Call of Duty is not a game <-- SERIOUS STATEMENT IS SERIOUS -_-

Recommended Videos

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Rewdalf said:
the spawning is better than TF2, random spawning means that there is less chance of someone spawn killing on purpose. and spawning is determined by team movement, you cant tell me that one team spends all their time at one end of the map.

as for the hits, it really does make a difference where the bullet hits (head shot +3, body shot +2, limb shot +1) also the latency makes a huge difference to what the shooter see's and what happens (which is what the killcam will show.)

i dont mean to discredit you, im just telling you the way i see it.
 

Rewdalf

Usually Sacrastic
Jan 6, 2010
769
0
0
Bobic said:
For those of you who think this is tl;dr I'll give you a summary.

'I suck at call of duty, here's my excuses as to why it's not my fault.'
While I don't like to mention it willy-nilly online, I consider myself to be rather good, and while I really don't want to get into the whole K/D and stats things, I've updated the first post in order to deter potential trolls like you from posting hatemail.

As I stated in the edit, you don't have to "suck at call of duty" for the broken mechanics to affect you...
 

Blank Kold

New member
Aug 24, 2010
230
0
0
1) Chance is a thing that exists, this is accepted as fact. The internet lags, also accepted as fact. All games have chance, all online games have lag. So, it's still a game. Past fallacious arguments, a game stating that it is a game makes it a game; no amount of online qq will change that.

2) Fallacy. Your first argument was incorrect on too many points, using it to push a second argument constitutes a straw man. That aside, if the score of a team is based upon the effort of the entire team, which is to say each individual on the team, then each player affects the outcome.
 

weker

New member
May 27, 2009
1,372
0
0
Rewdalf said:
Indeed.
It seems that I have finally found out.
Call of Duty is not a game.
I'm sure some would agree, while others will not.
Let me explain.

I discovered this quite awhile ago, but I've decided to finally post it today.
Anyway, my explaination.
A game is something that one plays for enjoyment. Something you willingly do and have certain control over. Games can be won or lost depending on how you play. Some games are easier than others, and some games are quite hard.
Call of Duty fits some of this criteria, but here are its flaws.

First off, you do not play Call of Duty. Sure, you have control over your virtual self, and you can choose your classes and perks, but you still have minimal control over the game. Call of Duty plays you. The most important aspects of the game, spawning after death, and hit detection, is controlled by the game itself. Most other games control the spawn system and certain aspects of its virtual world as well, but they aren't as intrusive or "broken" as Call of Duty. More than once I've glanced over at my minimap while a team Blackbird was in the air, only to notice that the red arrows weren't limited to one area of the map, but could just as easily respawn behind my team as in one of the less active areas, thus thwarting a more experienced player's attempts at staying out of the open or trying to control his contact with the enemy.
You can't control your contact with the enemy
How much or little you see of the opposing team is controlled by the game itself, giving you less control over the final outcome and your own score.
Hit detection plays a huge role as well. While you aim and fire your weapon accordingly, you still don't have control over what you're doing. The game decides whether or not you're going to get the kill, regardless of which player dishes out more damage. This is true in most FPS games, but their goal is a realistic and/or fair playing field. Obvious connections and other things factor in here, but more than once I've noticed faulty hit detection, and rash decisions in the game engine which preference one player over another in a straight one on one firefight. This is to have less "draws" between players so that only one would die, but most of the time it's the "wrong" person who comes out on top. Killcams display this quite clearly, when you fire a clip into an enemy and receive hit markers for most of your bullets, you assume that your enemy will die, only to find out that you were the one that suffered. On your enemies killcam, the game reveals what actually happened, which was you firing your weapon directly around the enemy, landing one or two hits before spearing your bullet trail miles away from your target. At certain times, I found myself predicting the ending to more than one firefight depending on the games actions around me, regardless of who was at an advantage, who did more damage, and who was closer to death. Arguable accusations, but they are partly true...

2. Your actions don't influence the outcome of the game.
"But they do. If you get enough kills, you win."
While that is true, the above statement regarding the fact that you don't play the game means that you don't decide when you get kills or if you even get them. Hit detection, spawn points, etcetera. You can be a "good player" in Call of Duty, and still receive a crushing defeat. And I'm not talking a minor loss, I mean a massive turn around, sometimes even in the middle of the same game. Many things influence this, and there are arguments on both sides (those who choose to beleive me and those who will not) such as connection issues, other player's skill levels, strategies, classes, perks, killstreaks, and all that. While they do influence this, I'm brought back to spawn points and hit detection. You can start a game doing perfectly fine, with a respectable K/D ratio (just using this as an example) and by the midpoint start to lose it all, even though no one players playstyle has changed throughout the game. This proves that players have minimal control over what happens in the game world. If the game "decides" that you are going to lose, you are going to lose. You will be respawned in front of enemies multiple times, have bullets magically seek you out and kill you, and find that your efforts to kill or even damage your enemies are futile, regardless of how accurate you are.

I beleive I've played long enough to at least be right in some areas. Some of what I wrote I do stand by, while other things I admit may or may not be possible and/or ridiculous.
Regardless, in my books Call of Duty is not a game, because you cannot play it.
Am I still going to "play it"? Yes. I'm just not going to look at it as a game any longer, since I never feel a sense of enjoyment or accomplishment once I've finished a session...
It's a time killer at least, even if it does piss off even the best of us.

Is this a joke? If you want it to be, yes. Otherwise I'm being marginally serious.
In the end though, I'm just another pissed off Call of Duty player among millions.
Call of duty to me is the same level as gambling, as it just fuels negative actions and is highly addictive.
 

Rewdalf

Usually Sacrastic
Jan 6, 2010
769
0
0
viper3 said:
Short version: One overly long acid trip about the metaphysical aspects of a game and our interactions within and then a 'lol jk, but serious' a half rant about how broken the game can get due to uncontrollable circumstances. Amirite?
You've earned some well deserved respect from me.
This is one of the main reasons I make threads.
Among the masses of trolls and people who just aren't too bright, one or two people always understand what I'm talking about...
 

Thaius

New member
Mar 5, 2008
3,862
0
0
What you are saying is that it's a badly-designed game, it would seem. But none of what you are saying means that it is not a game at all. All games, ever, in the history of games, are a set of rules within a scenario pre-determined by the game itself. Your first two arguments are entirely invalid and your final argument does not display Call of Duty's lack of "gameness," it simply means it's badly-balanced. I understand what you are getting at, but your final claim is ridiculous enough to invalidate your point. Your severity is getting the better of you, and I tend to do the same thing, so believe me when I say it makes people less open to what you're saying. Don't exaggerate things.
 

The Epicosity

New member
Mar 19, 2011
165
0
0
You are saying that a lot of games are not games, then. I try to respect your opinion, but it is, again, an opinion.
Maybe the title should be less convincing of you telling us to not think of it as not a game.
 

Rewdalf

Usually Sacrastic
Jan 6, 2010
769
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
Rewdalf said:
the spawning is better than TF2, random spawning means that there is less chance of someone spawn killing on purpose. and spawning is determined by team movement, you cant tell me that one team spends all their time at one end of the map.

as for the hits, it really does make a difference where the bullet hits (head shot +3, body shot +2, limb shot +1) also the latency makes a huge difference to what the shooter see's and what happens (which is what the killcam will show.)

i dont mean to discredit you, im just telling you the way i see it.
Constructive critisizm, this is doing it right.
No, you're not discrediting me.
I've noticed that the spawn systems on CoD sometimes attempt to do this, and sometimes it works.
I'm mainly talking about moments where there is a large gap in the map in which nothing is going on, lets say for instance Jungle in Black Ops, and my team is pushing the other team back.
Instead of their teammates respawning further and further back as we push them, two or three people end up right behind us, while we're all facing the opposite direction. So without having to traverse the entire diameter of the map to reach us and mount a sneak attack, they get kills basically "handed" to them through the faulty spawn system.
TL;DR the game sometimes doesn't make people work for their kills, and someone who is gets a middle finger in their face.
 

Ilikemilkshake

New member
Jun 7, 2010
1,977
0
0
Completely agree, everything you've listed i experiance every time i play the game, i'd actually consider myself good at cod, but i just dont have fun playing.. at least not since cod4 SP
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Rewdalf said:
*IMPORTANT EDIT*
I anticipated the large amount of you coming in here stating that "you're just butthurt because you suck at call of duty."
Well, while I am butthurt about playing a broken game that has a lot of potential, I'm not complaining because I lack the skill to do well.
I just didn't want to include my stats, because then people would accuse me of being a "show-off"...
My current OVERALL K/D is at 1.92, and my weekly K/D (last time I checked) was around 2.41.
These numbers aren't exaggerated, and if you really want to go check, my gamertag is Rewdalf, same as it is here.
You don't have to do bad in Call of Duty to get fucked over by its hit or miss mechanics. In fact, it's even more frustrating, as a "good" player, to have an enjoyable game destroyed because all control over the outcome is taken away from you...
Ok... replace all instances of "butthurt because you suck" with "butthurt about losing rounds when you think you are good". The point pretty much still stands, it can still be said that you are blaming your failures on the game. Whether or not it's entirely true is impossible for me to know, but it still seems that way to me at least.

When I used to play Call Of Duty a while ago, I realised that I wasn't actually very good at defeating people in 1 on 1 straight shootouts, so I changed my tactics. For me personally, my games (in all FPSs now) are all about moving around to positions enemies don't expect me to be, and ensuring I always have the advantage beforehand in any particular fight. This led to my K/D ratio to suddenly start shooting up, and I enjoyed the game a lot more. To say it isn't skill based is simply untrue, since when I changed my tactics (and therefore became more "skilled" at the game), I started doing vastly better. If the game was very luck based this would not be the case.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
I don't think you know what 'game' means. Your homework is to go read up on game theory and send me a 15-page diatribe on it by tomorrow.

Alternatively, play Battlefield (any) for an experience in which actions have positive or negative outcomes within the context of defined rules and as a result of your interactions with others, which my further or hinder your objective as put forth by the rules. Which is fun[footnote]Theoretically, after you figure out how to not get shot and/or finally unlock the fucking medkit.[/footnote].
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
Game = fun, if its not fun then its not a game, get what I mean here?

I agree with you that call of duty plays you, you don't play it. Yeah, thats about it.
 

Rewdalf

Usually Sacrastic
Jan 6, 2010
769
0
0
lunncal said:
Rewdalf said:
*IMPORTANT EDIT*
I anticipated the large amount of you coming in here stating that "you're just butthurt because you suck at call of duty."
Well, while I am butthurt about playing a broken game that has a lot of potential, I'm not complaining because I lack the skill to do well.
I just didn't want to include my stats, because then people would accuse me of being a "show-off"...
My current OVERALL K/D is at 1.92, and my weekly K/D (last time I checked) was around 2.41.
These numbers aren't exaggerated, and if you really want to go check, my gamertag is Rewdalf, same as it is here.
You don't have to do bad in Call of Duty to get fucked over by its hit or miss mechanics. In fact, it's even more frustrating, as a "good" player, to have an enjoyable game destroyed because all control over the outcome is taken away from you...
Ok... replace all instances of "butthurt because you suck" with "butthurt about losing rounds when you think you are good". The point pretty much still stands, it can still be said that you are blaming your failures on the game. Whether or not it's entirely true is impossible for me to know, but it still seems that way to me at least.

When I used to play Call Of Duty a while ago, I realised that I wasn't actually very good at defeating people in 1 on 1 straight shootouts, so I changed my tactics. For me personally, my games (in all FPSs now) are all about moving around to positions enemies don't expect me to be, and ensuring I always have the advantage beforehand in any particular fight. This led to my K/D ratio to suddenly start shooting up, and I enjoyed the game a lot more. To say it isn't skill based is simply untrue, since when I changed my tactics (and therefore became more "skilled" at the game), I started doing vastly better. If the game was very luck based this would not be the case.
I'm "butthurt" because while playing the game "skillfully" offers a momentary fun experience, it can instantly turn around and screw you over because of faulty mechanics and such.
I'm also "butthurt" because this game has a lot of potential, and that's what keeps driving me to play it even though from time-to-time it's impossible (if not very difficult) to turn a bad game around using you "special skill" to change the outcome or score.
In other FPS games, even when you're at your last resort, a skillfull move or crafty desicion can give you a step above the other players, while in Call of Duty, any crafty move I attempt to pull is instantly followed by me being killed by the player I had just downed because the game respawned him two feet away from me...
 

Puzzlenaut

New member
Mar 11, 2011
445
0
0
I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everything, but you're wrong. Its just a fact.

Call of duty is quite clearly a game and your alternative theory of what it is doesn't even necessarily conflict with that in the first place.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
Rewdalf said:
you make a good point about the large map thing, jungle is a gawd awful map, i will totally agree, the amount of times they spawn behind is incredible, and yes there is one side of the map completely unused most of the time.

the thing is, this is probably the only map where it is a problem, (although maybe the snowy satellite one too, just not as bad).

also, this will work both ways, whilst they may spawn behind you, once they gain the central part of jungle (where all the huts are), you will in turn spawn behind them, and therefore they have to repel your flank attacks.

but as you said before, these minor issues wont stop us from playing this addiction :)
 

DEAD34345

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,929
0
0
Rewdalf said:
I'm "butthurt" because while playing the game "skillfully" offers a momentary fun experience, it can instantly turn around and screw you over because of faulty mechanics and such.
I'm also "butthurt" because this game has a lot of potential, and that's what keeps driving me to play it even though from time-to-time it's impossible (if not very difficult) to turn a bad game around using you "special skill" to change the outcome or score.
In other FPS games, even when you're at your last resort, a skillfull move or crafty desicion can give you a step above the other players, while in Call of Duty, any crafty move I attempt to pull is instantly followed by me being killed by the player I had just downed because the game respawned him two feet away from me...
Maybe that's the difference between me and you, dying and losing does not bother me. When I became more skilled than I was I began to win more on average and get a better K/D. You will always sometimes be thwarted by random chance, just like in any game, and I don't think it's any more prevalent in COD. All you can do is increase the probability of succeeding, not guarantee it.

Luckily I don't care when I lose, even when it was down to chance. I guess that is the difference between me and you, but then why even play a multiplayer game if you're going to be upset by losing?

Also, I was quoting you when I said "butthurt", I wasn't the one to bring it up. I used "butthurt" because it was how you phrased what other people were saying about your opinion. There's no need to be sarcastic about my "special skill" either, I'm not good at CoD, and I wasn't trying to imply I was. I originally had a K/D ratio of about 0.80, and since I changed my tactics and became more "skillfull" I moved up to a bit above 1.10. Nothing major, but a definite increase, which shows skill does in fact have an impact.
 

Hamish Durie

New member
Apr 30, 2011
1,210
0
0
considering these games only take about a year or so to make i'm not surprised in the slightest that these flaws haven't been fixed.