[Kathy]

MusicallyInspired, on 05 June 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

It's a generic game that takes no risks

I wouldn't call the "No Russian" level in MW2 as "no risk". It was pretty bold.

fuegerstef, on 05 June 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

I once played one of these "games". Oh my god. How boring. I stopped playing that crap after 3 missions or so, BEFORE it could make me angry.But, COD is like Justin Bieber, daily soaps, American Pie movies, etc... The simple minded masses enjoy it. It is easy entertainment.

Enjoying "stupid" entertainment movies aren't exclusive just to simple minded. You can enjoy something like American Pie for what its worth, but being snobbish about it is more stupid.

Quote

I put "entertained" in quotation marks, because I also tried to watch a MIchael Bay movie once. It didn't entertain me at all. As with COD I had to stop it after 20 minutes because my IQ is higher than 45 and I have made my exams, so I am not the target audience.

What your IQ has to do with this?

[MusicallyInspired]

Is that some kind of edgy storytelling risk? Or are you talking about a game mechanic/design? The former is not what I'm talking about at all. Also, if I'm understanding this right, I don't really call that a big risk. Although, I don't really know what you're talking about either as I've never played MW2, only MW1.

[LAW]

James, on 05 June 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

Sorry LAW, but you didn't finish reading my post as at the end of that I said:

I enjoyed the game. That's it. It was an entertaining adventure and a nice diversion from whatever troubles life had at the time I played it. I can't really say much more than that since it's not a thing or a science that can be explained.

James, enjoyable or groundbraking I just want to know what part of CoD it is all about. I really want to try it, if I haven't already (no pun intended).

[Twig]

Cathy, on 05 June 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

I wouldn't call the "No Russian" level in MW2 as "no risk". It was pretty bold.

It really wasn't. Here's an article that explains pretty indepth why it really isnt the bold move the developers (and sadly some fans) think it is.

http://www.rockpaper...out-that-level/

[Forge]

Mikko directly answered that groundbreaking question, but somehow it seems only him and i can see it in its entirety. Other than getting their pee-pee bent out of shape over being called an idiot or saying nobody cares about the single player campaign, the only direct responses were targeted at the popularity paragraph. (completely ignoring the groundbreaking paragraph).
He's mentioned several times that he already answered that question, but people still fail to go back and find his response.
I'm not saying he's right when he questions how smart people are, but parroting the question over and over instead of directly refuting his answer isn't helping any.
(this thread is starting to get redundant and stagnate, it'd be nice if someone would put forth the effort to find what he said and respond directly to it so this thing can progress forward)

[Mikko]

MusicallyInspired, on 05 June 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

I'm not addressing your points anymore, Mikko, because I just don't care to debate it anymore with you.

You never debated me in the first place. You appeared out of the blue, made an outrageous claim and when it was challenged you immediately ran away waving the "I'm not gonna play with you anymore" card. You entered the debate with nothing but silly, cliché prejudices and when they were challenged, you backed off.

The sad part is that on many forums such claims would have been welcomed unchallenged. A circle-jerk would have followed with cynical, idiotic, extremely insecure nerds complementing each other on how smart they are and how everyone outside the group plays the wrong kind of games because they're too stupid to know what they really like. The few who would have sensed something wrong with the claims would have refrained from challenging them because that could have disturbed the harmony of the group or something. So the group would have continued to live in its bubble, safe from the outside world filled with people who play the wrong kind of games and listen to the wrong kind of music.

Quote

At the end of the day, there's nothing I consider truly special about COD. It's a generic game that takes no risks and just doesn't have very interesting gameplay. My biggest gripe with it is that it makes me angry when I play it. Repetitive game mechanics that box you in a corner in an arena, kills you off a dozen times before making it through and killing you off at the next arena. It's just the same thing over and over.

Repetitive game mechanics? That sounds like Wolf3D, Doom, Quake, etc. I mean really, how did the gameplay in any of these games change after the first map? There is in fact a lot more variety in CoD.

[Kathy]

Twig, on 06 June 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

It really wasn't. Here's an article that explains pretty indepth why it really isnt the bold move the developers (and sadly some fans) think it is.http://www.rockpaper...out-that-level/

Thanks for the link. Kieron has a point.

[Mikko]

Twig, on 06 June 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

It really wasn't. Here's an article that explains pretty indepth why it really isnt the bold move the developers (and sadly some fans) think it is.

http://www.rockpaper...out-that-level/

What an idiotic article. The guy takes a tongue-in-cheek plot way too seriously and over-analyzes it.

[Radar]

Yup. Another strawman argument, Twig.

[Kathy]

Mikko_Sandt, on 06 June 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

What an idiotic article. The guy takes a tongue-in-cheek plot way too seriously and over-analyzes it.

CoD4+ had a tongue-in-cheek plot?

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Didn't Tommy Wiseau try to dodge criticism of The Room by later claiming it was a satire, when he initially said it was a drama?

[Jblade]

LAW, on 06 June 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

James, enjoyable or groundbraking I just want to know what part of CoD it is all about. I really want to try it, if I haven't already (no pun intended).

Well...did you enjoy Half-life? It's hard to say because there's quite a bit of difference between even the first MW and the subsequent ones. I've never fully played the first but it's probably the closest to a classic shooter that the series has to offer, since the later ones end up even more heavily scripted. I personally don't mind that but if you're after a slower paced game that you move around at your leisure than stay away since it definitely won't be your cup of tea.

[Person of Color]

Mikko_Sandt, on 06 June 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Repetitive game mechanics? That sounds like Wolf3D, Doom, Quake, etc. I mean really, how did the gameplay in any of these games change after the first map? There is in fact a lot more variety in CoD.

No there isn't.

Exhibit A:



Bonus points to anyone who can name that map off the top of their head without looking it up.

Furthermore:

-CoD is almost entirely comprised of hitscan weapons.

-CoD is almost totally devoid of secrets. No hidden powerups, no secret rooms, no secret levels.

-CoD's multiplayer spawns you at full power, with top shelf weapons, and gives you regen health, which greatly reduces the amount of variety in a match. You don't fight over resources, or health pickups. Additionally, the levels are all variations of a theme. There are no truly unique levels. No CTF-FacingWorlds. No Q3DM17. Just generic plastic crap.

-In addition to that, CoD plays like Quake for Dummies. Watered down, bland, uninspired, and slowed down so it's playable on consoles. It's not a genuine tactical shooter like Counter Strike or Battlefield 3.

-With a good old school FPS map, you only complete the level by collecting keycards. You don't actually beat the level that way because each level contains unique challenges and experiences (Duke3D and Descent are the best examples of this). CoD's gameplay is almost totally static, there might be small challenges here and there, but the variety is in the plot, which is pretty lackluster. It's basically "complete generic challenge A and advance to B."

-There isn't much difference in play styles or required skills in CoD games. Sure, some are a bit different, but it's not like having a UT or Q3 player switch games. They'd get massacred. Even going from UT99 to UT2004 is a challenge. A CoD player can switch to any other generic FPS on the market. They'll adapt within a couple rounds.

There's nothing unique about CoD except the marketing dollars thrown at it. Defending CoD against older FPS games is arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

486DX2, on 06 June 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

Bonus points to anyone who can name that map off the top of their head without looking it up.

DooM, E1M6, Processing Area.

[Tea Monster]

I can't name it specifically without Googling, but its a Doom map. There are a lot of paths through acid. The squares on the right hand side are crossed paths through acid. Either 'J' or 'H' gives you the full map visibility.

[Person of Color]

Comrade Major, on 06 June 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

DooM, E1M6, Processing Area.

Word. *fistbump*

The box maze is kind of a giveaway.

Tea Monster, on 06 June 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

I can't name it specifically without Googling, but its a Doom map. There are a lot of paths through acid. The squares on the right hand side are crossed paths through acid. Either 'J' or 'H' gives you the full map visibility.

Close enough.

[MusicallyInspired]

Fair enough, Mikko. For the record, I never liked Doom or Quake. I still say they were better than COD, though.

[Jblade]

Quote

-CoD is almost totally devoid of secrets. No hidden powerups, no secret rooms, no secret levels.

It's set in the real world, You don't get hidden walls with ammunition and guns stocked up in them unless you're playing in a lunatic's house. There is a time and a place for abstract secrets and areas and if you're playing a FPS with a realistic theme you're not going to find that. If you don't enjoy realistic shooters, which is fine! than why not just say that?

Quote

-CoD's multiplayer spawns you at full power, with top shelf weapons, and gives you regen health, which greatly reduces the amount of variety in a match. You don't fight over resources, or health pickups. Additionally, the levels are all variations of a theme. There are no truly unique levels. No CTF-FacingWorlds. No Q3DM17. Just generic plastic crap.

This is personel preference, not an objective point against the game. It's been the trend to make players doing poorly not get beaten to a bloody pulp by skilled players. If you want that kind of game, there's others out there. It's not a 'fault' against CoD that one of it's multiplayer aims is to shorten the skill gap, it's just part of the game's design. I know that since I'm older and my time is more important, I'm not gonna stick around playing the multiplayer if I get beaten down every single game.

Quote

-With a good old school FPS map, you only complete the level by collecting keycards. You don't actually beat the level that way because each level contains unique challenges and experiences (Duke3D and Descent are the best examples of this). CoD's gameplay is almost totally static, there might be small challenges here and there, but the variety is in the plot, which is pretty lackluster. It's basically "complete generic challenge A and advance to B."

Your point here is very vague and isn't making any sense.

Quote

-There isn't much difference in play styles or required skills in CoD games. Sure, some are a bit different, but it's not like having a UT or Q3 player switch games. They'd get massacred. Even going from UT99 to UT2004 is a challenge. A CoD player can switch to any other generic FPS on the market. They'll adapt within a couple rounds.

This is your preference again, and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't really care if a person needs to sink a hundred hours into a game or one to get good at the multiplayer.

Quote

There's nothing unique about CoD except the marketing dollars thrown at it. Defending CoD against older FPS games is arguing for the sake of arguing.

This is ridiculous because we can say the same for the people who just hate it and refuse to listen to any kind of reason, and go into a frothy rage when people express any kind of enjoyment of it. You're arguing because you hate it and modern shooters and want to try and make it an objective truth that they suck and not just that times have changed and your tastes in video games hasn't (Shit happens, that's part of getting old)

[Inspector Lagomorf]

James, on 06 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

There is a time and a place for abstract secrets and areas and if you're playing a FPS with a realistic theme you're not going to find that.

Because regenerating health is completely realistic.

(Sorry. Too easy.)

[Jblade]

Comrade Major, on 06 June 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

Because regenerating health is completely realistic.

No, that's a fair complaint, although I said realistic theme. Realistically, one shot and you'd either be dead or incapacitated (and then due for months of recovery, from what I've read of bullet-wounds) which while would make for an interest game experience it probably wouldn't be that fun for lots of people.

[Kathy]

James, on 06 June 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

which while would make for an interest game experience it probably wouldn't be that fun for lots of people.

DayZ

[Jblade]

Cathy, on 06 June 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

DayZ

It's an open world game with Zombies in it, and as we all know gamers just fucking love zombies these days which is why we have so many of them (They've become the new WW2/MW shooter basically)

[Forge]

again the degeneration into personal preference instead of how the game impacted the gaming world. going nowhere and spinning wheels

some people love racing games. how much more redundant can you get? tracks may look different, but it's all the same mechanics repeatedly with variations on when one will make a pit stop. Not my cup of tea, but several of them are very well made and are incredibly fun for those who enjoy such things. Just because I don't care for them doesn't mean I'm going to repeatedly spew a bunch of opinionated hot air with no tangible input other than my skewed point of view. And I'm definitely not going to say that the people who like them are idiots, have low I.Q.'s, or just don't know what they like because they were told what to like.

[Mikko]

486DX2, on 06 June 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

No there isn't.

There's a lot more variety in CoD than, say, Doom. Doom is so repetitive that I manage to play only 1/3 or 1/4 of a megawad before I call it quits. It's true that CoD games often degenerate into exhaustive combat setups but it's still a lot less stuck repeating the same formula as Doom.

Quote

-CoD is almost entirely comprised of hitscan weapons.

-CoD is almost totally devoid of secrets. No hidden powerups, no secret rooms, no secret levels.

These are extremely silly points. It's an arcade shooter in a realistic setting. Of course it's not gonna have plasma projectiles and powerups, secret rooms or secret levels. I mean really, what have you been smoking?

Quote

-CoD's multiplayer spawns you at full power, with top shelf weapons, and gives you regen health, which greatly reduces the amount of variety in a match. You don't fight over resources, or health pickups. Additionally, the levels are all variations of a theme. There are no truly unique levels. No CTF-FacingWorlds. No Q3DM17. Just generic plastic crap.

You're once again comparing apples & oranges. I mean really, you're mentioning space maps in this discussion?

And the maps are not generic. Doom is generic. Quake is generic. CoD has significant variation in its maps, both single-player and multiplayer.

Quote

-In addition to that, CoD plays like Quake for Dummies. Watered down, bland, uninspired, and slowed down so it's playable on consoles. It's not a genuine tactical shooter like Counter Strike or Battlefield 3.
...
-There isn't much difference in play styles or required skills in CoD games. Sure, some are a bit different, but it's not like having a UT or Q3 player switch games. They'd get massacred. Even going from UT99 to UT2004 is a challenge. A CoD player can switch to any other generic FPS on the market. They'll adapt within a couple rounds.

Yes, CoD is a lot more accessible.

Quote

-With a good old school FPS map, you only complete the level by collecting keycards. You don't actually beat the level that way because each level contains unique challenges and experiences (Duke3D and Descent are the best examples of this). CoD's gameplay is almost totally static, there might be small challenges here and there, but the variety is in the plot, which is pretty lackluster. It's basically "complete generic challenge A and advance to B."

Oh please. What "unique challenges and experiences"?

Quote

Defending CoD against older FPS games is arguing for the sake of arguing.

And thinking that pickable items, secret rooms and extremely repetitive gameplay mechanics represent the pinnacle of game design is idiotic.

[leilei]

It does make me wonder who here even played the series and are just going by reddit-based generalizations and hearsay for their opinion about CoD while trying to uphold some pretentious rose-tinted glasses to solidify their argument.

I have to admit I did enjoy the Black Ops II free weekend, aka "worst cod ever 5 metascore". Now that I've said that, is there going to be a post about how low my IQ is because I tried a "hated" mainstream game, disregarding the fact of having played FPS games since 1989? Is having an open mind something to chastise here? I don't hate the game but I do hate the publisher, and this isn't a new hate either - Mechwarrior 2 The Clans wasn't what it was and neither is Interstate '82.

Also Killcams.

[Jimmy]

Comrade Major, on 06 June 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Didn't Tommy Wiseau try to dodge criticism of The Room by later claiming it was a satire, when he initially said it was a drama?

Everybody betrayed me! I'm fed up with this world!

[Hank]

486DX2, on 06 June 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

No there isn't.

Exhibit A:

etc ...

you missed some more eloquent hyper critic arguments


The Forge beat me to the rest. My bro loves CoD and I love my bro, enda

[Twig]

Mikko_Sandt, on 06 June 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

What an idiotic article. The guy takes a tongue-in-cheek plot way too seriously and over-analyzes it.

Sigh, it's the same thing I argued against when people said new duke is all that is manly. Just because something is profane, doesn't mean it's instantly profound. You can't just yell: "Titties! Titties! Bazooka! Groovy!" and expect that to be comedy gold. You have to earn the profanity (look at Louis CK standup, he doesnt do profanity for cheap jokes, he always has a point behind it).

And if you can't be half-arsing tin making jokes, then you can't be half-arsing in making a scene about shooting civilians. In COD MW2 it really wasnt anything more then cheap shock, just to generate attention, but did it anything interesting with it? Or did it have any good justification storywise? Nope. The article certainly didn't say no such themes shouldn't be expressed in videogames but when they are done in such a toneflat way then it's rather pointless. And pointlessness is one of the biggest sin in a any narrative creation.

And for your information, Kieron Gillen is a huge Bulletstorm fan, so it's not like he shies away from "naughty" words or tongue-in-cheek plot (although how is killing unarmed civilians tongue-in-cheek, I'll never know), he just want's the stupidity be done in an intelligent purposeful way. And so do I.

[Twig]

Radar, on 06 June 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Yup. Another strawman argument, Twig.

Nice to meet you, mr radar?

Would you be so kind and next time actually explain in which way it is a strawman argument? Or do you use such terms just to attack people without much thought? If that's the case next time go for a jackpot and tell not only that I'm using an strawman but also an ad hominem. That will show me! (and yes, I'm being facetious now, but if you have any criticism, shoot, don't just use those emotional interjections to kill any conversation).

[Radar]

... I was being sarcastic. My response was basically what Mikko said in a nutshell. Given my post on the previous page I thought it was obvious that I was joking since I was talking about "strawman arguments" again. Those darn aunt sally's.