COD is a great game. all of them are. from MW2 to black ops, to MW3, these games are what set the bar for other FPS games. I might even go as far as to say that games like final fantasy could take a leaf out of COD's book. let me explain: Cod has a perfect combination of visual aestetics and perfected gameplay. it plays smoothly and easily, with simple controls and satisfying rewards, while still maintining a visual beauty that most games lack. take a game like mario for example. mario looks and has always looked chalky and bulbous, like a first grader found a melting crayon and had a field day. cod on the other hand, has a sharp visual effect that actually looks real. mario also has awkward gameplay, with limited tactics and strategies that can be impletmented. in comparison, Cod obviously takes the cake.
I love COD, don't you?
- Thread starter hailfire
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cannot tell if trolling... all the same, I'll respond honestly because haters gonna hate.
Well your statement about Mario can be refuted by simply realizing that the Mario games all work within a cartoonish visual aesthetic. They aren't trying to be realistic. As far as I'm concerned the Mario games are a pretty damn good example of how well games can look if they keep to a theme, and it is impressive that they've kept (more or less) with the theme for all these years.
You also describe the gameplay as awkward, which is an entirely subjective term. Taken on its own it really doesn't mean anything. As far as the "limited tactics" I guess you'd be right, in that you can kill enemies with your feet, fire, etc. Now that I'm thinking about it I wish a Call of Duty game would come out where you could jump ten feet in the air and kill enemies by landing on them. That would be a blast.
Am I feeding a troll? Probably. Do I feel bad about it? Not in the slightest.
Well your statement about Mario can be refuted by simply realizing that the Mario games all work within a cartoonish visual aesthetic. They aren't trying to be realistic. As far as I'm concerned the Mario games are a pretty damn good example of how well games can look if they keep to a theme, and it is impressive that they've kept (more or less) with the theme for all these years.
You also describe the gameplay as awkward, which is an entirely subjective term. Taken on its own it really doesn't mean anything. As far as the "limited tactics" I guess you'd be right, in that you can kill enemies with your feet, fire, etc. Now that I'm thinking about it I wish a Call of Duty game would come out where you could jump ten feet in the air and kill enemies by landing on them. That would be a blast.
Am I feeding a troll? Probably. Do I feel bad about it? Not in the slightest.
Ummm. I don't mind CoD, but it seems you are trying to make it out as the best game ever. It isn't. Baldur's Gate is (Just ask game Devs). It is actually stuff like this that makes me not play CoD, other than the fact I hate how it plays: People who don't seem to get it isn't the best game ever.
Graphics. Nowhere near the best. They are bearable, but not what I would call great. Other games have far better graphics than CoD, the most well known of which would be BF3, though it is not the only one.
Aesthetics is not how real it looks, its how the art design is. Mario and Final Fantasy's aesthetics are fine, they do not try to look real and it works well. Personally, a realistic looking Mario would creep me out. No game I have seen has anything it should take from CoD in the aesthetics department.
In addition to that, quite a lot of games controls are smooth and easy, hell, they are designed to be. Play portal. It plays smoothly and easily too. As does Pokemon, Battlefield, Halo, Starcraft 1 & 2, Warcraft 3 and most games out there.
Mario also does not have awkward gameplay. Its smooth and easy. Run forward and jump over things. Land on them to kill them. That is the majority of Mario game gameplay. And yes, there is limited tactics and strategies, but CoD has that same problem. Play Starcraft 2 or any Total War game or Civilization if you want a lot of tactics and strategies. Compared to them CoD is like that snail game I played where the only thing you do is move forward.
CoD is a good game, for those who like its gameplay style and can stand its fans, but it is not the best. I don't hate it, but it is not what all games should strive to be more like.
Graphics. Nowhere near the best. They are bearable, but not what I would call great. Other games have far better graphics than CoD, the most well known of which would be BF3, though it is not the only one.
Aesthetics is not how real it looks, its how the art design is. Mario and Final Fantasy's aesthetics are fine, they do not try to look real and it works well. Personally, a realistic looking Mario would creep me out. No game I have seen has anything it should take from CoD in the aesthetics department.
In addition to that, quite a lot of games controls are smooth and easy, hell, they are designed to be. Play portal. It plays smoothly and easily too. As does Pokemon, Battlefield, Halo, Starcraft 1 & 2, Warcraft 3 and most games out there.
Mario also does not have awkward gameplay. Its smooth and easy. Run forward and jump over things. Land on them to kill them. That is the majority of Mario game gameplay. And yes, there is limited tactics and strategies, but CoD has that same problem. Play Starcraft 2 or any Total War game or Civilization if you want a lot of tactics and strategies. Compared to them CoD is like that snail game I played where the only thing you do is move forward.
CoD is a good game, for those who like its gameplay style and can stand its fans, but it is not the best. I don't hate it, but it is not what all games should strive to be more like.
Sooooo you see the cod thread on off-topic discussion and decide to copy the name and make a a serious thread on it onthe gaming discussion thread ?hailfire said:
OT: Did you really compare Call of duty to Final fantasy? Really , not to mention Mario. I mean what? Different genre cannot be compared for one . Secondly Call of duty is a realistic milatary shooter with no story , and Final fantasy is a fantasy role playing game with great story ( debatable ). The dude above me says he not sure if trolling , i disagree , you are definatly trolling , or i hope you are because ... Wow.
With enough lemon sauce, yes. But I don't get too many chances to eat cod. My girlfriend's allergic to fish and that pretty much makes me allergic to fish. But I do love the taste of a good cod.
But that doesn't mean they can't learn anything from each other - clearly, Final Fantasy N+1 could benefit from some killstreaks, and I think we can all agree that CoD could use some more androgynous protagonists and obnoxious J-Pop.krazykidd said:
Plus, the games do have some things in common: tell me 0:51 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXTX3Z9be9U] isn't a commando lunge.
I can honestly say that I don't. I don't love COD. However, I also harbor no feelings of animosity towards it. I just see it as a game that I don't consider to be worth buying.
If I'm gonna spend money on an FPS, I've got the new Bioshock to look forward to.
Right now I've got Saints Row 3 keeping me busy.
If I'm gonna spend money on an FPS, I've got the new Bioshock to look forward to.
Right now I've got Saints Row 3 keeping me busy.
ok, heres some things. just gonna point out:
1. COD4 set the bar, since there was no additions from that point onwards. and then the rest lowered the bar. (maybe not mw2, had as many lovers as it had haters)
2. Black ops maps were visually overcrowded at times, but not really badly designed. MW3 were both badly designed and visually overcrowded.
3. It DOES play smoothly. but like i said before. it started really back in COD4. why change what aint broke?
Its not that the new games are shit, (slightly unbalanced maybe, but what games arent nowadays) its more that all they really changed each game is the campaign, and the multiplayer is the same game with new textures and skins. i know some people will say many games do the same thing, but to be honest, none do it as blatently as CoD. thats why people diss it, (oh and the community of the game too, but each game has its own ass end of that).
1. COD4 set the bar, since there was no additions from that point onwards. and then the rest lowered the bar. (maybe not mw2, had as many lovers as it had haters)
2. Black ops maps were visually overcrowded at times, but not really badly designed. MW3 were both badly designed and visually overcrowded.
3. It DOES play smoothly. but like i said before. it started really back in COD4. why change what aint broke?
Its not that the new games are shit, (slightly unbalanced maybe, but what games arent nowadays) its more that all they really changed each game is the campaign, and the multiplayer is the same game with new textures and skins. i know some people will say many games do the same thing, but to be honest, none do it as blatently as CoD. thats why people diss it, (oh and the community of the game too, but each game has its own ass end of that).
In all seriousness, they're all fun to play games, but as many here would tell you they've become largely the same game with copypasted features. It doesn't mean Call of Duty isn't fun, but the formula was already becoming stale a while ago.