah blah blah... Each of those games surpass chess in complexity.

However, the underlying rules as opposed to chess are so convoluted and also in contrast to chess none of them are perfect information games. This means that actually aiming for any kind of skill cap in any of those is impossible. I said chess is simple, but not meaning that it is easy by any means, I just mean that the rule set is small (map size only 64 pixels, very simplistic classes with similar yet distinctive abilities, strong turn based evolution of game). However this simplicity allows us to strive for perfection in chess as it is tangible. While any video game is so much more complex in it's rules (physics engine parameters, weapon stats, unit stats, near infinite amount of interactions between any of them), this makes it very hard to 'solve' the game according to it's rules, but we can just scrape the surface and work with some emergent patterns.

So I hope people for once will stop talking about skill cap, in any of the titles mentioned above there is not a single player who can play the perfect game without making the slightest mistake.

When you make threads like this I guess the point is to discuss which one is the hardest, but there are better more tangible aspects of the game that can be compared and talked about- the learning curve, level of competition, dependency on execution, dependency of strategical/tactical thinking, the size of the skill set necessary to be good e.t.c.....

Ok retarded and uninformed posting ends here.

I'm actually surprised people read posts that start out like this.

pls eduakt befor post, ok?))))))))

I assumed that you were trying to be taken seriously in writing up something so long... Guess not.

Well I am just annoyed that pure fanboyism and elitism clouds people's judgement and all my post was dedicated to how silly discussion and comparison of skill cap is.

Not all of it. The first sentence was about how retarded and uninformed your audience's posts were. Am I to suppose that the rest of the post is nothing like it?

If so, why start out like that? It's juvenile.

It's just what we call a rant in the industry.

Checkers will always be a draw with perfect play. Skillcap is not about playing the perfect game. If you take Rapha for instance, I'm sure he will occasionally hit the wall with a rocket, hence making a mistake that will remove any chance for that game to be perfect. But he still has the potential to never hit the wall with a rocket. If a certain situation arise in a game it doesn't really matter what any player is capable of or not, it's more about what could have been done in theory. How many possibilities can the creative player think of after a certain situation if he theorizes how that could have been done better by him? Besides if i'm drunk and play a really bad game of tic tac toe, that still doesn't make it a complicated game.

I am confused by your post, because you are either adding to it or presenting a counter argument. Either way you are just paraphrasing what I already said.

Skill cap- the amount of skill one can have in a game, for 8x8 checkers and tic-tac-toe we know what the skill cap is very well, because for every move we make we know it is unarguably the best move one can make.

For all the games on the list we do not know the best moves AND skill is not only knowing execution is also skill, so unless we see what happens when players are able to hit near 100% ac curacies when faced with the best dodging etc, we can't even think of what the skill cap might be. There are some who are really good at their selected game, but no one is the best that one can be!

Your rapha and rocket point doesn't really make much sense as it is trivialized too much in my opinion.

Your argument is that we can't talk about a skillcap since it hasn't been reached yet and my argument is that the theoretical skillcap guides the imperfect play

So I hope people for once will stop talking about skill cap, in any of the titles mentioned above there is not a single player who can play the perfect game without making the slightest mistake.

In a 3D shooter game, If i am in a 1on1 confrontation with another player, and that game gives me a lot of options in that fight so I can distinguish myself and come out ahead, that will heavily influence how I will play and think about the game regardless if I am even remotely capable of executing what I need to do in practice. If I know there is nothing for me to do other than pressing strafe and keeping my crosshair on the opponent then that's that and I will stop looking any deeper.

For all the games on the list we do not know the best moves AND skill is not only knowing execution is also skill, so unless we see what happens when players are able to hit near 100% ac curacies when faced with the best dodging etc, we can't even think of what the skill cap might be. There are some who are really good at their selected game, but no one is the best that one can be!

Your rapha and rocket point doesn't really make much sense as it is trivialized too much in my opinion.

My point about Rapha and rocketing the wall is that I think in isolated circumstances players are now able to make perfect plays, so it doesn't matter that it's not stringed perfectly together for a full perfect game for us to understand potential.

I think one of the most important factors in determining the skillcap of a game is if certain individuals are able to rise above the rest of the competition. If there is a game where the top 300 players are basically almost equally skilled and it has become very hard for them to distinguish themselves, that is evidence to me of a low skillcap

But my point was not that we can't talk about it because we haven't yet reached it but more that we only have an intuitive idea of what it actually might be and thus all discussion about skill cap is so hand-wavey.

A trivial example is say you want to jump onto mega on t7, while it was always a risky move and you could take easy damage that way, after the shaft accuracies have grown and strenx has demonstrated that you can 'easily' die with a full stack.

Isolating situations might give you a small glimpse of some aspect of the involved skill cap but putting a whole game together it might change the whole situation. You can have someone time items to 0.00001s nearing to an absolute skill cap in that regard but if you hit crap lg you will die. Or improving your movement on a high level by a small fraction might go unnoticed but just a tiny bit better lg could very often decide victory or defeat.

When you isolate situations like that you also isolate the skills involved in the game and the most of the times it boils down of the right combination of the skills and even that might change with new breakthroughs in the metagame.

So when we compare skill caps we actually compare something that is rather subjective and often pulled out of thin air.

That is why I suggested more objective observables that could be used to compare such games more qualitatively or even quantitatively.

And again your example about the 300 top players can be easily twisted and argued about and not easily agreed upon. 300 players out of how many? How long did it take them to achieve this? How much competitive spirit has been around to inspire progress? Could I possibly make a bot beating the best and demonstrating that within the given rule set one can achieve more?

Out of the 23 CPM players most are rather equally skilled => CPM low skill cap noob mod. Don't think so.

All my bashing about skill cap discussion is that it is not objective and is just an annoying buzzword people like to throw around to describe something being difficult.

Supreme difficulty.

i wanted to be the first to post that
bastard :<

what engine is that

wtf is happen

q3/ql > qw > bw > cs1.6 > q2 > q4 >sc2 > wc3 > d2 > dota2 > lol > cod

Dishonorable Mentions:
SC2 for being insanely mediocre compared to bw, talk about a huge step back. Select Everything, A Move.

Cod - Played the free weekend of bops2. Completely mindless. Great if your IQ is <60.

wow at that video. theatrical retards shouting uninspired insults across the room. seems encouraged too like that's how pros act. if only some quake guys could stomach this game for a tournament cause I would love to see cooller and rapha sit there l like stone cold killers while those mongs drown in their own rage.

arent there several videos of cooler talking syka blyad when hes losing

well yeah there's cooller staring down strenx too and his general dismissive comments but it has a certain intent rather than the moronic range from the vid. quake players obviously have their moments but most pros let their play do the talking.

CPM>QW>Q4>Q3/QL>Q2

how about TF2? more skilled than CS? ;d

imo:
1. CPM
2. QW
3. Q3/QL
4. any Quake
5. maybe UT99 or Painkiller?
6. RTCW/ET/ETQW
7. CS / TF2 (too different games for me)
8. CoD4 Promod / CoD2
9. other CoDs

*didn't play Q2 or Q4... didn't even play other quakes a lot.

btw. I enjoyed more playing CoD4 promod than any CS. Even if its harder.

will not compare fps to other genre, all I know Starcraft is Top1. And its far harder than any moba.