I suppose it depends on the context and the game. In something like Q3A or Unreal Tournament, I'm sure its a valid complaint. In more objective-based games, camping is a valid strategy and something that good players should work to overcome, not berate.

EX: Take the much played Counterstrike Source map DE_Dust , the CTs must prevent the bombing of site A or B. They are the defense and have to wait for the Terrorists to determine the axis of attack and react accordingly. In other words, the CTs must camp the Bomb Sites to prevent them from being destroyed.

As I typically point out: It's not my job to play the game poorly so you can win.

Lewis is right. It is never a valid complaint. If it's not fun when a player tries to win (cheating aside), then it's a bad game. The player's job is to try to win. The designer's job is to make it fun when the player tries to win. That's the deal. Even if it's a game like Q3A or UT which is designed to be run-and-gun, if camping works and isn't fun, then there's a problem with the design.

Exactly, it's very dependent of designing goals and the planned feeling and flow of the gameplay. One constant about multiplayer games where players fight each other is that "players must find each other to fight!".

The problem with counter strike is not when a player is camping objectively to accomplish his task in the game, but when someone is just hiding himself from get killed... The round time of the game and the bombsites are the mechanism which drives player into finding and fighting each others.

Anyway, it's simply a balance design question. Designer should better balance weapons, maps, teams and so, also strategies.

I agree to a point; hiding and not participating in the game is a failure of design. Camping, at least in the context that I am familiar with it, is normally heard from the Aggressor side when the Defender is executing their strategy more effectively. In using my DE_Dust example, in public servers, T's expect the CT's to just rush the T spawn and complain that the CT's are "camping".

If you want to prevent camping, then the objectives that are to be achieved need to promote movement. A good example would be single flag CTF or something like COD4's Headquarters gameplay where the objective is commonly desired and always in motion.

Whether it is a problem of game design, level design, or merely player frustration, is a contextual issue :)

To be honest, re-spawning breaks the suspension of disbelief to begin with. If you take a game mode with no re-spawning such as Rainbow 6, et al, you see a far different type of gameplay emerge. People are more cautious, deliberate more about their actions, etc. Now THAT is realistic.

On topic, however, if it is a legit strategy, it should be OK and accepted. The same can be said for AI, too. Running away is a perfectly acceptable reaction for a solider... and yet we don't often design/program that into our games. Having enemies that DON'T run away breaks the suspension of disbelief as well, doesn't it?

Heh, well there are a lot of things in shooters that break the "magic circle", remarkably accurate radars/motion detectors, respawns, the number of hits a player can take, even the way the player moves and shoots (believe me when you don't kill someone because they managed to perform some strange hop foot square dance, you wonder what the hell is going on). That aside Camping isn't a broken tactic, but it does annoy players who don't like to play that way, but there's usually enough run and gunners in an average game to mitigate this, and hiding is invaluable as an escape strategy.

But some shooters do allow the game to be played far more realistically, I for instance love playing COD4 in hardcore team death match mode. There's something freaky when your running behind an ally and BAM, he's gone and you have no idea where from. Also you never hear a player complain about camping in that mode, it's kinda considered sensible.

There are a lot of annoying features related to fighting in games, both in shooters, and MMOs, whether fighting with assault rifles or swords. Number of hits required to incapacitate or kill someone, as mentioned, is one that annoys me. I was watching an episode of Band of Brothers on DvD the other night, and it featured some urban combat with the US soldiers taking a French village occupied by the Germans. In one scene, there is a confrontation between a paratrooper carrying a .45 cal pistol and a German with a submachine gun. Before the German can raise his weapon and fire, the GI hits him with one round, center of mass, at close range from the M-1911, and the German drops like a sack of rocks, which is realistic. In just about every WWII game I've played, from BF1942, to Medal of Honor, to Call of Duty, in this same scenario I'd either have to try for a head shot, or 4 or 5 body shots to do the same thing, and my target would be bunny hopping like a frog on a hotplate.

I realize that for game play purposes, one shot insta-kills can be frustrating, but most games go WAY too far the other direction which gives you really bizzare behaviors. Bunny hopping should drain stamina at prodigeous rate, as should running or sprinting. Anyone who has military experience will tell you that if you are packing 60+ lbs of weapon, ammo, body armor, etc, while in full 'battle rattle', idiotic hopping across open ground is not the best technique to use.

It's one thing to throttle back on the realism a bit for game play purposes. It's another thing to get stupid about it, and most pvp fighting game design is pretty stupid. That is the fault of the designer.

I don't think it's fault, I mostly think designers do not try to give the game another feeling. If anyone tried, then it would be easily done. As I said, there are game where things work, CS is one of them, bunning around is asking to be the first one getting killed. The game also gives grenades, flashbangs and wall and armor piercing bullets.

Good point about running away. I remember from many years of playing tabletop D&D how seldom I met anyone whose group *ever* ran away. When I played with such, and suggested we should run away rather than fight some random encounter, there was amazement all around. But they usually went along, and so we were better able to accomplish our main objectives.

Whether camping will make sense is up to the designer, but the designer has to DECIDE that, one way or the other, and make sure it's enjoyable for the target audience of the game.