[Forge]

MusicallyInspired, on 29 May 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your statement. Irony?

so you're saying that's it's not silly to go back to the 1st of every genre, or at least to the previous iteration, and claim everything after it is copied and rehashed ideas, or expanded & improved tech.
that means you agree with Mikko.
i think i see that irony now

MusicallyInspired, on 29 May 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

And of course it was money well spent. Marketing works. And clearly you fell for it. It's ok. If you enjoy the game you enjoy the game.

obviously you've ignored everything i posted up to this point until i quoted you, or you would know whether or not i own the game, let alone ever played it

MusicallyInspired, on 29 May 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

Personally, I don't like being told ....

ah. one of them. "i hate everything popular"

that's fine. you're mind's made up and i'm not trying to change your opinion anyway.

[Fox]

Ingredients

• 1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, plus more for pans
  
• 2 cups all-purpose flour (spooned and leveled), plus more for pans
  
• 1/2 cup unsweetened cocoa powder
  
• 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
  
• 1/2 teaspoon baking soda
  
• 1 teaspoon salt
  
• 1 1/2 cups sugar
  
• 2 large eggs plus 3 large egg yolks
  
• 2 teaspoons pure vanilla extract
  
• 1 cup low-fat buttermilk
  
• Whipped Frosting
  
• Shaved dark chocolate

Directions

• Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Butter and flour two 8-by-2-inch cake pans, tapping out excess flour. In a medium bowl, whisk flour, cocoa powder, baking powder, baking soda, and salt.
  
  
• In a large bowl, using an electric mixer, beat butter and sugar until light and fluffy. With mixer on low, beat in eggs and yolks, one at a time. Beat in vanilla. Alternately beat in flour mixture and buttermilk, beginning and ending with flour mixture; mix just until combined.
  
  
• Divide batter between pans; smooth tops. Bake until cakes pull away from sides of pans, 32 to 35 minutes. Let cool in pans 10 minutes. Run a knife around edges of pans and invert cakes onto a wire rack. Let cool completely.
  
  
• Place one cake, bottom side up, on a cake stand. Tuck strips of parchment paper underneath. Using an offset-spatula or table knife, spread top with Whipped Frosting. Top with remaining cake; frost top, then sides. (Store unfrosted cakes at room temperature up to 1 day. Once frosted, serve within a few hours.)

[PokeThePower]

xPreatorianx, on 29 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Also yes most games now a days have regenerating health for the sole sake of making it easier for dumbass players.

This isn't entirely true. It's actually about looking at the typical play loop even of skilled players and looking at time that is considered frustrating or boring and turns off many otherwise happy players and trimming those parts.

One of the highest on that list is by far: Finding yourself in a situation without enough health and no good save game state to go back to. It's actually a benefit for both the designer and the player in many games. The designer so they don't have to worry about creating obscure but still possible no-win situations, and for the player so they don't have to worry about making a critical poor choice or obsess over save crawling.

The intent (not always succeeded on) is to free up that time for the player to encounter more interesting choices/challenges instead.

[blackharted3]

I was gonna reply to Forge, I don't wanna do that 1 page after the fact so screw it.

Anyway on to what I wanted to say, it's funny how certain COD fanboys defending it and all that stuff, de-railed the thread worse then me in my evil troll days. Now I admit I didn't help, but luckily balance was restored by not talking about it, but moving on to a discussion about regenerating health.

However I know I'm gonna de-rail this thread again, just after its got back on track. Sorry, so please feel free to throw stones at me or something, but I just wanted to give an example of how freaking stupid a COD fanboy can be. I know not all of them are this brain-dead, but you'd be surprised just how many people are like this, I know this because I used to be buddies with this durr brain unfortunately.

Anyway we both adore video games, and about 1 maybe 2 years ago roughly, I was talking about what was gonna come after the 360, and what the next big thing was gonna be. You know the next major innovation of gameplay, and do you know what he said? I really mean this next part he sat there, with an earnest expression, totally straight faced, and said "If I was in charge, the next step would be: add snow levels! and then I'd add more guns to every game!" Yes he said that. While sitting 'round my house insisting on playing damn COD, he genuinely believed that was the way forward. And he's older then me!

God what has this world come to?

[Jblade]

Duel, on 30 May 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Anyway on to what I wanted to say, it's funny how certain COD fanboys defending it and all that stuff, de-railed the thread worse then me in my evil troll days. Now I admit I didn't help, but luckily balance was restored by not talking about it, but moving on to a discussion about regenerating health.

Who are the COD fanboys again? Mikko? He pretty much said he'd take Doom over it anytime. Me? I've made it clear I enjoy them all, because to me they're all video games and who gives a shit when it was made. Forge? He made it pretty clear that he's not even played the games (I think anyway) This argument is more about 'old school' people needlessly shitting on newer games/products because of X/Y/Z - the bottom line is making games is fucking expensive so they need to appeal to a wide audience so the people making them can, you know, eat and keep a roof over their head and their families. Do you think if CoD or Halo didn't exist we would exist in a world where DNF would of been amazing and we'd be up to our arms in games like Blood and Shadow Warrior (Or System Shock, or Deus Ex, or Thief .etc .etcc)

How old is your friend? And how old are you?

[leilei]

Am I also lumped and generalized into this "cod fanboy pokemon shill heretic burn at the stake retro game hater" group just because I appreciated the sound design and the killcam mechanic of the original Call of Duty?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

And why should I be lumped in with a group of people who hates CoD players because they're "cod fanboy pokemon shill heretic burn at the stake retro game haters"? I just prefer retro games, that's it, end of story. I don't claim to have any particular hatred beyond my own personal dislike of modern FPS games.

[blackharted3]

James, on 30 May 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

How old is your friend? And how old are you?

My "friend" who I now hate, is 3 years older than me, and he's over 30. Yes I divulge some personal info now.

Yes Mikko most certainly is a COD fanboy, just look at the reactions when defending it, and I hate to say it, but you you are too, you seem really defensive dude.

leilei said:

Am I also lumped and generalized into this "cod fanboy pokemon shill heretic burn at the stake retro game hater" group just because I appreciated the sound design and the killcam mechanic of the original Call of Duty?

Judging by the negative tone I'd say so. Get those stones ready guys.

Also I notice some of the fanboy's get really touchy when I voice my opinion towards them. It's like they believe COD is the second coming or something, it boggles my mind. It really does.

EDIT 100: This gives me an idea for a thread guys, but I think there's nothing more I can say without getting lynched

[Jblade]

Duel, on 30 May 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Yes Mikko most certainly is a COD fanboy, just look at the reactions when defending it, and I hate to say it, but you you are too, you seem really defensive dude.

I can speak for both of us when I saw neither of us are fanboys, and neither of us are defensive about CoD, of all games. Given some of the vitrol posted in here towards Call of Duty, it's a joke to turn around and call us defensive. The game is enjoyable, but we've had people who don't even want to admit that and think it's a sign of some kind of brain defect.

I'm not defensive about CoD, but I am about myself when some guy I don't even know comes along and is all DUDE YOU'RE TOO DEFENSIVE MAN. Who are you again?

[Flying Techbot]

I liked what I played from the first Call of Duty. The A.I. was better than MoH: Allied Assault, and the work on the Quake III engine was impressive. To think that it was originally done by the guys who did Return to Castle Wolfenstein. I think the first one shoulkd still hold a place in gaming, even if the sequels have devolved, and even if game companies have come to limit themselves only to the design of the latter CoDs.

[MusicallyInspired]

Forge, on 30 May 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

obviously you've ignored everything i posted up to this point until i quoted you, or you would know whether or not i own the game, let alone ever played it

You're right I did not read barely anything. I apologize. I take back what I've said against you personally and the arguments I made that were meant for something you weren't even saying. My main point I still hold to, however. COD was a marketing success nothing more. It was not groundbreaking in any way.

Quote

ah. one of them. "i hate everything popular"

No no I didn't say that. I like the odd new popular game. Skyrim is great for instance. I'm just saying the reality is that popularity is "earned" by those with the biggest wallet not necessarily the most talent in today's industry. COD is one such extremely lucrative example of this. Activision has gone on record to say that they are only interested in IPs that they can milk sequels out of for years and years down the road. They trashed the Guitar Hero franchise because of this. That's their business model. That's what they do. These are facts. COD is an example of the success of this business model. I'm not interested in LCD games. Which COD statistically is.

Wieder, on 30 May 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:

This isn't entirely true. It's actually about looking at the typical play loop even of skilled players and looking at time that is considered frustrating or boring and turns off many otherwise happy players and trimming those parts.

One of the highest on that list is by far: Finding yourself in a situation without enough health and no good save game state to go back to. It's actually a benefit for both the designer and the player in many games. The designer so they don't have to worry about creating obscure but still possible no-win situations, and for the player so they don't have to worry about making a critical poor choice or obsess over save crawling.

The intent (not always succeeded on) is to free up that time for the player to encounter more interesting choices/challenges instead.

See, I don't agree with this 100% of the time, though. They made the same argument for adventure games before they died out (and again after Telltale "revived" them). Removing really difficult puzzles, deaths, dead end situations, etc so that players could focus on the story and feel like they're progressing. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm of the school of thought that if you can't figure out how to beat a game that's your own fault (most of the time, there are some silly exceptionally hard exceptions in some games). Of course, this turns a lot of people off of the game and companies need to make money, so that kills that. Thus, my view is not a popular one amongst most gamers nor game developers who have bills to pay and consumers to appease. It just sucks is all.

[Forge]

never owned Cod, never played CoD, only watched some of my friends and co-workers play it during lunch breaks when i wasn't power napping. Seen both single player and multiplayer. I thought it looked pretty good. If i was interested in buying new games (i stopped buying new games around 2000-1) i probably would have bought it just from watching them play.
The first CoD is the only one i've seen, so any references i've made about it in my previous posts are aimed directly at that, not any expansion paks or follow up games.

i like the old games over the new games. personal preference.
the new machines are far superior to the old machines. take that power and make a 8-bit RPG world 10 times the size of daggerfall and i'd be happy. I want a weeks worth of play, not 12 hours.

[Mikko]

Comrade Major, on 29 May 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Psy was the first to release a music video that broke a million views on YouTube, and in fact has received international acclaim from the bloody United Nations. Popular music is artists like Psy, Ke$ha, Taylor Swift, Lil Wayne, Carla Rae Jensen, etc.. Similar to how CoD and Madden are immediately cited by members of the gaming industry as being the most popular video games ever to date, so too are the music artists that I mentioned.

Your logic when applied to music implies that, because it's popular, that 1. I should like it, and 2. It's better than any other music that can be found. Both of those are completely and utterly refutable (some pop music causes actual physical pain for me when I listen to it).

Both of these are strawman arguments as I have not argued that you should like something simply because that something is popular or that popularity in itself is an objective measure of "goodness".

Quote

So you can go on all day about how CoD is objectively better. Notwithstanding the fact that the "objective" standards you are using are absolute garbage (by what standard is limited player control and ultra-linear level design considered better than not?), I don't really give a shit anyway because CoD is not the kind of game I want to play.

Another strawman argument.

[Mikko]

xPreatorianx, on 29 May 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

Um Halo CE for the PC was absolutely badass. It was the same ol badass Halo but even better on PC. They converted it just like they were supposed to. They even included modding tools. There's been quite a few of really good mods for Halo CE for PC. In fact some of the modders (who were in my clan who made Halo 2 CE) were actually later employed by Bungie and worked on the later Halo's for console. I know because as I said they were in my clan. They were responsible for some of the most played Halo CE mods. Including HALO 2 CE. Unfortunately Bungie decided not to repeat the same thing for Halo 2. Or any other Halo. They still released Halo 2 for PC, but it was nowhere near as good as Halo CE.

The whole Halo series is pretty bad, the first and third parts being downright terrible games.

That being said, they're of course significant games and I don't doubt that people genuinely like them.

[Mikko]

MusicallyInspired, on 29 May 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

And COD didn't make anything popular. COD was made popular because ActiVision paid the money to convince us that it is popular. It's the same with the movie and music industries. You think all those "popular" songs on the radio play all the time because people request it? No way. The record companies pay for that airtime. They also pay for those top 40 charts, hit music countdowns, and awards. It's only actually popular because people actually listened to it and were led to believe that it was the next big thing. Sometimes it doesn't always work either. Record companies will ask a band to make a new single just because they need to make some money, so they churn out a piece of crap and everybody calls them on it. It happens everywhere. Game companies pay for metacritic ratings and reviews. Everything is money and marketing in any way possible to convince consumers that they really need to not just purchase and own, but love and defend their product. COD is the perfect poster child for this type of business model.

Hah hah. So everyone is brainwashed into believing that bullshit products are actually good? I never thought I'd say this to someone other than myself but you've been watching too much South Park.

A Morpheus-like character is explaining to Stan how some evil conspiracy is making people believe that shit is actually good:
-We're the secret society of cynics. Everything looks like shit to you, right? What if I were to tell you that you're seeing the world the way it actually is? The world around us has all completely turned to shit but aliens are putting out a brainwave that keeps most people seeing a false reality.
-Aliens?
-Or robots from the future or whatever. The point is they need to keep everyone in a blissful state of ignorance.
-Yeah everything used to be awesome and cool but now everything has gone shit and nobody knows except us.

See S15E08, Ass Burgers.

[Radar]

Another "strawman argument" from you.

Since it seems to be your favorite thing to do, I'm going to do the same thing and avoid having to make a point by just calling everything you wrote a "strawman argument" (also known as an Aunt Sally in the UK). It seems all one needs to do is call something a "strawman argument", and it's officially wrong and one doesn't even have to supply a rebuttal anymore. Those darn "strawman arguments", wasting our time with trying to avoid being called one.

And good grief, I don't care how worthy you think your "strawman arguments" are. There's no excuse to triple post.

[Jimmy]

Cynicism rules.

[Mikko]

Radar, on 01 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Another "strawman argument" from you.

Whose argument did I misrepresent?

[MusicallyInspired]

I don't watch South Park. If you don't want to believe that marketing is that powerful, well, you don't have to. That's your prerogative. But that's exactly what marketing is; brainwashing.

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 01 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Hah hah. So everyone is brainwashed into believing that bullshit products are actually good?

Well, you are the one who mentioned the "critics".

[Jimmy]

You guys don't know how Mikko thinks. He's all about profit margins, nothing else matters.

[Mikko]

MusicallyInspired, on 01 June 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

I don't watch South Park. If you don't want to believe that marketing is that powerful, well, you don't have to. That's your prerogative. But that's exactly what marketing is; brainwashing.

Stating that people like CoD because of brainwashing and fixed reviews is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. You offered none.

I also never said that marketing is not powerful. I know marketing is powerful, but it's not quite the same as brainwashing. An aggressive marketing campaign could in some situations lead to incredible sales, but if the product turned out to be shit, it'd be extremely hard to repeat. CoD sells in the millions every year with people knowing exactly what they're gonna get.

And damn, maybe you should consider a career in marketing becaus you're basically saying that any firm with tons of money can turn millions into billions simply by brainwashing the public. I mean damn, why didn't Gearbox & the publisher think of that, they could have turned DNF into a billion-dollar revenue stream. They could have bought a few good reviews too.

Fox, on 01 June 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

Well, you are the one who mentioned the "critics".

If you think reviews are fixed, here's your chance to convince me. I remember looking into this a while back when someone claimed that IGN sells good ratings and all I could find were a comment made by an anonymous source about IGN being influenced by publishers and a Wikipedia talk page for the IGN article filled with people making similar accusations with no evidence to back up their claims.

[Lunick]

This seems like a nice thr...



Edit: Fixed the image since you bastards used up my bandwidth.

[MusicallyInspired]

I wouldn't say simply, but yeah.

[Person of Color]

I love this. We're required to have printed sources in a discussion about basic human nature?

I'll never understand this...Okay, so you join a forum. A really good one, with people who share the same interests as you. Instead of thinking "Wow, new friends to make, new alliances to forge" you're browbeating two of the best posters on the site. Again. Because you think you're smarter than they are.

I mean, really? Radar and MusicallyInspired? They're nice as hell, and damn near everything they say is interesting. Of all the people...those two?

Mikko_Sandt, on 01 June 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

See S15E08, Ass Burgers.

Do you own stock in Barilla? Because you're amazing at dropping spaghetti.

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 02 June 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

If you think reviews are fixed, here's your chance to convince me. I remember looking into this a while back when someone claimed that IGN sells good ratings and all I could find were a comment made by an anonymous source about IGN being influenced by publishers and a Wikipedia talk page for the IGN article filled with people making similar accusations with no evidence to back up their claims.

Since you are the one who brought them up, shouldn't you be the one to prove they are reliable?

[Forge]

486DX2, on 02 June 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

I love this. We're required to have printed sources in a discussion about basic human nature?
..., new alliances to forge" ...

do what to me now?

well okay, but keep in mind, i may tickle back

[Jimmy]

Can I play too? I'll tickle anything you want.

[LAW]

MikkoSandt said:

You can never reach a consensus with Mikko Sandt

[leilei]

The whole point of bringing up CoD was the relation with DNF doing currently popular 'influential' elements, anyway. Being condescending (or should i say CoDescending) will not change that.

It's not like DNF could've been less linear than CoD, HL2 or Halo had it came out in 2002 or 1998. CoD was formed from learning the design mistakes with 2015 having developed Medal of Honor Allied Assault before. DNF on the other hand.... yeah.