CoD is a very good game, we wouldn't be discussing it if it wasn't.
- Thread starter ToastiestZombie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That one hasn't dropped into my subbox yet...ToastiestZombie said:
AWESOME, thanks dude I'll be checking that one.
CoD is a popular game, we would be less likely to be discussing it if it wasn't.
If you think your title is somehow "proof" of it being good then... I dunno, pay better attention in History lessons when they teach you to use evidence to support arguments.
If you think your title is somehow "proof" of it being good then... I dunno, pay better attention in History lessons when they teach you to use evidence to support arguments.
I think that there are a few big reasons why people hate CoD, or at least say they do.
1. A lot of retards gather to play CoD. Sure, normal people play it to but the ones that stand out are the insane ones, not the normal ones. It's the same thing with anime. A lot of normal people like it, but the psychotic super fans are the ones that you think of when you think of anime, not the normal people who watch in moderation.
2. From all the CoD footage that I've seen on YT and from playing it occasionally with my friends even though I don't really play FPS games, they don't really seem to change much. I don't think that there is that significant of an amount of innovation that can even be done with this kind of game. It already looks and seems as real as it could get. The graphics are usually superb and the core game play doesn't seem to have much room for improvement. And story?
I don't think that story really matters that much in a game like this, not to say that it is non-existent. All the improvement that I can foresee would be enhancing the controls with the creation of new and improved consoles. These things sound good(and for the most part, they are), but when you start making a new one like every 6 months to a year, what exactly are they improving on?
3. Back to the CoDtards, they always make fun and look down on other games and assume that CoD is the best game in the world and if your not playing it, then you may as well be dead. They act like all other games are so stupid and a lot of them aren't even able to understand or play these games which leads to a completely unfounded hatred for them and when they go onto a game play video for one of these games and just spout BS, it pisses people off and then they take it out on CoD by asserting the dominance of their own genre. Yes, there are people on the other side who are just as retarded as the CoDtards, but since CoD games are so popular, they also get the gist of the attention and hatred by whoever cares enough to offer an opinion of the game.
Edit: There are plenty of bad things that are highly discussed. Let us not forget Rebecca Black. And controversial things that recieve a lot of discussion. You said that it recieves a lot of discussion because it is such a good game, but from the way you speak of the issue in this thread, it is safe to assume that you are contradicting yourself. If all of the discussion was because it was such a good game, then you wouldn't have any need to make a thread like this. Because the game is under fire around the web, you felt the need to step in and defend it. Obviously everyone isn't talking about it because it's such a good game if people feel there is so much negative response to the game that people make defensive threads like this one.
1. A lot of retards gather to play CoD. Sure, normal people play it to but the ones that stand out are the insane ones, not the normal ones. It's the same thing with anime. A lot of normal people like it, but the psychotic super fans are the ones that you think of when you think of anime, not the normal people who watch in moderation.
2. From all the CoD footage that I've seen on YT and from playing it occasionally with my friends even though I don't really play FPS games, they don't really seem to change much. I don't think that there is that significant of an amount of innovation that can even be done with this kind of game. It already looks and seems as real as it could get. The graphics are usually superb and the core game play doesn't seem to have much room for improvement. And story?
I don't think that story really matters that much in a game like this, not to say that it is non-existent. All the improvement that I can foresee would be enhancing the controls with the creation of new and improved consoles. These things sound good(and for the most part, they are), but when you start making a new one like every 6 months to a year, what exactly are they improving on?
3. Back to the CoDtards, they always make fun and look down on other games and assume that CoD is the best game in the world and if your not playing it, then you may as well be dead. They act like all other games are so stupid and a lot of them aren't even able to understand or play these games which leads to a completely unfounded hatred for them and when they go onto a game play video for one of these games and just spout BS, it pisses people off and then they take it out on CoD by asserting the dominance of their own genre. Yes, there are people on the other side who are just as retarded as the CoDtards, but since CoD games are so popular, they also get the gist of the attention and hatred by whoever cares enough to offer an opinion of the game.
Edit: There are plenty of bad things that are highly discussed. Let us not forget Rebecca Black. And controversial things that recieve a lot of discussion. You said that it recieves a lot of discussion because it is such a good game, but from the way you speak of the issue in this thread, it is safe to assume that you are contradicting yourself. If all of the discussion was because it was such a good game, then you wouldn't have any need to make a thread like this. Because the game is under fire around the web, you felt the need to step in and defend it. Obviously everyone isn't talking about it because it's such a good game if people feel there is so much negative response to the game that people make defensive threads like this one.
I've seen you hating on CoD dozens of times. Perhaps you should give it a chance, bro. It's not really a bad game. It's actually fun once you get into the story and get attached to the characters (talking about Modern Warfare series here). And if not that, CoD games have terrific music and atmosphere. At least that. Simply being polite and reasonable. As from what I've seen you say before you didn't really seem to have given it much of a chance. It tries very hard to impress you, and it will, if you let it.Adam Jensen said:
OT: I agree with the OP, CoD games are pretty fun once you get into them. Especially the story and the characters, whom I've grown quite fond of. And the new MW3 Survival Mode with co-op function, a new set of Special Ops missions and the revised killstreak system (which is now 'pointstreak') really sounds awesome. The people who say there's absolutely no innovation are pretty much only looking at the graphics.
And let's not forget the third chapter in the story.
Look guys, stop applying the logic that I have applied to COD and COD only and actually try to debate my OPINION.
I wouldnt classify 'gets discussed a lot' as a reason for being good. I find the CoD games alright for breaks in between other releases. The games are certainly popular, which might be more of a reason to assume that they are good (although a lot of people will dissagree with that).
I think the real reason that CoD gets talked over so much is because it is popular, but people are getting tired of its repeditive titles, and a lot of gamers would rather see the budget or energy behind a CoD game go towards something fresher/more stimulating. We want something new or at least different, not something we've played 3 times before with slightly different toys and a new coat of paint.
I think the real reason that CoD gets talked over so much is because it is popular, but people are getting tired of its repeditive titles, and a lot of gamers would rather see the budget or energy behind a CoD game go towards something fresher/more stimulating. We want something new or at least different, not something we've played 3 times before with slightly different toys and a new coat of paint.
I didnt mean that getting discussed a lot means its good. I meant that the reason it gets discussed a lot is because its good. Look at my example Sniper: Ghost Warrior. Very little people discussed about it because it was a very bad game, now if it was an excellent title lots of people will be discussing it.RADlTZ said:
You can't use that kind of logic, dear.
Sorry, but just because something is well discussed doesn't automatically make it good - or bad. The quality of the work speaks for itself, if you like it or not is an entirely different thing.
You can like stuff that's crap and hate stuff that's fantastic.
Because you're a human being.
And I know you wrote that "this logic only applies to CoD" but that's just, well, idiotic. Sorry.
EDIT: And here's why. The Demoman saying "If I were a bad Demoman, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it now would we?" doesn't mean that the fact that they're discussing it makes him a good Demoman - it's the fact that he isn't fucking dead. Alright?
Sorry, but just because something is well discussed doesn't automatically make it good - or bad. The quality of the work speaks for itself, if you like it or not is an entirely different thing.
You can like stuff that's crap and hate stuff that's fantastic.
Because you're a human being.
And I know you wrote that "this logic only applies to CoD" but that's just, well, idiotic. Sorry.
EDIT: And here's why. The Demoman saying "If I were a bad Demoman, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it now would we?" doesn't mean that the fact that they're discussing it makes him a good Demoman - it's the fact that he isn't fucking dead. Alright?
I did love the CoD series and have played all games bar MW2 as I refuse to play that cock slap in the face of PC gamers. CoD 4 was the last good/innovative game in the series. Campaign aside WaW, BO and from what I've seen MW2 have done nothing to advance the gameplay and mechanics in any way other than more weapons and killstreaks. No before you ask a riot shield and knifes are not enough new elements.
Firstly, campaigns were never great but managed to give you a good experience and atmosphere that was to the point of the game. As when you play CoD 1 or UO or 2 you do get the impression of being a soldier in the various theatres of war in WW2. Same as CoD 4(not MW that is only a subtitle and is a proper entry in the series) gave the impression of being a member of the SAS or Marines. Now obviously none of this was photorealism or 100% true to life but it managed to create that in the games.
Black Ops however was nothing but a cheesy action movie as a game. There was nothing Black about those Ops other than "Shh don't tell anyone about this Pssssssssssssssss Boom." which isn't very subtle like it should have been. It has completely abandoned what made it good and unique for this standard formula that "everyone" likes.
Secondly, the Multiplayer and this is the big one for me has completely degraded in quality over the last few years. The maps have become increasing small and console centric as to try again to appeal to the faster paced need instant gratification crowd that it lost the average sized maps it used to have. CoD was never on the scale of BF but it did have bigish maps once upon a time. I mean whoever thought the maps like Shipment, Killhouse and Nuketown were anything but jokes or quick jobs needs a slap. Although I need to say I have no problem with people liking these maps and they are alright for a quick match but the prevalence of maps decreasing in size and the sheer numbers of these maps being played is ridiculous. Some small maps fine but not like it is now.
To float back to my last point on maps it has made some weapons entirely redundant. Snipers are now a pointless weapon in the series aside from quickscoping which is a problem on consoles due to a badly made aim assist. This also sees a rise in people using camping style tactics and weapons that suit it like SMGs and the LMGs with little to no recoil. Camping and spawn killing(more so spawn killing) were already problems in the series.
Then there is the lack of balance in weapons. There is a complete over-saturation of the amount of weapons in the recent entrants in the CoD series which makes the game a lot harder to balance and more inaccessible for lower levels. The good thing about CoD 4 was all weapons were more or less equal. M4 was accurate but less damaging than Ak rifle and vice versa. Both very good weapons in their own right but unlocked quite early. There is usually 1 OP weapon in every CoD(PPsH and P90) but now there are several. This power creep only serves to quicken the gameplay once again coming back to instant gratification they are going for alienated some members of the dedicated gaming community.
The problem with killstreaks is the same as weapons. Too many that are too OP. I mean you just have to look at what happens in Nuketown when someone gets one of those gunner killstreaks and see how devastating it is to the enemy team. This killstreak focus also feeds into camping and not giving a fuck about your team and looking out for only yourself as there is no benefit to helping people.
All very good reasons to discuss CoD however, none of them are good points. So to answer your question yes we are talking about it because it is bad but also because it is popular and some go on about it like it is the best thing since sliced bread in HD. Some for other reasons but ultimately because it is topical if any other shit game(ET) was topical we would discuss it. It is the same reason secularism isn't normally talked about aside from it being a sore point(like anything controversial) it isn't very topical at the moment. That is why people were talking about Libya a lot. So it is not discussed just because it is "good". Good is subjective but my points explain why people think it is bad.
Firstly, campaigns were never great but managed to give you a good experience and atmosphere that was to the point of the game. As when you play CoD 1 or UO or 2 you do get the impression of being a soldier in the various theatres of war in WW2. Same as CoD 4(not MW that is only a subtitle and is a proper entry in the series) gave the impression of being a member of the SAS or Marines. Now obviously none of this was photorealism or 100% true to life but it managed to create that in the games.
Black Ops however was nothing but a cheesy action movie as a game. There was nothing Black about those Ops other than "Shh don't tell anyone about this Pssssssssssssssss Boom." which isn't very subtle like it should have been. It has completely abandoned what made it good and unique for this standard formula that "everyone" likes.
Secondly, the Multiplayer and this is the big one for me has completely degraded in quality over the last few years. The maps have become increasing small and console centric as to try again to appeal to the faster paced need instant gratification crowd that it lost the average sized maps it used to have. CoD was never on the scale of BF but it did have bigish maps once upon a time. I mean whoever thought the maps like Shipment, Killhouse and Nuketown were anything but jokes or quick jobs needs a slap. Although I need to say I have no problem with people liking these maps and they are alright for a quick match but the prevalence of maps decreasing in size and the sheer numbers of these maps being played is ridiculous. Some small maps fine but not like it is now.
To float back to my last point on maps it has made some weapons entirely redundant. Snipers are now a pointless weapon in the series aside from quickscoping which is a problem on consoles due to a badly made aim assist. This also sees a rise in people using camping style tactics and weapons that suit it like SMGs and the LMGs with little to no recoil. Camping and spawn killing(more so spawn killing) were already problems in the series.
Then there is the lack of balance in weapons. There is a complete over-saturation of the amount of weapons in the recent entrants in the CoD series which makes the game a lot harder to balance and more inaccessible for lower levels. The good thing about CoD 4 was all weapons were more or less equal. M4 was accurate but less damaging than Ak rifle and vice versa. Both very good weapons in their own right but unlocked quite early. There is usually 1 OP weapon in every CoD(PPsH and P90) but now there are several. This power creep only serves to quicken the gameplay once again coming back to instant gratification they are going for alienated some members of the dedicated gaming community.
The problem with killstreaks is the same as weapons. Too many that are too OP. I mean you just have to look at what happens in Nuketown when someone gets one of those gunner killstreaks and see how devastating it is to the enemy team. This killstreak focus also feeds into camping and not giving a fuck about your team and looking out for only yourself as there is no benefit to helping people.
All very good reasons to discuss CoD however, none of them are good points. So to answer your question yes we are talking about it because it is bad but also because it is popular and some go on about it like it is the best thing since sliced bread in HD. Some for other reasons but ultimately because it is topical if any other shit game(ET) was topical we would discuss it. It is the same reason secularism isn't normally talked about aside from it being a sore point(like anything controversial) it isn't very topical at the moment. That is why people were talking about Libya a lot. So it is not discussed just because it is "good". Good is subjective but my points explain why people think it is bad.
Controversial =/= good.
Because that's what the whole argument about CoD is. It's about the controversy of simply rehashing the same game year after year and expecting you to pay £40 every time. Why do people talk about Madden? Not because it's a good game. Far from it. But because EA have been the kings of this particular business practice with that franchise for a long, long time. This kind of vile, parasitic corporate behaviour is exactly the kind of thing that drives this medium into the ground.
Rant aside, it's more to do with the 'Cult of CoD' than anything else. When people talk about CoD, they aren't necessarily talking about the game. They're talking about the fanbase. The CoD community, who are often demonised as being either self-entitled children, violent youths or sheep who buy anything with a new coat of paint on it. That's what these attacks on the "lame story" and "constant need for cinematic set pieces" is all about. It's flamebait for the CoD community. Because whatever camp you're in, it's currently the 'cool thing' to do to either jump on the CoD-hate-bandwagon, or to stand up like some kind of individualist white knight and defend it to the death as though you're the only one doing so and that makes you somehow more special in the eyes of the community.
This behaviour isn't exclusive to CoD; this goes for anything that's popular. It doesn't even have to be a video game. You see this happen all the time with TV shows, music, films. Anything with a large enough demographic and general attention will attract this sort of behaviour. It's sad, because it's this kind of ridiculous attention that is the core of the focus rather than the product itself.
Because that's what the whole argument about CoD is. It's about the controversy of simply rehashing the same game year after year and expecting you to pay £40 every time. Why do people talk about Madden? Not because it's a good game. Far from it. But because EA have been the kings of this particular business practice with that franchise for a long, long time. This kind of vile, parasitic corporate behaviour is exactly the kind of thing that drives this medium into the ground.
Rant aside, it's more to do with the 'Cult of CoD' than anything else. When people talk about CoD, they aren't necessarily talking about the game. They're talking about the fanbase. The CoD community, who are often demonised as being either self-entitled children, violent youths or sheep who buy anything with a new coat of paint on it. That's what these attacks on the "lame story" and "constant need for cinematic set pieces" is all about. It's flamebait for the CoD community. Because whatever camp you're in, it's currently the 'cool thing' to do to either jump on the CoD-hate-bandwagon, or to stand up like some kind of individualist white knight and defend it to the death as though you're the only one doing so and that makes you somehow more special in the eyes of the community.
This behaviour isn't exclusive to CoD; this goes for anything that's popular. It doesn't even have to be a video game. You see this happen all the time with TV shows, music, films. Anything with a large enough demographic and general attention will attract this sort of behaviour. It's sad, because it's this kind of ridiculous attention that is the core of the focus rather than the product itself.
I don't usually posted on the whole CoD is graet herp, or the CoD is terrabad derp threads but...
I think CoD is bad because I don't enjoy it, nothing to do with bad controls or awful characters or the crazy bar-to-entry multiplayer or the fact it hasn't innovated much (or at all) in the past 3 years. I just don't enjoy it! And that's what my opinion is towards a whether a game is good or bad.
That's what any argument about CoD comes down too; opinions.
I think CoD is bad because I don't enjoy it, nothing to do with bad controls or awful characters or the crazy bar-to-entry multiplayer or the fact it hasn't innovated much (or at all) in the past 3 years. I just don't enjoy it! And that's what my opinion is towards a whether a game is good or bad.
That's what any argument about CoD comes down too; opinions.
That is such a ridiculous thing to quote in this context, you really haven't understood it. The Demoman isn't stating he is good because were talking about it, he's saying he's good because he's ALIVE to talk about.ToastiestZombie said:
In essence he's saying if he was a bad demoman, he would be dead.
This would be like saying we are only talking about CoD because someone decided it was worth publishing. Which in itself, doesn't prove it's good.
I'm sorry but it isn't beyond the bounds of reason to want to discuss something you think is shit or something that was bad.
Also, lol wut?ToastiestZombie said:
Hey everybody, let's all accept this person's logic without question and all discuss how he must be right!
/sarcasm
Here's a fun tip, if you start using caps to express your OPINION, people quickly start to think you're a bit of a dick.
Thats an awfully big DLC pack. Esspecially if that DLC pack recieves updates AND DLC packs.Blights said:
Wait...A DLC pack within a DLC pack?
BWONG!
The first quote I put in just for some comedic value, it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. The second quote I corrected.Kurai Angelo said:
Ha Ha, don't pretend you quoted it for a joke.ToastiestZombie said:
Why would you quote something as evidence to back up your point if you knew it didn't actually support it?
Just admit you didn't understand the quote from the Demoman and it was incorrect to use it in this instance.
Simple Answer, Because COD is the hero Gaming deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hate COD because COD can take it. Because COD is not our hero. COD a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A FPS knight. But really people like to promote hate on whatever they can and COD was just in the sights this time.