[blackharted3]

Wieder, I wish you were employed in a very important game publisher/developer and were very high in the food chain.

Thanks for the in-sight.

EDIT: Xbox One can just go away for all I care.

[Forge]

toss out all the extended cutscenes, scale back on the graphics, add more gameplay, and make the game's world bigger. The industry has set some standard that the play length of games shouldn't exceed a certain amount of hours (averaging somewhere around 8 to 15). And it seems all those cut-scenes "cut" into the game and make them shorter.
i don't know the reliability of these references, but i tend to agree with them more than less

http://www.cinemable...ength-6691.html
http://arstechnica.c...odern-industry/

Give me good 8-bit graphics and a huge immersive game over a standard rehashed recent release with all its bells and whistles. and keep the cut-scenes short and sweet ala starcraft (first one)

[LAW]

Mikko_Sandt, on 21 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

From what I can remember, those games received ratings in the 60-80 range. If you think they were somehow more remarkable than, say, the latest CoD or Halo, then you're not being objective. I mean c'mon, Disruptor is almost the definition of unremarkable with its narrow corridors and Doom-like gameplay.

From what I can remeber they were in the 70-80% range. Disruptor had open spaces and by comparing it to Doom, you actually reminded me why I like it (while typing this I am wearing Doom t-shirt ) And these games at least let me explore and do everything myself unlike most of COD games.

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 21 May 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

From what I can remember, those games received ratings in the 60-80 range. If you think they were somehow more remarkable than, say, the latest CoD or Halo, then you're not being objective. I mean c'mon, Disruptor is almost the definition of unremarkable with its narrow corridors and Doom-like gameplay.

What if I simply don't go by the ratings from sites like IGN and similars?

[Mikko]

Fox, on 26 May 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

What if I simply don't go by the ratings from sites like IGN and similars?

Okay, the point being? I didn't say I doubt LAW loves these games as much as he says he does. I don't have a problem with that. But like it or not, Call of Duty was a groundbreaking game just as Doom was and it will go down in gaming history as such and kids today are not wrong to like it over Doom. Reviews such as those on IGN are a good measure of the spirit of the times, not what some cynical asshole says on a forum dedicated to a 17-year old game.

LAW, on 26 May 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

From what I can remeber they were in the 70-80% range. Disruptor had open spaces and by comparing it to Doom, you actually reminded me why I like it (while typing this I am wearing Doom t-shirt ) And these games at least let me explore and do everything myself unlike most of COD games.

If there's one great thing about life it's that things change. I wouldn't want to be playing Doom clones still in 2013.

[LkMax]

On the other hand you are playing COD clones since 2003.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

kids today are not wrong to like it over Doom.

Yes they are.

And Doom can still be innovated upon without becoming exactly like a COD clone. Just look at Brutal Doom for God's sakes.

[Mikko]

LkMax, on 27 May 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

On the other hand you are playing COD clones since 2003.

Yes, the big game of any given era is gonna be imitated. In the '90s you had Chasm, Strife, etc., i.e., historically irrelevant games, kinda like today's Homefront or Medal of Honor.

Comrade Major, on 27 May 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

Yes they are.

And Doom can still be innovated upon without becoming exactly like a COD clone. Just look at Brutal Doom for God's sakes.

Uh, Brutal Doom is just a modding curiosity, nothing more remarkable than that.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

You call it a curiosity, I call it innovation. I guess we'll just fundamentally disagree all day.

[Mikko]

Uh, we're talking about a gore mod. It's not innovation, it's merely doing a bit better what's been done to death already. You play it for five minutes and it gets dull.

[TerminX]

Eh, I would say Brutal Doom is considerably more than a gore mod. That's like saying Duke Plus is a gore mod just because one of the features is improved gore.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Uh

You can stop being a condescending prick by adding "uh" to the beginning of every sentence, just because an opinion is entirely different from yours in a way that you perceive it as being outlandish.

Also, TerminX is right on the money. There's obviously more to the mod than just added gore, though it's certainly an added bonus.

[Jblade]

Brutal Doom's not an innovation...what does it innovate? I enjoy it every now and then but apart from speeding things up even more I don't really consider it an innovative mod. The biggest problem I have with it, is that it's so popular that it stifles conversation about other mods/games. In other forums I've gone to I see a classic games thread and most of the talk is about Brutal Doom. I know people talk about what they want, but still.

[Mikko]

Comrade Major, on 27 May 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

Also, TerminX is right on the money. There's obviously more to the mod than just added gore, though it's certainly an added bonus.

So it's an enhanced gore mod, and the novelty wears off in about five minutes.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

I guess we'll simply agree to disagree then, because the mod got me to replay all 4 episodes of the original DooM as well as DooM 2.

[Minigunner]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

So it's an enhanced gore mod, and the novelty wears off in about five minutes.

That's exactly my thoughts. It did have other things going for it, but version after version, it's being Flanderized back into a glorified gore mod.

[LkMax]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

But like it or not, Call of Duty was a groundbreaking game just as Doom

I didn't noticed that part. How exactely is COD groundbreaking again? High number of sold copies != groundbreaking.

Quote

Yes, the big game of any given era is gonna be imitated. In the '90s you had Chasm, Strife, etc., i.e., historically irrelevant games, kinda like today's Homefront or Medal of Honor.

Which shows how things haven't changed that much, but instead of using a decent game as inspiration AAA devs are using a mediocre interactive movie as reference.
PS: Strife was more than a simple Doom clone.

[blackharted3]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

But like it or not, Call of Duty was a groundbreaking game just as Doom.

WHOA! Please tell me I didn't just read that. Please. I really wanna believe this is a bad dream, because that comment is making me want to do something I really don't wanna do, and that's troll my ass off at that post, and launch in a profanity filled rant about it. I'm warning you, if that happens I'll end typing a long boring story, de-rail this topic further that ever, and argue endlessly about that comment.

I really don't wish to do that, so I'm just gonna respect your opinion. I promised you guys no more trolling, and I'm gonna stick to it, but I beg you not to reply to this post Mikko, because Blackharted is begging to be unleashed. D'you know how hard it is to keep that bastard troll locked up?

[Mikko]

Duel, on 27 May 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

WHOA! Please tell me I didn't just read that. Please. I really wanna believe this is a bad dream, because that comment is making me want to do something I really don't wanna do, and that's troll my ass off at that post, and launch in a profanity filled rant about it. I'm warning you, if that happens I'll end typing a long boring story, de-rail this topic further that ever, and argue endlessly about that comment.

I really don't wish to do that, so I'm just gonna respect your opinion. I promised you guys no more trolling, and I'm gonna stick to it, but I beg you not to reply to this post Mikko, because Blackharted is begging to be unleashed. D'you know how hard it is to keep that bastard troll locked up?

You're Blackharted? You should have said so in the first place because I had him killfiled a long time ago.

So... *plonk*

[Forge]

Mikko_Sandt, on 27 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

But like it or not, Call of Duty was a groundbreaking game just as Doom was

don't know anything about CoD, but adding the cheese wedges to mousetrap in the early 70s was pretty innovative. I loved that game as a kid

[blackharted3]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 01:31 AM, said:

You're Blackharted?

Yes.

I have said this a few times, as have other people when I first came back, so...........yeah there ya go.

[Mikko]

LkMax, on 27 May 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

I didn't noticed that part. How exactely is COD groundbreaking again? High number of sold copies != groundbreaking.

The single-player campaign was groundbreaking in how it brought games closer to movies in terms of experience. The multiplayer mode was groundbreaking in how it constantly rewarded the player with unlocks, ranks, points, killstreak rewards, etc., resulting in a very addictive experience. This is a fact whether you like it or not. If you disagree, you're an idiot.

The novelty has of course worn off and people are getting tired of playing the same thing. This is exactly what happened with Doom clones, paving the way for Half-Life, the first shooter to heavily rely on scripted (movie-like) events. (HL also completely removed key cards and secret stashes.)

Quote

Which shows how things haven't changed that much, but instead of using a decent game as inspiration AAA devs are using a mediocre interactive movie as reference.
PS: Strife was more than a simple Doom clone.

That's your opinion, not an objective fact. The fact is that Call of Duty is extremely popular both in terms of sales and critical reception. While it might annoy you, history will not be written by cynical assholes inhabiting a retro-game forum. Call of Duty is no more "mediocre" today than Doom was "mediocre" back in the days. (And I'm saying this as a person who'd take Doom's single-player over, say, the first MW's single-player any day.)

[Jblade]

It's exactly as Mikko says it. CoD pretty much made the whole rank-up thing what it is today; and for better or worse it massively changed how multiplayer games are. It's very rare that you'd find a multiplayer game that didn't feature either unlocks or at least a rank-up system nowadays. I've seen some people go mad and start frothing at the mouth, but CoD in itself is not a bad game or even responsible for how the FPS market is how it is now (people buy what they want, and people want games like it - being bitter about it and acting elitist doesn't change anything)

[Micky C]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

That's your opinion, not an objective fact. The fact is that Call of Duty is extremely popular both in terms of sales and critical reception. While it might annoy you, history will not be written by cynical assholes inhabiting a retro-game forum. Call of Duty is no more "mediocre" today than Doom was "mediocre" back in the days. (And I'm saying this as a person who'd take Doom's single-player over, say, the first MW's single-player any day.)

But the user ratings for the cod games in places like metacritic is horrible. Even DNF did better.

[Mikko]

Lunick Prime, on 28 May 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

But the user ratings for the cod games in places like metacritic is horrible. Even DNF did better.

Yes, this is known as self-selection bias. Those ratings were not randomly drawn from the CoD-playing population.

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

That's your opinion, not an objective fact. The fact is that Call of Duty is extremely popular both in terms of sales and critical reception. While it might annoy you, history will not be written by cynical assholes inhabiting a retro-game forum. Call of Duty is no more "mediocre" today than Doom was "mediocre" back in the days. (And I'm saying this as a person who'd take Doom's single-player over, say, the first MW's single-player any day.)

Going by that logic all politics ever elected are extremely good, since being popular is a requirement to get the job.

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

The single-player campaign was groundbreaking in how it brought games closer to movies in terms of experience. The multiplayer mode was groundbreaking in how it constantly rewarded the player with unlocks, ranks, points, killstreak rewards, etc., resulting in a very addictive experience. This is a fact whether you like it or not. If you disagree, you're an idiot.

You do realize nobody cares about the campaign, right? That's a scientific fact.

[Forge]

there will always be haters and varying opinions

what CoD did for FPS is the same as when people stopping using the horse and buggy as a primary source of transportation and started using cars.
riding around in a vehicle was not a brand new concept, but it took it to a new level. there were car haters, but there's no denying what cars did for transportation. even people who ride around in cars still enjoy a nice horse and buggy ride once in awhile.

-adding cheese wedges to mousetrap-

[Mikko]

Fox, on 28 May 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Going by that logic all politics ever elected are extremely good, since being popular is a requirement to get the job.

I never said being popular means being "extremely good".

The way I see it, there are three indicators of a game's significance:
-Sales
-Reviews
-Influence on other games

CoD does well on all of these as did Doom.

Quote

You do realize nobody cares about the campaign, right? That's a scientific fact.

The multiplayer mode is obviously more significant. So?

[TerminX]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

The multiplayer mode was groundbreaking in how it constantly rewarded the player with unlocks, ranks, points, killstreak rewards, etc., resulting in a very addictive experience. This is a fact whether you like it or not. If you disagree, you're an idiot.

Sounds like you're describing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, which predates even the first Call of Duty by half a year. I guess I'm an idiot.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

So basically what you're saying is that Call Of Duty is to video games what Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Psy are to music; what Avatar was to movies; what Twilight was to literature; and what Rush Limbaugh is to talk radio - that basically no matter how much we may vilify them, we're in the minority because they're popular in their medium, and paved the way for what was to follow.

Okay, I'll give you that.

But just like one can explain how Vivaldi was a far more elaborate composer than whoever wrote Justin Bieber's music, I can list many different objective reasons outlining how Call Of Duty actually lacks sophistication in comparison to the FPS'es that came before it. As soon as the focus of development shifts to appealing to as many people as possible, rather than developing an artistic product or filling a niche, the popularity of the item and the actual quality become inversely proportional.

"Okay," you say, "but DooM appealed to a lot of people as well, right? So in that sense it was the same as Call Of Duty is now." Sure, and so did Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Half-Life, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2: games that came out after DooM, but I still hold to being a higher quality than CoD. There's just something - I don't know - sincere about those games. Like effort was put into making an actual work of art rather than as a marketing strategy for maximizing profit.

I will state that when I want to play a video game, I want to play a video game, not watch a movie.