[LkMax]

TerminX, on 28 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

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.

And the single player was done by Medal of Honour, years before.
Again, where's the groundbreaking shit?

Mikko, you are making yourself look even more idiot and arrogant.

edited: You know what, screw it. I'm done with this.

[Forge]

Comrade Major, on 28 May 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

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.

^this
and it applies to other popular games that weren't "original" in concept, but are liked by the masses because it combined appealing elements. (i.e. world of warcraft to online RPG games)

[LAW]

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

The single-player campaign was groundbreaking...

Please remind me: which part of Call Of Duty has a "groundbreaking" campaign? The first one? Nothing special about it, comparing it to the RTCW or previous MOHs. I liked the first CoD, moderately liked the second, loved the third (though not as much as MOH). From then CoD wen't only downhill IMO.

Online multiplayer haven't been my favourite part in any game. I play games for good and memorable single campaigns. I have prefered "local" multiplayer in front of the TV, with my pals, pizza and Pepsi

TerminX, on 28 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

I guess I'm an idiot.

So back then, almost ten years ago on AMC I was right Baaad joke, don't be angry

Comrade Major, on 28 May 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

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

YES!!!

[X-Vector]

TerminX, on 28 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

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.

I believe CoD4: Modern Warfare was the game to introduce the unlocking system to the CoD world, two years after it was popularised by Battlefield 2 in 2005.
The main difference I see is where Dice attempted to keep the balance by merely offering extra choices with both benefits and downsides, Infinity Ward went with an upgrade system that encourages (perhaps even demands) grinding and kill whoring.
In other words, it's BF's balanced teamplay (in theory at least) versus MW's disruptive self-centred grind.
Sadly, Dice have since succumbed to the fallacy that popular is better and has apparently tried to outdo IW at their own game with BF3 (turning basic outfittings such as vehicle countermeasures into unlockables is simply insane).

As far as the "game as movie" idea goes, IIRC that was championed by id with Doom 3.
Half-Life may have taken scripted scenes to a new level, but Valve was always keen to keep the player in control; unfortunately that's a minority policy these days.
Can't wait to play another Rebel Assault game, though!

[Kathy]

Hey, maybe we should stop with "scripted" == "as a movie" nonsense?

[Jblade]

Quote

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.

Yeah but COD made it popular (And Mikko, IIRC, was a huge player of Enemy Territory anyway)

Quote

Mikko, you are making yourself look even more idiot and arrogant.

And everybody else railing against him are just juveniley hating what's popular now and don't seem to understand that the classic games are merely 'great' because of nostalgia (And I know 25 is not old but I've played pretty much most of the FPS classics) I love old classic games and I play them mostly, but there's no way I'm under the impression that they're actually objectively superior to what's being released now. Also the hate Call of Duty gets is pretty hilarious, since they're actually pretty fun games and the later ones have a metric TON of gadgets and toys to play with in Multiplayer which -oh boy!- was also part of Duke's appeal when compared to Quake's more streamlined but somewhat drier multiplayer.

[Mikko]

TerminX, on 28 May 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

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.

Wolf: ET had a very steep learning curve due to its unrealistic speed and objective-based gameplay. Moreover, its experience system was far more subtle than that of the CoD franchise, not to mention those ranks and experience points were reset after every three-map multiplayer campaign. So yes, it had some elements that were heavily present in CoD but so what? CoD popularized those elements and was groundbreaking in doing so. Would you argue that Doom wasn't really groundbreaking because it was basically Wolf3D running on a more advanced engine?

Comrade Major, on 28 May 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

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.

And I could list many different objective reasons outlining how Doom was nothing but a simplistic, extremely repetitive shooter.

Quote

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.

Hah hah, I'm sure Carmack, Romero & Co. were seeking to make as much money as possible rather than making an "artistic product".

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

So yes, it had some elements that were heavily present in CoD but so what? CoD popularized those elements and was groundbreaking in doing so.

So CoD was groundbreaking in being not groundbreaking...?

[Mikko]

LAW, on 28 May 2013 - 06:56 AM, said:

Please remind me: which part of Call Of Duty has a "groundbreaking" campaign? The first one? Nothing special about it, comparing it to the RTCW or previous MOHs. I liked the first CoD, moderately liked the second, loved the third (though not as much as MOH). From then CoD wen't only downhill IMO.

Online multiplayer haven't been my favourite part in any game. I play games for good and memorable single campaigns. I have prefered "local" multiplayer in front of the TV, with my pals, pizza and Pepsi

I already explained what was groundbreaking about it. What you (or I) liked is not the issue here.

The multiplayer vs. single-player thing has been an issue since Quake. Some single-player fanatics come off as elitist faggots.

X-Vector, on 28 May 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Sadly, Dice have since succumbed to the fallacy that popular is better and has apparently tried to outdo IW at their own game with BF3 (turning basic outfittings such as vehicle countermeasures into unlockables is simply insane).

I definitely disagree. DICE learned many right lessons from CoD, the vehicle unlock system being one of them.

----

Back to Major's earlier post that I already commented:

Comrade Major, on 28 May 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

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.

The items on your list are not really comparable. Gaga will probably be remembered as a significant artist. Bieber will likely be forgotten unless he maintains his popularity well into his adulthood. Avatar will be considered a groundbreaking scifi film because of its technology, not because of its story, kinda like Independence Day. I don't know what Psy is. Twilight could be a fleeting pop phenomenon that no one remembers ten years from now but I really don't know much about literature.

[TerminX]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

Wolf: ET had a very steep learning curve due to its unrealistic speed and objective-based gameplay. Moreover, its experience system was far more subtle than that of the CoD franchise, not to mention those ranks and experience points were reset after every three-map multiplayer campaign. So yes, it had some elements that were heavily present in CoD but so what? CoD popularized those elements and was groundbreaking in doing so. Would you argue that Doom wasn't really groundbreaking because it was basically Wolf3D running on a more advanced engine?

What? Wolf: ET came out when unrealistic movement speeds were the norm, and the objectives were as simple as those in, say, Counter-Strike (which was certainly popular for years before Wolf: ET). I also wouldn't call the experience system subtle in any way. Ranking up and unlocking all of the upgrades for your class was one of the major gameplay elements, and pretty much required if you wanted to really succeed. CoD did not popularize any of this stuff, it just piggybacked off of ideas that were already popular. CoD itself may have gotten very popular, but it didn't invent or revolutionize any of the aspects that made it that way. The whole reason they were included in CoD is because they were already popular.

And no, I wouldn't argue that Doom "wasn't groundbreaking" because it was "basically Wolf3D running on a more advanced engine." That's silly. Doom was a pivotal, defining moment for the FPS genre... CoD is a collection of game mechanics that other people did first. It's apples and oranges.

[Mikko]

Fox, on 28 May 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

So CoD was groundbreaking in being not groundbreaking...?

Like I said, would you consider Doom not to be groundbreaking because it was essentially a hi-tech Wolf3D?

Avatar wasn't the first 3D movie but it's still considered groundbreaking in that department.

Similarly Half-Life wasn't the first game to have scripted sequences (Q2 had them; hell, even Duke3D had them) but it was still considered grounbreaking in its use of scripted sequences.

Jurassic Park wasn't the first movie with CGI but it sure as hell was groundbreaking.

TerminX, on 28 May 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

What? Wolf: ET came out when unrealistic movement speeds were the norm, and the objectives were as simple as those in, say, Counter-Strike (which was certainly popular for years before Wolf: ET). I also wouldn't call the experience system subtle in any way. Ranking up and unlocking all of the upgrades for your class was one of the major gameplay elements, and pretty much required if you wanted to really succeed. CoD did not popularize any of this stuff, it just piggybacked off of ideas that were already popular. CoD itself may have gotten very popular, but it didn't invent or revolutionize any of the aspects that made it that way. The whole reason they were included in CoD is because they were already popular.

Whether unrealistic movement speeds were the norm or not, it still contributed greatly to the game's steep learning curve. You can join a CoD server and get a few frags even with no skill but it's a lot harder to pull that off in, say, Q3A. And the objectives were about ten times more complex than Counter-Strike's where you could often simply ignore the objective and just kill the opposite team in order to win. And I'm not saying this as a noob: I played the game for at least 300 hours and was nearly always the leading scorer of my team. And yes, the upgrades definitely were subtle in the sense that you had to know what you were doing with each class to appreciate them.

CoD definitely popularized all this. Wolf: ET was limited to a pretty specific group of PC gamers because of the issues I mentioned above (which also kept ET: Quake Wars from becoming popular despite being basically the same game) while CoD reached tens of millions.

Quote

And no, I wouldn't argue that Doom "wasn't groundbreaking" because it was "basically Wolf3D running on a more advanced engine." That's silly. Doom was a pivotal, defining moment for the FPS genre... CoD is a collection of game mechanics that other people did first. It's apples and oranges.

Just as Doom was a collection of game mechanics that Wolf3D did first.

[MusicallyInspired]

Doom did more things than Wolf3D ever did. Like multiple height levels, elevators, outdoor areas with parallaxed skies.

Tell me one thing COD did that was innovative. What did it bring to the table that no other game did? And exactly how did it do what other games already did better? In detail. Explain your answer. Give examples. Show your work.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

We all seem to be approaching this argument from different angles. All I'm really saying is that technologically newer games are not per se better, and frankly there is still a market for games that use - dare I say it - sprite art (see Retro City Rampage).

[Forge]

MusicallyInspired, on 28 May 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Tell me one thing COD did that was innovative. What did it bring to the table that no other game did? And exactly how did it do what other games already did better? In detail. Explain your answer. Give examples. Show your work.

it brought together certain pre-existing game elements and combined them in a way that worked better (or were at least more appealing to the consumer) than its predecessors and made the game very popular (ala world of warcraft - absolutely nothing new or innovative, but well combined elements. never played it, but it must be fun if all those other people like it)

[Fox]

Isn't that more like the opposite of innovative?

[Forge]

how do you figure?
bicycles existed for years. internal combustion engines existed for years. combining them wasn't innovative?
the properties of silicon and their particles (semi-conductor) was know for years. electronic on/off devices were known for years. combining them wasn't innovative?
yeah, it's a video game and the magnitude of the examples don't match the subject, but the principle is the same.

personally i've never played CoD (i've watched it played alot) and i don't care about it one way or the other, but there's a reason besides marketing that made it so popular where others before of a similar nature fell short

[Mikko]

MusicallyInspired, on 28 May 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Doom did more things than Wolf3D ever did. Like multiple height levels, elevators, outdoor areas with parallaxed skies.

Thank you for proving my point right, that Doom was merely Wolf3D with better tech.

Quote

Tell me one thing COD did that was innovative. What did it bring to the table that no other game did? And exactly how did it do what other games already did better? In detail. Explain your answer. Give examples. Show your work.

If you have reading difficulties there's little I can do to help.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Mikko_Sandt, on 28 May 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

The items on your list are not really comparable. Gaga will probably be remembered as a significant artist. Bieber will likely be forgotten unless he maintains his popularity well into his adulthood. Avatar will be considered a groundbreaking scifi film because of its technology, not because of its story, kinda like Independence Day. I don't know what Psy is. Twilight could be a fleeting pop phenomenon that no one remembers ten years from now but I really don't know much about literature.

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).

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.

[leilei]

What COD game are we referring to anyway? Very confusing when there's posts in this thread claims stuff in the original game that isn't, and the forgetting of RTCW's multiplayer and perhaps that multiplayer innovating monster that is Starsiege Tribes.

When CoD came out in 2003, i've had the impression of its multiplayer as "MOHAA with Killcams" and the single-player overemphasized the "you aren't one man!" too much in the marketing. Another thing it did differently than MOHAA was the sound direction - it wasn't "Spielberg soft", guns were actually friggin loud. The only real good innovation I saw was the replaying killcam which helped suggestions of much needed votebans. How can you say that's not innovative? Mikko has a point.

It was a pretty niche franchise until it set foot on the Xbox360 with that sequel. Kinda like what happened to Elder Scrolls since Oblivion on the 360 - you know the rest with what happened to that series. It's not necessarily the fault of the game designer as this thread makes it to be, but of the control of the publisher to keep large investments going by making the companies they own play it safe with repeated game designs annually.

And finally, Psy broke one billion.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

I meant to type billion. Stupid typo for me to make.

[blackharted3]

Forge, on 29 May 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

it brought together certain pre-existing game elements and combined them in a way that worked better

That happened way before COD. Taking pre-existing elements, and mixing them together in a great way was around years before COD. GTA is one example. Zelda is another, and are we forgetting the little known Duke 3D?

So the 1 thing COD supposedly did that innovated didn't happen. Blame Activision. I could go on a long ass rant about how much I hate them and disagree with a certain few posts, but that would be considered trolling.

[Forge]

Duel, on 29 May 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

That happened way before COD. Taking pre-existing elements, and mixing them together in a great way was around years before COD. GTA is one example. Zelda is another, and are we forgetting the little known Duke 3D?

i'm sorry, the TBI i got in Iraq gives me memory lapses. could you quote me where i said CoD was the first or only game to ever combine elements from other games
if you want to paraphrase me to prove a point, that's fine, but don't manipulate it to make it appear i'm implying something that i never said.

it's not the first WWII themed game. it's not the 1st FPS, it's not the first to have computer AI allies, it's not the 1st to have multiplayer online games, it's not the 1st to have missions with multiple objectives, it's not the 1st to let you save and load whenever instead of using checkpoints, it's not the 1st to limit weapons slots, not the 1st to use hit points and healing paks, not the 1st to allow the player to use mounted weapons

i'd have to do research on iron sites (but i doubt it was 1st - there was a wwII user made mod for ghost recon that used them and i think it was out prior to the release of this game), switching from single shot to fully auto, & shellshock, and any other feature that i didn't list

the game took multiple elements from multiple sources, tweaked them, added their own flavor. what they presented was not completely "new". the combinations of the specific elements are what was new.

basically i can take what you say and manipulate to mean that we need to go back to the 70's and find the first game of any given genre and say everything that came after it is a cheap rip off. That's just silly. Why is Duke3D better than Maze War or Spasim? Graphics and environment, size of playing fields, game elements?

i'm not praising the game, i'm not putting it down. it is what it is whether you like it or not.

[xPreatorianx]

LAW, on 15 May 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

xPreatorianx,

By writing this you actually have a good chance of becoming a Pokemon in the near future. Well, the word Pokemon describes a generation of dumb youngsters from the Pokemon era. They are so common as a result of rising imbecility in mass media and popular culture. This is not a globally known sociological term, but it is very popular in Poland.

I just see the facts: nowadays simplified games (with regen health for example) are made for idiots and by idiots. It's a sad truth, which also applies to the movies. Directors make only CGI crap or shitty remakes. No new freakin' ideas.

I have a good chance of becoming a "pokemon" in the near future because I don't agree with your outlandish comments? (I say outlandish because I really don't want to get banned because I said the real word that was on my mind.) So in a nutshell it's your " term" for sheep? Basically... If that's the case, no I won't become a "pokemon." Never will. I've had my own unique opinions/ideas for quite a long time. Likewise I don't buy into the bullshit that exists all around us today. But with that said, it doesn't mean I'm automatically going to agree or believe something someone says just because it may be a bit "smart." Sorry to say but that's basically your post in a nutshell. You act like your smart but really you don't have a clue.

Also yes most games now a days have regenerating health for the sole sake of making it easier for dumbass players. But there's still a lot of amazing features, etc that have been in the last two generations of shooters. More robust MP is just one innovation that has came from the current gen of shooters. Hell even though console games have really mucked up the FPS market they are partly responsible for the innovation in MP. There's been a lot of awesome MP features that have been taken from the console shooters. A lot of the good PC FPS's have come about thanks to developers taking the good aspects from the console shooters, reworking them a bit if need be, and then putting them in the PC shooters.

So while the current gen of consoles have brought a lot of BS to the gaming industry, they have brought quite a few good innovations to the industry.

EDIT: Also just because I have a different opinion than you do, doesn't give you the right to color me with your new fangled term for sheep/idiots/whatever.

EDIT2: But there are quite a few games from this current generation that while they do have some (or in some cases all) aspects of the "dumbed down" part of this generation, they are still damn good games. Crysis 2/3 (while nowhere near as good as Crysis 1 are still damn good games), Bioshock infinite, Far Cry 3, etc. Those are just a few examples of good games that do have some of the crappy aspects of the current generation but are still damn good games overall.

EDIT3: But than again I guess I'm a "pokemon" by default because I own all major consoles. Even though I primarily game on PC and buy my games on PC first if I have a choice. Likewise I actually like this current generation. Again there's still a lot of aspects I don't like, but there's still quite a large library of good/awesome/amazing games on all platforms that I have truly enjoyed. Even if some of the mechanics were stupid as hell because of the idiots they were designed for. The point is, yes this generation is full of retarded aspects in video gaming. But if you look past that, there's quite a lot of games that overall are simply amazing. They most likely have some of the features that are built by retards for retards, but overall their experience is simply breathtaking.

Mikko_Sandt, on 16 May 2013 - 07:14 AM, said:

Well I don't know what you're trying to prove with a list of console games. It's not like the mid-late '90s were golden in terms of console games. If anything console games are better today. (As you know, I didn't care about console games at all in late '90s while you considered them superior to PC games.) Games like Halo & MW may not be so good on the PC but on consoles they sure as hell work better than those awful '90s console ports of PC shooters.

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.

486DX2, on 16 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Oh please. Everyone knows that the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo are pretty much the Rock 'N Sock Connection of retro consoles.

Mikko, is it really your mission if life to be that guy? Why does every opinion you hold have to be different than everyone around you? No one likes that guy.

I would love to hear about how console games are better today. Really. Look, I'm even using italics right now so I sound pompous like you. Sega's first party studios are gone. Nintendo straight up sucks now. Other great studios like Shiny Entertainment, Ocean, Lobotomy, and Treasure either don't exist or barely make anything of value.

LMAO! Well than I guess I'm "that guy." Sorry but if I disagree with something, I'm not going to agree simply because people want "oh ya I agree man!" or the "yes man!" This is a forum. Why would you want everyone to agree with each other?

James, on 28 May 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Yeah but COD made it popular (And Mikko, IIRC, was a huge player of Enemy Territory anyway)

And everybody else railing against him are just juveniley hating what's popular now and don't seem to understand that the classic games are merely 'great' because of nostalgia (And I know 25 is not old but I've played pretty much most of the FPS classics) I love old classic games and I play them mostly, but there's no way I'm under the impression that they're actually objectively superior to what's being released now. Also the hate Call of Duty gets is pretty hilarious, since they're actually pretty fun games and the later ones have a metric TON of gadgets and toys to play with in Multiplayer which -oh boy!- was also part of Duke's appeal when compared to Quake's more streamlined but somewhat drier multiplayer.

God a COD fanboy. Sorry but after COD Modern warfare it went down hill. It's the same damn game repackaged every year but with a few upgrades. Sorry but the hate for COD is justified. It's because we are literally (well I stopped at Black ops) paying for 95% the same game from the previous year. It's almost entirely the same game. What we get now is what boils down to an expansion pack. But we are paying $60 each time for it.

Now the new COD that is coming out for next gen consoles (and of course current/next gen PC's) will hopefully be good. I know they are at least creating a new engine for it. So I may in fact get that one if it differs from the current ones enough. I bought COD MW1 and Black ops. (can't remember if it's 1 or 2. I think it's 1.) That was enough for me considering I basically bought every COD before/after those titles.

[MusicallyInspired]

Mikko_Sandt, on 29 May 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Thank you for proving my point right, that Doom was merely Wolf3D with better tech.

Well, if you want to be like that, all games are basically Pong but with better tech.

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.

[Forge]

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

Well, if you want to be like that, all games are basically Pong but with better tech.

Forge, on 29 May 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

.... we need to go back to the 70's and find the first game of any given genre and say everything that came after it is a cheap rip off. That's just silly.

read the last part of my quote. exaggerating how far one needs to go back to find the source isn't a good out strategy

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

Call of Duty won "Game of the Year" for 2003 from several reviewers. It was the recipient of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences 2004 "Game of the Year" award, defeating games including Command & Conquer: Generals, Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne, Postal², and Rise of Nations. The game also received "Computer Game of the Year" and "Computer First Person Action Game of the Year", and was nominated for "Outstanding Innovation in Computer Gaming", "Outstanding Achievement in Original Music Composition", and "Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design" in the Interactive Achievement Awards.

It was also nominated for "Best Game" at the 2004 Game Developers Choice Awards. While it did not receive that award, it did win Infinity Ward the "Rookie Studio of the Year". Chuck Russom was also presented with the "Excellence in Audio" award for his work on the game
http://en.wikipedia....28video_game%29

money well spent then and alot of it. i wonder if they made a profit after all that

[MusicallyInspired]

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

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. Marketing is that powerful.

Personally, I don't like being told what a great game is. I like judging that for myself. And factually, COD copied everyone else and took the marketing and ran with it. Not only that, they trimmed down the experience to a level of shallowness not ever before reached, while keeping the same (if not more) money rolling in. That's literally it. It's like Apple. They've convinced the world that they have the best operating system on the planet. It doesn't matter if they do or not. They've convinced everybody that they do. And they believe them. Look at the numbers. Apple products have just as many problems as any other product. Yet everybody flocks to them. Brand means nothing to me. Labels mean nothing to me. I've played COD and I think it is a terribly repetitive game. That's what I see beyond the so called awards, reviews, nominations, and ratings. Why do you think the advertising industry is the largest and most lucrative industry? It reaches farther than just mere TV commercials and magazine/poster ads than a lot of people think.

[Rellik]

Funny you should mention Apple, they took the GUI concept from Xerox, smoothed out the rough edges and marketed the hell out of it. Xerox missed the boat because they didn't do software.

As said before COD is likely popular because 1: Accessibility, sure complex game mechanics are diluted but you will have a wider market. 2: Console availability. and finally 3: Marketing.

[LAW]

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

I have a good chance of becoming a "pokemon" in the near future because I don't agree with your outlandish comments?

No, because you have started to write bullshit about Pokemon RPGs and you've missed the point completely. But it was partially my fault, because I haven't used italics or quote.

Quote

You act like your smart but really you don't have a clue

I am not smart, but you are a genius. I cannot express myself too clearly when I use english, but I am not bad, when I use polish

Besides this, I agree with the rest of your post. So you are not, let's say basic pokemon like Charmander, but you are fully evolved, level 3 Chalizard

[Jblade]

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

God a COD fanboy. Sorry but after COD Modern warfare it went down hill. It's the same damn game repackaged every year but with a few upgrades. Sorry but the hate for COD is justified. It's because we are literally (well I stopped at Black ops) paying for 95% the same game from the previous year. It's almost entirely the same game. What we get now is what boils down to an expansion pack. But we are paying $60 each time for it.

haha, grow up. I'm a COD fanboy because I enjoyed the game?

[LAW]

James, on 30 May 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

haha, grow up. I'm a COD fanboy because I enjoyed the game?

You have enjoyed it too much