[Person of Color]

leilei, on 03 June 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

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.

Exactly, it was GeorgieB's weak leadership.

[trustn0!]

leilei, on 03 June 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

CoD was formed from learning the design mistakes

It wasn't formed from any mistakes.
Call of Duty has always been a streamlined affair.

And im sorry, but i outright refuse to acknowledge any series whose basic design encompasses the fact that it cancels regenerating health to halt progression.
The only time where i tolerated this, was Bulletstorm and that was only because it was backed up by a better setting and more interesting weapon mechanics.

[Mikko]

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?

He was not presenting theories about "basic human nature" but silly, unbacked opinions about the power of marketing.

Quote

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?

I don't understand. Do you seriously join forums in order to make friends? I've got enough friends in real life. I'm here to discuss things that interest me, things that I cannot discuss with my real-life friends. You're not gonna come across many Duke3D mappers in real life; there are maybe 3-4 active Duke3D mappers in Finland. Moreover, do you avoid heated subjects with your real-life friends? I sure as hell don't. I argue a lot with my best friends. You probably don't have any real friends if you don't feel the same way.

Fox, on 02 June 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

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

How do you prove that something is reliable? You can only go by reputation and by considering possible conflicts of interest. IGN and other gaming sites make money because people visit those sites. If it were revealed that IGN sells ratings their readership would plummet. And since these sites compete in the same market, each one has an incentive to not only maintain a good reputation but actively scrutinize the reputation of their competitors. Even so, no scandal has broken out, despite what is probably a high degree of employee mobility between competing sites. A former employee with knowledge of behind-the-scenes arrangements between the site and publishers could easily sell his story to a competitor, not only making money in the process but allowing the competitor to capture a large share of the market.

What I don't doubt is that sites sometimes assign reviews to fanboys. This obviously happened with IGN's Black Ops 2 review. You can screw it up the other way around too, for example, by assigning Duke Nukem Forever to a gay reviewer. Of course, the former is better of the two since it better caters to those games' fanbases.

[Radar]

Mikko_Sandt, on 04 June 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

I don't understand. Do you seriously join forums in order to make friends? I've got enough friends in real life. I'm here to discuss things that interest me, things that I cannot discuss with my real-life friends. You're not gonna come across many Duke3D mappers in real life; there are maybe 3-4 active Duke3D mappers in Finland. Moreover, do you avoid heated subjects with your real-life friends? I sure as hell don't. I argue a lot with my best friends. You probably don't have any real friends if you don't feel the same way.

So, by reading your post, I take it:

1) You're here to discuss things that interest you.
2) You're here to discuss things you can't discuss with your "real-life friends" (that saying always makes me laugh. What are we then? "Fake-life" friends? We're real too)
3) You argue with your best friends, something you do here as well.

Sounds like you're looking for friends to me.

[Mikko]

Radar, on 04 June 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

So, by reading your post, I take it:

1) You're here to discuss things that interest you.
2) You're here to discuss things you can't discuss with your "real-life friends" (that saying always makes me laugh. What are we then? "Fake-life" friends? We're real too)
3) You argue with your best friends, something you do here as well.

Sounds like you're looking for friends to me.

I don't know how you managed to draw that friends = people you discuss with equivalence but then again, contrary to what "486DX2" said, I don't remember you ever saying anything smart.

[Radar]

Why would you waste your time discussing things with people you aren't friends with then?

Oh c'mon Mikko. It's ok for even a guy like you to be hunting for friends on a forum.

[DavoX]

Come on Radar... I'm not friends with 80% of this forum but still I'll answer when something is asked or get into a discussion. If it was like you said then no one would make the first post, since you don't know anyone when you join.

[Radar]

Well I guess I have a different definition of "friend" then. To me, everyone here is a pal until proven a jerkface. Meaning, I assume everyone here is an awesome guy who loves to play Duke3D like me until proven otherwise.

With Mikko, it's the opposite. Everyone here is an idiot to him first, until proven a friend. That also has an unfortunate side affect, because no one wants to be friends with someone who thinks they're stupid.

[Forge]

Mikko doesn't have "internet friends" on gaming forums. Not even Gambini. He likes Duke3D, but he doesn't talk strictly Duke3D. He comes across a discussion that interests him and he posts facts or whatever knowledge he has accumulated about the subject. He likes debate. Of course he does go extreme at times with the attitude that if you don't agree then you're an idiot. So what? Most people think it, he's willing to post it. From his point of view, what difference does it make and why should he care. It's not like he's marrying your sister or that he'll ever meet anybody in person from these forums. His friends probably laugh at him as if he's a buffoon when he acts like that to them during their discussions. I know I do. It's hilarious and it seems nobody can come back with a well thought out response to rebuff it and turn it back on him.
hint: he never, ever enters a discussion unarmed, he holds his cards and waits for his "opponent" to make some blatantly opinionated, generalizing, or false statement, then he either calls "strawman" or calls for facts to back it up. He wins. (if there is such a thing as winning an internet fight)

i.e. marketing=brainwashing
good luck backing that one up. subliminal messages not withstanding (and those have been proven to only affect people in a certain state - subliminal messages for potato chips to someone hungry makes them want potato chips. if a person isn't hungry they aren't affected).
marketing=targeting, not brainwashing

[Jimmy]

That's fucktarded. I've met some of my best friends in my life on the internet. 486DX2, quakis, Hendricks266, Stephano Lessa, John (who really should start posting here again), the woman I'm currently in a relationship with, and countless others. Many of them I now know personally to some degree off the internet, even if we live very far from each other.

People are people. I don't care how I meet them. One method is not more legitimate than another.

[Forge]

never said i agree with it, or it's "right". for some people that's just the way it is. you're an entity on the other side of the planet and they can say what they want with no repercussions other than you don't like them. Which is pretty meaningless to them anyway. Probably something to do with narcissism or a lack of empathy.

[Fox]

Mikko_Sandt, on 04 June 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

How do you prove that something is reliable?

So why bring it up? As you can see it would be a mistake to assume that by default people would see them as an trusted authority.

[Forge]

you're supposed to call it a strawman statement
you're doing it wrong

[Fox]

You lost due to Godwin's law.

[Radar]

Calling something a strawman argument in the end isn't entering a discussion well-armed.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Looks like a new entrant has joined the ranks of fundamental topics not be discussed on message forums - politics, religion, the environment, and Call of Duty.

[Tea Monster]

If you have to keep reminding those around that you are smarter than they are, then you probably aren't.

[MusicallyInspired]

Regardless of whether or not you consider people on forums friends or not, it's generally uncool to go into a scenario thinking everyone you don't know is an idiot. I prefer Radar's outlook. It makes you less of an ignorant jerk. That's just good social etiquette. Of course, many people don't believe that exists on the internet. I choose to disagree.

I like to think of everybody as having the potential to be cool until proven otherwise. Actually, most of the time I'll even give those proven a chance as well.

[Forge]

i have an occasional mean streak, but i try to be courteous and respectful for the most part.
my view is kind of morbid, but it works for me.
no one person is better than any other person. some people have brilliant ideas (Einstein), some people make great contributions to society (A. Lincoln), but we all grow old and die just the same.
if my great accomplishment to fame is reviewing duke maps, that's pretty sad and i have no reason to be flaunting around an overblown ego.
my self worth is reflected in my friends and family, not because i think i'm some special gift to the world, other than providing food for the worms when its expired

Mikko and anyone else who believes they're better than everybody make me laugh. In the end they'll take a dirt nap just like the rest of us. They're nothing more than future fertilizer.

[Jblade]

Tea Monster, on 05 June 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

If you have to keep reminding those around that you are smarter than they are, then you probably aren't.

I hope that's addressed to the majority of people in this topic and not just Mikko, because the overwhelming viewpoint of the anti-CoD people has been "lots of people like it so it's stupid and so are they"

[Inspector Lagomorf]

James, on 05 June 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

the overwhelming viewpoint of the anti-CoD people has been "lots of people like it so it's stupid and so are they"

I originally put a picture of a straw man in this post, but I now realize that this is more of a tin man argument.

[Mikko]

Radar, on 04 June 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

Why would you waste your time discussing things with people you aren't friends with then?

If you're being serious, I find that a very odd thing to say.

Radar, on 04 June 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

With Mikko, it's the opposite. Everyone here is an idiot to him first, until proven a friend. That also has an unfortunate side affect, because no one wants to be friends with someone who thinks they're stupid.

I'm pretty sure all of my friends know that I consider myself much smarter than them.

Fox, on 04 June 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

So why bring it up? As you can see it would be a mistake to assume that by default people would see them as an trusted authority.

I brought up game reviews so far as they are a factor (along with sales and influence) in building a game's legacy. You (or was it someone else?) claimed that those reviews cannot be trusted.

MusicallyInspired, on 05 June 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Regardless of whether or not you consider people on forums friends or not, it's generally uncool to go into a scenario thinking everyone you don't know is an idiot. I prefer Radar's outlook. It makes you less of an ignorant jerk. That's just good social etiquette. Of course, many people don't believe that exists on the internet. I choose to disagree.

Considering how you (along with several other individuals) have failed to address my points, instead switching over to this meta-discussion, it's hard for me not to feel superior.

[Jblade]

Comrade Major, on 05 June 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

I originally put a picture of a straw man in this post, but I now realize that this is more of a tin man argument.

There have been several people making exagerated claims, that are very obviously written from an emotional point of view, that popular is equal to being bad. Even you have said earlier in the topic that popularity is strictly inversal to quality (By comparing Call of Duty to Bieber and Psy) which is wrong (For what it's worth I don't enjoy pop culture either, but I don't hold some childish hatred towards it like I've seen people express towards Bieber - surely it's not that hard to just admit it's not aimed at you and you don't understand it's appeal)

[Forge]

i'm so glad i finished my coffee before i read Mikko's post. that's the rhetoric that makes me laugh and happy to have him frequent these forums.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

James, on 05 June 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Even you have said earlier in the topic that popularity is strictly inversal to quality (By comparing Call of Duty to Bieber and Psy) which is wrong (For what it's worth I don't enjoy pop culture either, but I don't hold some childish hatred towards it like I've seen people express towards Bieber - surely it's not that hard to just admit it's not aimed at you and you don't understand it's appeal)

So what I said was:

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.

Which in my opinion sounds nothing like:

Quote

It's popular, therefore it's stupid.

I merely pointed out a correlation as a result of a deliberative action to engage in mass marketing. The blanket argument that you put forward by anti-CoD people is an obvious logical failure (popular things X, Y, and Z are stupid; this thing is popular, therefore it is stupid). In addition, I was following up on a point presented by Mikko in what he believes to be objective indicators of a game's significance:

Quote

-Sales
-Reviews
-Influence on other games

The comparison to the pop culture items I listed, therefore, is based on those items performing exceedingly well on these three points alone, yet within their own medium lacking quality found in other lesser known (or lesser popular) items.

No, I never said CoD was stupid, but I am saying that it is receiving plenty of undue attention in spite of not being all that great when held up to scrutiny.

[Jblade]

Don't focus on the stupid part, the words I used weren't important and we're not in some highly important discussion that we HAVE to use the exact wording and not shorten it down or whatever to 'stupid' instead of 'unexplicably popular' The exact words aren't the same, but my point - that you're arguing that developing with mass appeal will lead to a poor quality product, isn't far from "it's popular so it's stupid/poor quality" in my eyes. I don't know if it's just a language or cultural difference going on here, but it doesn't matter. In anycase, if this makes you angry than I'm sorry for mis-representing your argument.

Quote

No, I never said CoD was stupid, but I am saying that it is receiving plenty of undue attention in spite of not being all that great when held up to scrutiny.

It's very well polished, ran at 60fps on the consoles (which does make a massive difference to the feel of the game) and it brought alot of the innovations that we as PC gamers are used to (as Mikko already stated earlier, as well as the ultra-scripted SP) to the console market. It's significant for that reason, if not that reason alone. I'm not claiming about how 'good' the game is, just trying to explain why it is as popular as it is.

[LAW]

Forge, on 04 June 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Mikko doesn't have "internet friends" on gaming forums.

Mikko! Why? I thought that we are ;-/

James, on 05 June 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

It's very well polished, ran at 60fps on the consoles (which does make a massive difference to the feel of the game) and it brought alot of the innovations that we as PC gamers are used to (as Mikko already stated earlier, as well as the ultra-scripted SP) to the console market. It's significant for that reason, if not that reason alone. I'm not claiming about how 'good' the game is, just trying to explain why it is as popular as it is.

Please which part of CoD is that good? Maybe I have missed it? I thought you are talking about the first part, or at least the first trilogy.

[Jblade]

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

Quote

I'm not claiming about how 'good' the game is, just trying to explain why it is as popular as it is.

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.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm not addressing your points anymore, Mikko, because I just don't care to debate it anymore with you. You can call that convenient if you want but I don't care enough to argue it. I will admit that I don't have as many facts so much as an outlook based on experience and information from what I consider valuable sources. But you can go ahead and feel superior to me if that does it for you. I don't mind. I'm not insecure about anything.

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. I feel like I don't need skill to play it because I can never ever fail, what with regenerating health and the infinite retries via checkpoints, but yet its difficult enough to kill you a million times over at the same spot and make you incredibly mad. I don't enjoy it. I guess I just prefer a different kind of gameplay to (what I consider) repetitive garbage.

Cheers everybody.

[----]

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

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.

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. You don't need skill, or wit or reaction or aim. You don't even need dedication, or so. All is presented in the easiest way possible.
You can sit back hit a few buttons on your controller and feel as if you have achieved anything, although you did nothing in these 4 hours. It is nothing more like a longer Michael Bay movie. It looks sepctacular, but all you have to do is press a few buttons on your remote control to pause and resume the movie after you went to the toilet or got a fresh beer. Same amount of skill required (next to none), same amount of intelligence required (next to none) and be "entertained"* by polished graphics and explosions.


*) 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.