The History Of Killstreaks Explained

When a player of any game gets in their zone it can be almost impossible to stop them from carrying out their each and every desire. Once on a roll, keeping up that momentum becomes the name of the game for that hot player. Traditional sports call this momentum carrying "riding the hot hand," and the concept is no different in video games. In order to simulate the cumulative momentum of getting on a hot-streak, many multiplayer competitive games have introduced killstreaks. These killstreaks give players rewards for playing well and staying on top of their game without any blemishes or mistakes. 

Killstreaks have been around for so long now that they can seem like they have always existed. Practically every shooter on the market has some way of counting kills against deaths and rewards its players accordingly. However, going back into the deeper history of video games reveals that killstreaks are a modern incantation of older player reward structures.

Another incarnation of killstreaks in early video games, Power Ups offered new ways to grant players bonuses for playing well. The rewards for power ups more closely resemble the killstreaks of current games than score multipliers do because they change the mechanical gameplay at its core.

Nowadays, it's a common tradition in basketball to call somebody who has made 3 shots in a row "On Fire." This comes from video game classic "NBA Jam," released in 1993, where players would first "heat up" upon making two shots in a row, and then be "On Fire" after making their third basket. "On Fire" players would dribble a basketball glowing with fire as all types of new moves were unlocked for them — they could make shots from almost anywhere on the court, bypass normal basketball rules and goaltend the rim, and play dirty by shoving other players to the ground. Overall, being "On Fire" meant that the player was nearly unstoppable.

The fun of playing with "On Fire" characters likely gave "NBA Jam" more longevity than any sports game that has ever been released. Video games in the future took notes that giving players special unlockables after achieving good gameplay makes the experience feel special.

A blockbuster hit from 2007, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" changed the gaming industry's integration of tangible rewards forever. A simple system back then, players were able to call in a radar-assisting UAV after securing 3 kills without dying, call in a precision airstrike anywhere on the map after securing 5 kills without dying, and call in an AI-piloted attack helicopter after securing 7 kills without dying. This 3-5-7 set of tangible rewards for slaying the opposing team gave "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" a kind of spice that set it apart from every other shooter on the market. Back in 2007, IGN reviewed "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare," calling it the "new standard" by which military-based shooters are judged.

The multiplayer experience of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" was greatly improved by its use of killstreaks for a number of reasons. First, the arcade-y nature of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" and its fast-paced kill-die-respawn loop was given new meaning because every life counts for their bonuses. While before, a player wouldn't care about dying after securing a few kills, now they would hang on to that life with all they could so that they could secure a killstreak. Second, being able to reign death upon enemies and provide radar support to teammates made "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" more collaborative than prior shooters. The success of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" set the stage for the rest of the storied franchise's releases.

While "Call of Duty: World at War" simply changed up the 3-5-7 killstreak structure of "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare," "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" revolutionized killstreaks once again. Instead of having a preset of 3 killstreaks to chase, "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" gave players the option to choose from 3 out of 15 total killstreaks to play for each match. These ranged from the usual like UAV and Precision Airstrikes, to more powerful and exotic options like a 15-kill EMP that neutralized all electronics for the enemies, or an 11-kill player-piloted chopper gunners and AC-130 call-ins. Of course, for reaching 25 kills without dying, players could call in a Tactical Nuke, immediately winning the game. Reaching 25 kills in a row without dying is a herculean task in these competitive multiplayer lobbies. Reaching that high of a mark almost always came as a result of killstreaks stacking into each other. 

Getting nukes was a badge of honor in "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," and players would get a special wearable emblem for their account upon getting 10 total tactical nukes. The cultural significance of Tactical Nukes is hard to understate. Tactical Nukes completely changed the way "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" was played and remembered, leaving it as an immortal installment in one of the greatest shooter franchises of all time.

The "Call of Duty" franchise popularized tangible rewards for killstreaks, and even deathstreaks, but the "Halo" franchise played their hand in a different fashion. Instead of players receiving tangible rewards for killstreaks in "Halo," the deep-voiced announcer only gives the player a smooth rendition of "Killstreak" and a shiny emblem. The Killstreak emblem, and all emblems in "Halo" games, are worth nothing more than bragging rights.

The exact names of the killstreaks and emblems have changed throughout the years for the "Halo" franchise, but 5 kills in a row has always been a "Killstreak." Getting those announcements and corresponding emblems gives the players no advantages, no vehicles to spawn in to continue their rampaging, and does not incentivize specific playstyles that maximize kill-to-death ratios. However, getting a "Killstreak" in "Halo" is still rewarding — it feels fantastic to hear "Killstreak" or "Triple Kill" over the loudspeakers after making a great play. Perhaps "Halo" shows that recognition of achievement is as powerful as providing tangible rewards for achievement.

Dissecting what killstreaks do in each individual game is fruitful, but what do killstreaks entail on a larger structural level for games and their player bases? For some in Reddit communities, killstreaks represent a system where the rich get richer. When somebody is playing well, is it really necessary to give them more bonuses to continue doing well? 

Opponents of killstreaks, as cited by Redbull, also dislike that killstreaks promote 'camping', an unfun playstyle where players take as little risk as possible to make sure that they are dying as few times a match as possible. Killstreaks are, at their core, an extrapolated version of kill/death ratios, so giving players rewards for maintaining a high kill/death ratio encourages safer gameplay. Playing against or with campers is frustrating — instead of playing for the team, they would rather hide in a random corner and shoot unsuspecting passersby.

On the flip side, proponents of killstreaks argue that without them each life in these games would mean less and less. Without killstreaks accumulating for the other team as a negative result of poor gameplay decisions, how can one be expected to make better decisions over time? Without tangible rewards going to their enemies, wouldn't each player refuse to care about their kill/death ratio? Despite these differences, there is clearly enough space in the industry for games of each type to succeed, as has been shown with the contrasting examples of the "Call of Duty" and "Halo" franchises.

Ever since "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" was released back in 2007, shooter games and multiplayer competitive games have scrambled to keep innovating on ways to give players rewards based on their gameplay. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" introduced deathstreaks, giving players rewards for playing poorly. "League of Legends" introduced a bounty system, giving players a target on their back for playing well. And "Call of Duty: Warzone" cemented the scorestreaks introduced back in "Call of Duty: Black Ops 3", with their cash system.

Going forward, it would be easy to expect that games will stray away from raw slaying as the main source of tangible rewards for gameplay. There is so much more that goes into the overall strategy for shooters and competitive multiplayer games beyond just killing the other players that rewarding slaying alone feels a bit archaic. Flexibility and on-the-fly decision-making based on overall objective scoring seems to be the trend, with games like "Call of Duty: Warzone" leading the way. However, titles like "Halo" have just as easily proven that slaying is exactly what players enjoy doing, and even just shouting them out is enough to be satisfying. This debate between killstreaks and scorestreaks will continue to develop as new games are released.