Poll: Gaming Society

[Savagezion]

-Snip-

Dude, a feature is a mechanic or a group of mechanics. The game features X mechanic(s). A feature can't be in a game without a mechanic there making it possible. You are interchanging the terms feature and mechanic. Multiplayer is a feature which utilizes most mechanics in a game, sometimes even offering entirely new ones. Cover based shooting is a feature that uses 1 or more mechanics.

Jumping is a mechanic because parameters have to be set as to how high jumping makes the model "jump", if holding the button has any relevance to maximum height, if you can still control movement while jumping, etc.

Adding a knife does not create a "mechanic" because there is no knife-fighting.

Yeah there is, it is the only purpose for the mechanic. There isn't any knife juggling. The mechanic states, first person to knife the other wins. This has the parameters of distance that the knife will work at (range), aim tolerances for a successful kill, as well as time delay from button press (you can be killed mid-knife).

This is non-sense, I am not saying that BF2 was the end-all, be-all of innovation. They just added ranks and unlocks the same year Call of Duty 2 was released.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not. I couldn't care less if you like BF2 over CoD. The fact remains that the leveling system used is different.

Definition of INNOVATION
1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device

-snip-

Every game does that.

S'cuze me

First Sergeant
Requirements:
Rank: Gunnery Sergeant
Score: 20,000
Awards: Basic Knife Combat Badge, Basic Pistol Combat Badge, Basic Assault Combat Badge, Basic Anti-tank Combat Badge, Basic Sniper Combat Badge, Basic Spec Ops Combat Badge, Basic Support Combat Badge, Basic Engineer Combat Badge, Basic Medic Combat Badge

This is a rank from BF2. You could only achieve certain ranks by completing badges. So they didn't judge the time spent playing alone, the Veteran badges also require a certain amount of actions IAR - In A Round.

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply. Playing as a warrior in an RPG, same effect.

I am trying to imply that the mechanics are not the same if you played in another class.

No, a Wizard uses DIFFERENT mechanics than the warrior. That is why they are not the same. I will use your same ideology:

The core mechanics of the game warrior exist even without unlocks playing as the warrior. But they do exist.

Here, again, you are shifting combat models.

If you change classes in CoD, the mechanic is still the same.

I am aware CoD only has 1 combat model, its genre is named after it. All shooters are guilty of that. What's your point you are trying to make with this?

I'll give you that but that doesn't mean no innovation happened. Not exactly sure why you are going into all that. This type of thing actually implies that the innovation is mostly in the engine to you. Even though you just said that you never said a game can't innovate within the same engine.

No, innovation is not on the engine.

Parabellum, the short-lived free 2 play FPS developed with Unreal, played much differently than Unreal Tournament.

Same can't be said if I made a Unreal Tournament look-alike in Unreal. It would play the same even if I changed some characteristics in the weapons.

You mean if you intentionally copied something else it would be similar? Wow, thanks for explaining such a hard concept to grasp to me.

...You do realize a game can be MORE innovative than another game right? Innovation is a variable and not a constant.

Parabellum would have the same collision detection, scripting, AI, etc. I haven't played it but it may have used different "middleware" to achieve a difference.

Simple arguments don't beat complex ones. What even makes you think that? Logic dictates a argument's validity regardless of how simple or complex it is. Simple arguments are just easier.

Yeah, I didn't explain all the way trough.

Simple beats complex because complex arguments would take me a lot of time to develop. If I can express that Call of Duty did not innovate that much in a simplistic manner, it is better than wasting my time on a complex view that nobody would share.

The underlined part would make a great signature on a forum. Simple "arguments" tend to not be arguments at all but rather 'claims'. I can claim an elephant's trunk isn't long because a giraffe's neck is longer but that doesn't mean crap necessarily based on the context of the discussion. Saying something is more innovative, doesn't discredit a game that is comprised of many small innovations. Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

At this point, I do believe you are attempting to troll merely by how much you have consistently avoided making a cohesive point. I don't mind though as I actually enjoy talking about this stuff with others and I rarely get to do it. I just wish your side of the discussion had a little bit more consistency.

You mean it wasn't the first to do it but rather, it expanded upon the idea?

Let's assume Wolftenstein 3D had the same setting as Doom, and featured similar weapons.

Doom would be still a huge improvement because of the breakthroughs in level design that allowed for more complex levels and changed the way things are played.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Since you focused so much in the multiplayer, I'll bite

It's about time.

Level ups aren't a mechanic. Unlocks due to racking up kills with weapon X? I don't know, could be. Let's assume they are.

I have mentioned how perks counter each other, and counter the helicopter. I did say it was a mechanic.

Attachments: the only real thing that matter are silencers in CoD4. The grenade launcher is just another weapon. But the silencer masks the shooting in the enemy UAV. That could be a mechanic.

That is a mechanic, not could be. It the mechanic of the silencer. (The silencer isn't a mechanic, it is a feature in the game that uses a mechanic.)

"Level ups" aren't a mechanic, but the leveling system is. Unlocks are part of the leveling system. How can you say that "could be" but leveling isn't when it uses the leveling system to activate?

Also:
"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

However, the only difference it makes is that there is an option for stealthier gameplay, and there isn't even a way to counter it. Doesn't sound like a mechanic if it's just an isolated feature.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

If you skip to MW2, then yes, attachments are a mechanic. You have under-barrel shotguns, grenade launchers, foregrips, heartbeat sensors, silencers, FMJ ammo, extended magazines and optics.

You JUST said that the grenade launcher is not a mechanic but "just another weapon". I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

Partially because you can also chose from several kinds of primary items to bring with you, instead of just grenades. It is a mechanic in it's whole, simply having different grenades doesn't make it a mechanic, add blast shields and then it becomes something that affects gameplay severely.

You are merging design into mechanics now. This garble makes no sense. In there, you are implying that more primary weapons now DO make it a mechanic. The exact opposite of what you have been shouting at me despite the fact I never said it was a mechanic.

 

[ElPatron]

-snip-

Every game does that.

S'cuze me

First Sergeant
Requirements:
Rank: Gunnery Sergeant
Score: 20,000
Awards: Basic Knife Combat Badge, Basic Pistol Combat Badge, Basic Assault Combat Badge, Basic Anti-tank Combat Badge, Basic Sniper Combat Badge, Basic Spec Ops Combat Badge, Basic Support Combat Badge, Basic Engineer Combat Badge, Basic Medic Combat Badge

This is a rank from BF2. You could only achieve certain ranks by completing badges. So they didn't judge the time spent playing alone, the Veteran badges also require a certain amount of actions IAR - In A Round.

Thanks for proving my point.

I didn't.

You can work yourself trough all 55 levels in CoD4 and 70 levels in MW2 without completing a single achievement.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Excuse me? Are you comparing Wolfenstein to CoD2 and Doom to CoD4?

Because Doom introduced moving platforms and non-parallel surfaces! It plays very differently from Wolftenstein, which features very "levelled" maps and the rooms are based in parallelograms.

Call of Duty 2 had a WW2 setting, CoD4 had a modern one. I don't see what you are getting at, since the engine did not introduce any significant change. Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.

I am aware CoD only has 1 combat model, its genre is named after it. All shooters are guilty of that. What's your point you are trying to make with this?

Enemy Territory: Wolftenstein is not guilty of that.

In fact, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars does exactly the opposite. Every class plays differently.

Team Fortress 2 is the same.

In BF2 the only thing that changes is your role, because you play the same way. You will just die a lot if you don't want to do what your class is supposed to.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not.

Different? No. You hit score X, you get rank Y.

Call of Duty allows many more unlocks, yes. Doesn't mean that a ranking system works differently.

The underlined part would make a great signature on a forum.

Because everyone would agree wit you? Count my posts and multiply them for 2 hours. If I took 2 hours to write each posts, I would have wasted way too much time.

Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

lol?

I have retorted in any way possible.

This seems the most effective.

It the mechanic of the silencer

Everything is a "mechanic" for you. The mechanic of tactical entry? The mechanic of Cpt. Price beating Al Assad? The mechanic of sudden explosions?

No.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

It's not a design issue, if you worked hard for a silencer (now what I think of it, it wasn't that hard to get it) you deserve to have it's features enabled all the time.

However, how can it be a mechanic if it doesn't interact with anything else?

you JUST said that the grenade launcher is not a mechanic but "just another weapon". I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

The grenade launcher is not a mechanic, and doesn't have a mechanic of it's own. It is ruled by the engine's laws.

HOWEVER, if you use attachments as a way to "differentiate" the gameplay, a mechanic exists.

Under-barrel shotguns are not a mechanic, foregrips are not a mechanic, isolated they are just what they are.

Just like the "Healing" spell isn't a mechanic. Isolated, it's just a feature.

Make a game like League of Legends (or any other DotA clone) and your healing spell is now part of a mechanic.

 

[go-10]

nope not even close, but that won't stop us from complaining

 

[Savagezion]

I didn't.

You can work yourself trough all 55 levels in CoD4 and 70 levels in MW2 without completing a single achievement.

You seriously have to learn how to follow a point, then learn how to illustrate one. You are way too scattered and seem lost in the conversation. You JUST listed how BF2s leveling system is different than Call of Duty's for the sake of claiming BF's is better. The point I was trying to make was that it was different. You call of Duty wasn't different. Your exact words were "wasn't anything new" but it clearly is a new way of doing that thing, thus was innovative.

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about as for achievements. I hope you aren't talking about achievements like "PS3 trophys". If so, what a ridiculous argument. Since when did achievements dictate the validity of a game design decision? Believe it or not many people don't put any merit behind arbitrary achievements in games. Many people don't care that there is an achievement for knifing 4 people in a row without dying. Many even say it is a deterrent from playing well in the sense that some jackass on your team is running around trying to do some arbitrary task other than win the match.

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Excuse me? Are you comparing Wolfenstein to CoD2 and Doom to CoD4?

Because Doom introduced moving platforms and non-parallel surfaces! It plays very differently from Wolftenstein, which features very "levelled" maps and the rooms are based in parallelograms.

Call of Duty 2 had a WW2 setting, CoD4 had a modern one. I don't see what you are getting at, since the engine did not introduce any significant change. Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein. The environment changed, not player capabilities. You are aware that at least half, maybe more, of the innovation credited to Doom was graphical innovation, right?

As well, if you go into the multiplayer mode, CoD4 offers a lot of changes and innovations not just over CoD2, but over the industry. As much as you personally may dislike Call of Duty's leveling system, it was a new leveling system. Until you can show me a game that pre-dates Call of Duty that uses their same leveling system, my point still stands uncontested.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not.

Different? No. You hit score X, you get rank Y.

Call of Duty allows many more unlocks, yes. Doesn't mean that a ranking system works differently.

What are you basing this on? It is different than Battlefield 2's leveling system, you said so yourself when you were trying to show me how much "better" BF2's leveling system was. What game uses the same leveling system?

Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

lol?

I have retorted in any way possible.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics). Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics. An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.
Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.) Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

It's not a design issue, if you worked hard for a silencer (now what I think of it, it wasn't that hard to get it) you deserve to have it's features enabled all the time.

However, how can it be a mechanic if it doesn't interact with anything else?

It interacts with the player value on enemy UAVs as well as the audio of other players. Additionally, a mechanic is not required to interact with anything in the game. Civilization has a throne room mechanic that in no way influences the game. Without the mechanics for it, there would be no way to implement it into the game.

You really need to understand the difference between a mechanic and a feature. I have been trying to explain it to you but perhaps you should try google. The end of your post was calling features mechanics. I have already covered all that so there is no point explaining it a million times in a post. Go read wikipedia or google some stuff on mechanics and features then try to convince the people that do this for a living that their terminology is wrong according to you..

 

[FalloutJack]

I was having a discussion with my friend about new releases, and i began to notice all the sequels and that fresh innovation in games was getting harder and harder to come by. Do you think as a gaming society we've peaked?

Trust me, we haven't peaked at anything. All the complaints prove this fact, not the contrary. There IS a better quality, it IS possible, and eventually SOMEONE will make it happen without executive meddling getting in the way.

 

[ElPatron]

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about as for achievements. I hope you aren't talking about achievements like "PS3 trophys".

No. I meant "achievements" like "achievements".

You know, the word that existed before "achievements" in gaming existed.

If so, what a ridiculous argument. Since when did achievements dictate the validity of a game design decision? Believe it or not many people don't put any merit behind arbitrary achievements in games. Many people don't care that there is an achievement for knifing 4 people in a row without dying.

Neither do it. Have you read my post?

Many even say it is a deterrent from playing well in the sense that some jackass on your team is running around trying to do some arbitrary task other than win the match.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

A'ight, I am going to ask you to quote those things because I am pretty sure I did not say anything like that.

My point is that you can complete the levelling without any skill, just play time.
BF2 requires certain "skill level" badges. I never said it was "superior", I was trying to imply that it makes more sense.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein.

You can't jump onto a platform while it is moving across the level, taking you to another floor in Wolftenstein.

Read my post, I explained why Doom was a breakthrough in terms of gameplay.

As well, if you go into the multiplayer mode, CoD4 offers a lot of changes and innovations not just over CoD2, but over the industry. As much as you personally may dislike Call of Duty's leveling system, it was a new leveling system. Until you can show me a game that pre-dates Call of Duty that uses their same leveling system, my point still stands uncontested.

Well, as I said, BF2 features the same system. Rack X points, get to level Y.

It just implemented "skill levels" so that people can't level up unless they are willing to play with more proficiency.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

If you read some previous posts, I already covered the "play style". It's entirely subjective, because the game allows you to play however you want.

It. Does. Not. Introduce. New. Play. Styles. They are all on your head.

And what does play styles have to do with mechanics? You're still racking kills by pressing mouse1 and moving around the map. Big deal. It's not the same as playing as an archer and then switching to warrior or a magician in a RPG.

What are you basing this on? It is different than Battlefield 2's leveling system, you said so yourself when you were trying to show me how much "better" BF2's leveling system was. What game uses the same leveling system?

Answered before. Quote that "HURR DURR ITS MACH BETTAR" that you claimed and you have a point.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

The video.
Your head.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics).

AHAHA, OH WOW.

Comparing video games with reality? Let me tell you, by that logic the silencers in the game have no baffles. Wait, the guns don't even spit gasses as supersonic velocities!

It's all a piece of code that makes them have a certain noise! Changing that code is not a mechanic because it did not involve any mechanical component.

Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics.

You lost me there. Sound in games depends on coding.

Air conditioners require materials, fabrication, assembly and installation.
Reducing the sound is a matter of making the gun link to a different sound file.

An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

The sound mechanics would be broken, then. Get it?

Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.)

So your point is that we can have mechanics without being a feature? Because that's what I read.

If I haven't lost back there, I would lose now.

If the Harry Potter movies featured me in the background, nobody would announce me in the "featuring..." part of the credits. I would still be featured.

Doesn't MW2 feature the M4A1? It does.

Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

Because said mechanics already exist.

If your car's electronics supported A/C and you wanted to install one, you would not have to change it, right?

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

Did I say hitscan was not a mechanic?

It interacts with the player value on enemy UAVs as well as the audio of other players.

Well, the sound mechanics and the UAV detection are already a part of the game

Adding a silencer does not change anything about those mechanics, it only changes variables in the coding that allow you to hear shots and see UAVs.

A ghillie suit is also something that interacts with your visuals too, does it have a mechanic? No, it's aesthetic.

(don't bother saying that ghillie suits are a stealth mechanic or something, I will just ignore)

Additionally, a mechanic is not required to interact with anything in the game. Civilization has a throne room mechanic that in no way influences the game.

Then I can't explain why introduce a gameplay mechanic if it doesn't influence the game.

I don't play Civ so I can't tell.

 

[Savagezion]

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

A'ight, I am going to ask you to quote those things because I am pretty sure I did not say anything like that.

My point is that you can complete the levelling without any skill, just play time.
BF2 requires certain "skill level" badges. I never said it was "superior", I was trying to imply that it makes more sense.

Look, guy, at the underlined phrase. Implying it makes more sense is stating it is superior. Even if you are going to claim "no it doesn't" like a prideful dumbass, it does hold merit to it being better to YOU. Someone out there might think Call of Duty's "makes more sense". That is just as subjective as "better" or "worse". What you were implying was "it's nonsense" (aka dumb). Subtext guy, google that too if you are going to try and debate.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

The medic badges are earned by killing X people as a medic in one round. This would deter a medic player from healing players to get more kills to get the badge to achieve the next rank. Don't make shit up. I could list plenty of badges that do this.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein.

You can't jump onto a platform while it is moving across the level, taking you to another floor in Wolftenstein.

Read my post, I explained why Doom was a breakthrough in terms of gameplay.

Funny you left this part out of my quote:

The environment changed, not player capabilities.

Otherwise, I could argue that you can't crawl around after a nuclear bomb went off in CoD2. But how about I point out a player can't call in helicopters in a multiplayer match in Call of Duty 2. As well, they can't completely model their character's values around being better at knifing.

Well, as I said, BF2 features the same system. Rack X points, get to level Y.

No, you specifically went out of your way to bring up how badges "make more sense".

It just implemented "skill levels" so that people can't level up unless they are willing to play with more proficiency.

The removal of that and addition of challenges could be seen as innovation of that considering it is not the same system.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

If you read some previous posts, I already covered the "play style". It's entirely subjective, because the game allows you to play however you want.

It. Does. Not. Introduce. New. Play. Styles. They are all on your head.

Well, hell if I play a mage I could play where I just try to bash everything with my staff/wand. There's no point in trying to further dispute intentional ignorance due to arrogance.

And what does play styles have to do with mechanics? You're still racking kills by pressing mouse1 and moving around the map. Big deal. It's not the same as playing as an archer and then switching to warrior or a magician in a RPG.

That's because this is a FPS compared to an RPG, genius. Call of Duty 4 has more mechanics geared towards accenting your play style than any FPS before it.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

The video.
Your head.

By all means, don't try to use it to illustrate your point or anything. The subtext of your posts do imply what I posted about that video. Probably best to save face and act like I have some shortcoming than to admit you wandered into some simpleton logic.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics).

AHAHA, OH WOW.

Comparing video games with reality?

Well, video games exist in reality.

It's all a piece of code that makes them have a certain noise! Changing that code is not a mechanic because it did not involve any mechanical component.

You are so smart. Do you think Unreal 3 is a tiny little combustion engine on your CD? An engine is a construction of code architecture. Many of those parts, if you break it down do parts that work, are referred to as mechanics of the engine.

An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

The sound mechanics would be broken, then. Get it?

First off, not necessarily. I said the UAV. Second, do you mean:

that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

Don't use what I already put as your argument you desperate guy. The least you could do is try be a bit more subtle about it.

As well, I said have already said about 3 times that the silencer is NOT a mechanic, it uses mechanics. You mocked that ideology and said the silencer is a feature in the game that incorporates no mechanics.
See below:

It the mechanic of the silencer. (The silencer isn't a mechanic, it is a feature in the game that uses a mechanic.)

Everything is a "mechanic" for you. The mechanic of tactical entry? The mechanic of Cpt. Price beating Al Assad? The mechanic of sudden explosions?

No.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.)

So your point is that we can have mechanics without being a feature? Because that's what I read.

If I haven't lost back there, I would lose now.

If the Harry Potter movies featured me in the background, nobody would announce me in the "featuring..." part of the credits. I would still be featured.

Doesn't MW2 feature the M4A1? It does.

Yeah, it features it, which is why I am saying that it is a feature but usually the term feature is meant to describe large things that show the spirit behind a project. Putting "featuring silencers" on the cover of your game isn't going to mean squat to the consumer base as it doesn't tell you much about the game in its entirety. From that, you can't even tell what genre it is.
I am not saying the silencer isn't a feature, and never have, I am saying it feels retarded to call it one. It does have properties about how it functions and alters gameplay, aka mechanics.

Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

Because said mechanics already exist.

Depends on circumstance and still irrelevant. The fact is all features use mechanics.

If your car's electronics supported A/C and you wanted to install one, you would not have to change it, right?

In the end, it is still using mechanics. Who cares if you change them or not? You seem to be forgetting that I never called silencers innovative. I merely said they had mechanics.

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

Did I say hitscan was not a mechanic?

You mocked the idea hit detection in any form was a mechanic trying to dispute that grenade launchers don't use mechanics.
See below:

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

BTW, ghillie suits are an example of a feature that is merely the result of a mechanic that dresses the player according to primary weapon.

 

[ElPatron]

Look, guy, at the underlined phrase. Implying it makes more sense is stating it is superior. Even if you are going to claim "no it doesn't" like a prideful dumbass, it does hold merit to it being better to YOU. Someone out there might think Call of Duty's "makes more sense". That is just as subjective as "better" or "worse". What you were implying was "it's nonsense" (aka dumb). Subtext guy, google that too if you are going to try and debate.

Your only point is insulting me and make me look bad.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

The medic badges are earned by killing X people as a medic in one round. This would deter a medic player from healing players to get more kills to get the badge to achieve the next rank. Don't make shit up. I could list plenty of badges that do this.

So the medic is not supposed to kill?

Then why was he given the AK101, the M16, the L85A1 or the G36E?

Those are probably the best guns in the game, the G36 is a heck of a killing machine. 3 round burst with almost no recoil, and sniper-like accuracy.

Medics are the first to die in a confrontation, they are required to know how to defend themselves.

The environment changed, not player capabilities.

I thought this was about the design changes and how differently the games played, not capabilities inherent to the player's movement coding.

Don't change your original intention when you're making a point. You're nearly contradicting yourself.

Well, as I said, BF2 features the same system. Rack X points, get to level Y.

No, you specifically went out of your way to bring up how badges "make more sense".

And they do.
Does it mean it stopped players from achieving higher ranks by playtime alone?
No.

They just took a lot longer.

It just implemented "skill levels" so that people can't level up unless they are willing to play with more proficiency.

The removal of that and addition of challenges could be seen as innovation of that considering it is not the same system.[/quote]

It is the same system.

Different coding, same way of doing things and same results.

intentional ignorance due to arrogance.

More insults.

That's because this is a FPS compared to an RPG, genius.

TF2 is a FPS.
Eternal Silence is a FPS.
Aliens vs Predator is a FPS.
Natural Selection 2.
Tremulous.
Enemy Territory: Wolfenstein.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

None of them are RPGs.

act like I have some shortcoming than to admit you wandered into some simpleton logic.

Watch that video imagining the Germans are dressed with modern military attires and the guns are also modern. That's the point.

Well, video games exist in reality.

Is that an excuse to justify your point?
In real life, the silencer used in games is a simple tube.

You are so smart. Do you think Unreal 3 is a tiny little combustion engine on your CD?

Apparently, you do.

A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics). Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics.

Nice one. Again, you dropped your original point to come back at me with things I never said.

you desperate guy

Another insult, and another attempt of dodging your own points.

usually the term feature is meant to describe large things that show the spirit behind a project.

It is. But that doesn't mean we have to ditch the original meaning of a word and speak the dialect of "marketing".

Putting "featuring silencers" on the cover of your game isn't going to mean squat to the consumer base as it doesn't tell you much about the game in its entirety. From that, you can't even tell what genre it is.

That is true, but it's also pointless because I never said the opposite.

Depends on circumstance and still irrelevant. The fact is all features use mechanics.

But it is not a mechanic of itself.

Did you read the first post I talked about silencers?

You mocked the idea hit detection in any form was a mechanic

Nope.

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

I was merely telling it like it is.

trying to dispute that grenade launchers don't use mechanics.

I said, GL is not a mechanic by itself. It makes use of gravity, which is already coded in the engine.

Like semtex. The grenade throwing "mechanic" is already there. It just sticks to whatever it hit, that is a feature unique to it.

The same way that recoil is coded to weapons, having a different pattern is a certain gun is not a mechanic. Balancing the weapons to create a combat system is a mechanic. That was present in every CoD in existence.

BTW, ghillie suits are an example of a feature that is merely the result of a mechanic that dresses the player according to primary weapon.

Again, every single line of code has to be called a "mechanic" if the changes of simple variables are "mechanics".

 

[Savagezion]

Look, guy, at the underlined phrase. Implying it makes more sense is stating it is superior. Even if you are going to claim "no it doesn't" like a prideful dumbass, it does hold merit to it being better to YOU. Someone out there might think Call of Duty's "makes more sense". That is just as subjective as "better" or "worse". What you were implying was "it's nonsense" (aka dumb). Subtext guy, google that too if you are going to try and debate.

Your only point is insulting me and make me look bad.

No, my point is your argument is a fallacy. Even if we set aside the leveling system, Call of Duty offers a perk system, killstreak rewards, and a new level of customization in general to FPS's.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

The medic badges are earned by killing X people as a medic in one round. This would deter a medic player from healing players to get more kills to get the badge to achieve the next rank. Don't make shit up. I could list plenty of badges that do this.

So the medic is not supposed to kill?

Yeah, that's what I claimed. I am talking about a medic running around worrying more about his kills than his support of the team. I am talking about a soldier getting himself killed worrying about knifing 4 people in a row more than his performance in the match.

The environment changed, not player capabilities.

I thought this was about the design changes and how differently the games played, not capabilities inherent to the player's movement coding.

Don't change your original intention when you're making a point. You're nearly contradicting yourself.

Nice try, but no I'm not. My point still holds valid to the comparison from CoD2 to BF2 multiplayer, and how CoD4's multiplayer plays different from both of those as well as any other FPS's while still maintaining admission to the FPS genre.

Your argument against how Call of Duty was the same because:

Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.

Which is the same thing as Doom and Wolfenstein. Doom and Wolf differed for what the environment can do differently. Which, I am not disputing. I was pointing out that there was a flaw in the logic behind your argument. That statement is also false if you replace character you with player. My point was Doom didn't change any of the character values, which you were holding against CoD4 despite perks do in fact change character values.

It is the same system.

Different coding, same way of doing things and same results.

By that logic every leveling system out there is all the same and it is impossible to innovate a leveling system.

intentional ignorance due to arrogance.

More insults.

That is another way to phrase "playing stupid", not an insult. The closest thing to an insult that is even in there is the term arrogance as that is merely my conjecture based on the subtext of your posts as to why you would.

Also, don't act like your posts have been devoid of any similar implications.

That's because this is a FPS compared to an RPG, genius.

TF2 is a FPS.
Eternal Silence is a FPS.
Aliens vs Predator is a FPS.
Natural Selection 2.
Tremulous.
Enemy Territory: Wolfenstein.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

None of them are RPGs.

Well, then why are YOU comparing them to RPGs? Those still use mouse1 to kill and and moving around the map. They don't back up your point.

You're still racking kills by pressing mouse1 and moving around the map. Big deal. It's not the same as playing as an archer and then switching to warrior or a magician in a RPG.

That is the quote I was referring to in the statement you quoted to me. If I have to keep re-quoting your own stuff so that you can follow your half of the conversation, its about time for me to just have to bow out. Like I said, your argument is too scattered and you seem not to know what you are even talking about. You used so many strawmans and red herrings that you actually got lost in your own argument. THAT is funny.

act like I have some shortcoming than to admit you wandered into some simpleton logic.

Watch that video imagining the Germans are dressed with modern military attires and the guns are also modern. That's the point.

Oh OK, gotcha. So your point is that:

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts.

Yeah, I was right the first time. Just state your damn point. Because that is the point I am getting out of it. You are not illustrating it well. There is more to CoD4 than just the run and shoot part. The run and shoot part is altered by the character build part. Saying it uses the same basic combat model design doesn't rule out all other innovations.

Well, video games exist in reality.

Is that an excuse to justify your point?
In real life, the silencer used in games is a simple tube.

No it isn't, it's a line of code that uses software to illustrate a 3D model shaped like a simple tube. If you are going to try and point out a strawman fallacy, it is best you don't do it yourself.

You are so smart. Do you think Unreal 3 is a tiny little combustion engine on your CD?

Apparently, you do.

Really? I ain't the one saying that it is a fallacy to refer to the idea of software mechanics being compared to mechanical components of simple and complex machinery. (Where the term software mechanic gets its name)

You are the one saying that.

A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics). Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics.

Nice one. Again, you dropped your original point to come back at me with things I never said.

Dude, I have yet to drop a point. You keep shifting around on your views and I have to keep using new examples to illustrate my point to lure you back to the main point off of your little strawman arguments. You get so off base sometimes, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant as it is nothing more than you trying to make me defend a strawman.

usually the term feature is meant to describe large things that show the spirit behind a project.

It is. But that doesn't mean we have to ditch the original meaning of a word and speak the dialect of "marketing".

Like that. If you are going to have a discussion, the best way to do it is to use terms for how they are normally received by society, or at least acknowledge that terminology (which I practically had to force you to do), and not your own arbitrarily biased terminology for the word. Weapon attachments are a feature, not THE silencer. In games, not just marketing, features are meant to describe ideas behind design. You have been trying to isolate as many things as you can for the sake of individual strawman arguments and red herrings. That is how you have been dodging discussing killstreaks and perks all together.
You took the leveling system and broke it down to be able to remove anything that didn't suit your argument and used the rest for strawmen and red herrings to invalidate the entire system. You took weapon attachments and isolated them, actually stating the silencer was an "isolated" feature:

However, the only difference it makes is that there is an option for stealthier gameplay, and there isn't even a way to counter it. Doesn't sound like a mechanic if it's just an isolated feature.

This all despite the fact that I never said weapon attachments were innovative. Just because you are going to throw out red herrings and chase them down doesn't mean I am going to go after them with you.

Depends on circumstance and still irrelevant. The fact is all features use mechanics.

But it is not a mechanic of itself.

Did you read the first post I talked about silencers?

I have read, weighed, and remembered everything you have posted. (That's how I am able to bring you back to the subject with your own posts) This is a red herring, I am done entertaining the notion of you chasing them down. I am not stating you are right, but imagine I did here, for the sake of argument. Do you even know what that would prove? Nothing.

trying to dispute that grenade launchers don't use mechanics.

I said, GL is not a mechanic by itself. It makes use of gravity, which is already coded in the engine.

Like semtex. The grenade throwing "mechanic" is already there. It just sticks to whatever it hit, that is a feature unique to it.

The same way that recoil is coded to weapons, having a different pattern is a certain gun is not a mechanic. Balancing the weapons to create a combat system is a mechanic. That was present in every CoD in existence.

You know what, I will give it to you just for that quote. OK, so, now that I stand by that quotation, what's your point? How does this prove merit to any other argument that disputes Call of Duty as innovative? I want to see if you can find your way back from this red herring. You ventured way out there for this one. Should be fun to illustrate how pointless this discussion was.

 

[Erttheking]

"Notices the flamewar"

UGH!

 

[ElPatron]

red herring

So you can talk about Metallica releasing a song about Creepers, but I can't extrapolate your/my logic into real world examples?

Okay.


And all I was trying to say was that you compared a video game to a real world mechanical device. A silencer does not feature any "working mechanic" in the video game the same way a real silencer does.

"Notices the flamewar"

UGH!

It's only a flame war id both sides are throwing insults. A discussion or an argument is not a flame war.

Please don't be like one person that tried to convince me that "argument" changed it's meaning and now only means "violent discussion".

 

[Savagezion]

red herring

So you can talk about Metallica releasing a song about Creepers, but I can't extrapolate your/my logic into real world examples?

Okay.

An analogy to illustrate the same point, isn't a red herring. A red herring is when you sidestep the main point by choosing to focus on semantics, like the very next part of your post.

And all I was trying to say was that you compared a video game to a real world mechanical device. A silencer does not feature any "working mechanic" in the video game the same way a real silencer does.

This doesn't dispute my point, and I think it was pretty clear what my point was. My point wasn't that one or more physical components are working (together) to make the silencer work. If it were, this would dispute that. It was that one or more virtual components are working (together) to make the silencer work.

"Notices the flamewar"

UGH!

I wouldn't call it a flamewar. I would call it either two bored people screwing with each other, at worst. At best, a diluted discussion of CoD4's merits towards innovations that refuses to stay focused on the topic.

 

[ElPatron]

A red herring is when you sidestep the main point by choosing to focus on semantics, like the very next part of your post.

And all I was trying to say was that you compared a video game to a real world mechanical device. A silencer does not feature any "working mechanic" in the video game the same way a real silencer does.

This doesn't dispute my point, and I think it was pretty clear what my point was. My point wasn't that one or more physical components are working (together) to make the silencer work. If it were, this would dispute that. It was that one or more virtual components are working (together) to make the silencer work.

And didn't you focus on semantics when you extrapolated the meaning of "mechanism" to the real world?

 

[Savagezion]

A red herring is when you sidestep the main point by choosing to focus on semantics, like the very next part of your post.

And all I was trying to say was that you compared a video game to a real world mechanical device. A silencer does not feature any "working mechanic" in the video game the same way a real silencer does.

This doesn't dispute my point, and I think it was pretty clear what my point was. My point wasn't that one or more physical components are working (together) to make the silencer work. If it were, this would dispute that. It was that one or more virtual components are working (together) to make the silencer work.

And didn't you focus on semantics when you extrapolated the meaning of "mechanism" to the real world?

Yeah, I am guilty of accidentally chasing down a couple of red herrings you threw out on the discussion table along side you. We may have actually both threw that one out there together, its hard to discern. As I am still guilty of entertaining this red herring your throwing out there about what I did or didn't do instead of focusing on my argument I put forth. But I am waiting for a plank to finish crafting in Castleville and have nothing better to do.

My only point was that a leveling system uses is a mechanic used to simulate progression. That mechanic, or feature that is a mechanic, is capable of being innovated. Call of Duty implemented mild innovations with theirs that made leveling a personalized challenge based on playstyle preference over an achievement in and of itself. I don't need to knife anyone to get to max level. I don't need to do anything specific with my playstyle to get to max level. Some routes may take longer than others but ultimately how I level is up to me and my chosen performance. That leveling system is then rewarded by unlocks which is nothing new. I will say though that the variety of customization was something new to the FPS genre though. (That one even effected the industry as a whole.)

 

[ElPatron]

I don't need to do anything specific with my playstyle to get to max level. Some routes may take longer than others but ultimately how I level is up to me and my chosen performance. That leveling system is then rewarded by unlocks which is nothing new. I will say though that the variety of customization was something new to the FPS genre though. (That one even effected the industry as a whole.)

That results on the Call of Duty games letting everyone play as they please. In BF it was had to stray away from your teammates.

And yes, it even affected Tom Clancy's HAWX (each plane had a set of "perks").

To me CoD4 is still pretty much like HL2. One of my top FPS ever, and it achieved that spot by flawlessly integrating so many elements, not by "innovation". I underrate it's multiplayer innovations because in it's essence was a combination of the generic FPS multiplayer modes running on CoD2's engine, plus modern guns. It had everything I loved in a MP mode and somehow did not feel overwhelming.

But the total amount of hours wasted in PCs, PSN and XBL speak for themselves.