[QUOTE=Raidyr;34443175]What are you on about. All those things were in games prior. CoD was just popular. Are we punishing success now? It's the cancer of gaming because it's popular?[/QUOTE]
I don't remember seeing bloody screens instead of healthbars or the words "return to the battlefield" on the screen before CoD, but even if they weren't the first they at least popularized it. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't be complaining about it right now.
It's not simply their success that I hate. If CoD existed in a vacuum I would have no problem with it. However, it has become pretty obvious that Devs are trying to appeal to CoD gamers instead of making good games, and I'm sick of it.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;34449682]I don't remember seeing bloody screens instead of healthbars or the words "return to the battlefield" on the screen before CoD, but even if they weren't the first they at least popularized it. If it weren't for them, I wouldn't be complaining about it right now.
It's not simply their success that I hate. If CoD existed in a vacuum I would have no problem with it. However, it has become pretty obvious that Devs are trying to appeal to CoD gamers instead of making good games, and I'm sick of it.[/QUOTE]
Blame the devs trying to copy CoD's gameplay to make a quick buck, and not the game that created the formula and has so far brought several million new gamers into the fold. You are hating their success, instead of hating the other developers failure.
No, bullshit. You said CoD brought those things in, when they didn't. Every single one of the things you complain about were done in previous games. You can't pull the "Oh it's popular so that means it contributed the most" card. Stop backpedaling.
MW looks more and more made for money as time goes on, by making itself look "Badass" to a target audience, kind of like hot wheels, or barbies
[QUOTE=J!NX;34455398]MW looks more and more made for money as time goes on, by making itself look "Badass" to a target audience, kind of like hot wheels, or barbies[/QUOTE]
All games are made for money. It's a business. They create content that they hope is engaging enough to create a consumer base for further sequels.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34455356]Blame the devs trying to copy CoD's gameplay to make a quick buck, and not the game that created the formula and has so far brought several million new gamers into the fold. You are hating their success, instead of hating the other developers failure.
No, bullshit. You said CoD brought those things in, when they didn't. Every single one of the things you complain about were done in previous games. You can't pull the "Oh it's popular so that means it contributed the most" card. Stop backpedaling.[/QUOTE]
I'm not backpedaling, I never said CoD introduced those elements, I said it started the trends. It did, indisputably.
Additionally, if you consider CoD to be successful, I question your definition of success. It's not popular for being a good game series, it's popular because it's the Transformers of the gaming world.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;34455598]I'm not backpedaling, I never said CoD introduced those elements, I said it started the trends. It did, indisputably.
Additionally, if you consider CoD to be successful, I question your definition of success. It's not popular for being a good game series, it's popular because it's the Transformers of the gaming world.[/QUOTE]
My definition for success is monetary. It makes the most money, reaches the largest audience, and is therefore successful. How is that in question? That's the most objective way to base success.
Now chill the fuck out and read the rest of my post before you reply. [I][U][B]I'm not saying that automatically makes it a good game. [/B][/U][/I] MW3 is boring as shit and I'll probably never play it again. But it's still a successful game by any objective measure of the word success.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34455676]My definition for success is monetary. It makes the most money, reaches the largest audience, and is therefore successful. How is that in question? That's the most objective way to base success.
Now chill the fuck out and read the rest of my post before you reply. [I][U][B]I'm not saying that automatically makes it a good game. [/B][/U][/I] MW3 is boring as shit and I'll probably never play it again. But it's still a successful game by any objective measure of the word success.[/QUOTE]
So how you get successful doesn't matter at all? I mean, your argument is that we should encourage success in every case, but if "success" is attained through unsavory means than either it's not success or we shouldn't be encouraging it.
For example, if I was to go cheat on the SAT, and we were to figure from an objective standpoint I would be considered successful, but should cheating be encouraged? Either you can't really call it success or it shouldn't be encouraged.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;34455948]So how you get successful doesn't matter at all? I mean, your argument is that we should encourage success in every case, but if "success" is attained through unsavory means than either it's not success or we shouldn't be encouraging it.
For example, if I was to go cheat on the SAT, and we were to figure from an objective standpoint I would be considered successful, but should cheating be encouraged? Either you can't really call it success or it shouldn't be encouraged.[/QUOTE]
Cheating isn't the same as releasing content whose value can be debated. If there's a market there willing to buy it then how unsavory you think it is doesn't matter, it's still successful because the market deems it so.
I can call it success, but it's not my or your place to say how it should be encouraged.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34456278]Cheating isn't the same as releasing content whose value can be debated. If there's a market there willing to buy it then how unsavory you think it is doesn't matter, it's still successful because the market deems it so.
I can call it success, but it's not my or your place to say how it should be encouraged.[/QUOTE]
They may not be the exact same, but that doesn't change my point. In both cases "success" is achieved through questionable means, and no matter how hard you try to ignore it, the fact is it's had a terrible effect on the industry.
If this argument was made under any other context, there would be no debate. There's a market for meth, should we legalize meth?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34455560]All games are made for money. It's a business. They create content that they hope is engaging enough to create a consumer base for further sequels.[/QUOTE]
Obviously, but MW is just so much more for the money it seems, less work.
Most games I see you can tell they really enjoyed making it, MW2/BLOPS/MW3 I didn't see that nearly as much, more what made money, not what they cared for.
With Bethesda/Valve/other games you can tell they like their job because of all the fun little extras rather than "lol badass" features
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34455560]All games are made for money. It's a business. They create content that they hope is engaging enough to create a consumer base for further sequels.[/QUOTE]
Look at Metal Gear Solid, Konami spent a lot of time and effort just to write a story that would pass through 4(6 if you count the first two) games and actually make sense. Konami made an asston of money from the MGS series, while making it a piece of art and literature that is also fun to play.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34456396]Obviously, but MW is just so much more for the money it seems, less work.
Most games I see you can tell they really enjoyed making it, MW2/BLOPS/MW3 I didn't see that nearly as much, more what made money, not what they cared for.
With Bethesda/Valve/other games you can tell they like their job because of all the fun little extras rather than "lol badass" features[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=zombini;34456459]Look at Metal Gear Solid, Konami spent a lot of time and effort just to write a story that would pass through 4(6 if you count the first two) games and actually make sense. Konami made an asston of money from the MGS series, while making it a piece of art and literature that is also fun to play.[/QUOTE]
Implied effort != Value. See the John Carmack interview I posted earlier in this thread. Metal Gear Solid is a great series, and lightyears ahead of any CoD game on my personal scale, but the same value that you love doesn't apply to everyone, and success is still success no matter how much effort you believe went into the production.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;34456394]They may not be the exact same, but that doesn't change my point. In both cases "success" is achieved through questionable means, and no matter how hard you try to ignore it, the fact is it's had a terrible effect on the industry.
If this argument was made under any other context, there would be no debate. There's a market for meth, should we legalize meth?[/QUOTE]
If it's hard a terrible effect on the industry, explain Skyrim, Minecraft, and Portal 2's insane success.
Loving the comparisons though. First CoD is like cheating, then it's like doing meth.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34456800]Implied effort != Value. See the John Carmack interview I posted earlier in this thread. Metal Gear Solid is a great series, and lightyears ahead of any CoD game on my personal scale, but the same value that you love doesn't apply to everyone, and success is still success no matter how much effort you believe went into the production.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
If it's hard a terrible effect on the industry, explain Skyrim, Minecraft, and Portal 2's insane success.
Loving the comparisons though. First CoD is like cheating, then it's like doing meth.[/QUOTE]
you didn't get that, did you?
I think mw1/2 is fun, but when playing the newer ones aside from mw1, you don't see the same quality 1 had, AKA, there just seems to be a lot missing, less meat, but more stuff that would be easy as hell to add and seems to be mostly for money.
[QUOTE=J!NX;34456962]you didn't get that, did you?
I think mw1/2 is fun, but when playing the newer ones aside from mw1, you don't see the same quality 1 had, AKA, there just seems to be a lot missing, less meat, but more stuff that would be easy as hell to add and seems to be mostly for money.[/QUOTE]
Ok, and you can think that, and that's still your opinion.
CoD is still a hugely successful game, and saying that it's the cancer of gaming is not only demonstrably wrong but also incredibly divisive.
If you don't want to support the things CoD does, then don't buy the game. But also don't be That Guy who thinks he knows how much effort game developers put into games and how the market and trends work when you clearly dont.
I just wanted to state that. You can retort if you want to, I don't really care. It's clear this discussion is a waste of time if we are arguing over the definition of the word success, which only has one definition.
In conclusion, CoD is a successful series and the free market decides this, not esoteric definitions of effort, trends, marketing, or any other outside influence. People buy the games because they like them. If they support trends that you don't like, don't buy the game. That's all you can do. Other than raging about it on internet forums because people aren't playing the games you yourself think deserve to be played. But still, like I said, those games do get huge followings.
Just be patient and wait for the next successful FPS series to come out. The one that "never changes" and popularizes "bad trends" and has a community of "13 year olds" and cheesy marketing tactics.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34456800]Implied effort != Value. See the John Carmack interview I posted earlier in this thread. Metal Gear Solid is a great series, and lightyears ahead of any CoD game on my personal scale, but the same value that you love doesn't apply to everyone, and success is still success no matter how much effort you believe went into the production.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
If it's hard a terrible effect on the industry, explain Skyrim, Minecraft, and Portal 2's insane success.
Loving the comparisons though. First CoD is like cheating, then it's like doing meth.[/QUOTE]
First of all, Minecraft is a terrible example. It was an ok idea to begin with, but since then they haven't developed that idea, and the results aren't worth the praise they're given. Secondly, you're totally missing the point. Your argument so far is basically "I don't understand what ethics are" in addition to the occasional ridiculing of my metaphors without comprehending the message they're supposed to get across.
I seriously don't understand why you persist. I've already said I don't have problems with people who actually like that style of game, and you claim to not be one of them. So why are you defending it so vehemently?
Why do people pay for map packs that look like they come from css
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
if i wanted css source maps id just go to fpsbanana
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34457064]Ok, and you can think that, and that's still your opinion.
CoD is still a hugely successful game, and saying that it's the cancer of gaming is not only demonstrably wrong but also incredibly divisive.
If you don't want to support the things CoD does, then don't buy the game. But also don't be That Guy who thinks he knows how much effort game developers put into games and how the market and trends work when you clearly dont.
I just wanted to state that. You can retort if you want to, I don't really care. It's clear this discussion is a waste of time if we are arguing over the definition of the word success, which only has one definition.
In conclusion, CoD is a successful series and the free market decides this, not esoteric definitions of effort, trends, marketing, or any other outside influence. People buy the games because they like them. If they support trends that you don't like, don't buy the game. That's all you can do. Other than raging about it on internet forums because people aren't playing the games you yourself think deserve to be played. But still, like I said, those games do get huge followings.
Just be patient and wait for the next successful FPS series to come out. The one that "never changes" and popularizes "bad trends" and has a community of "13 year olds" and cheesy marketing tactics.[/QUOTE]
rofl wow did you like, not read my post?
"CoD is still a hugely successful game, and saying that it's the cancer of gaming is not only demonstrably wrong but also incredibly divisive."
When the fuck did I say that? are you insane?
"But also don't be That Guy who thinks he knows how much effort game developers put into games and how the market and trends work when you clearly dont. "
i'm sorry but It's pretty clear theres less effort
anyone with a half a brain can figure it out, but don't instantly assume my saying "less effort" means that much.
[QUOTE=Swiket;34448755][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q-jW_Hu7hE[/media][/QUOTE]
Thank you for making me choke on my food no it's okay I didn't want to live anyway
Call of poop
I got nothing against Call of Duty, but this was a pretty bad ad. Even the first promotion they did for Elite (theLEGENDOFKARL or whatever) was better, albeit corny.
Call of Duty had soul before Activision took over and brought it to the console with annual releases and DLC.
i'm hyped bro!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.