Saw my 5yro cousin play CoD:BO (Not a hate thread)

[JazzJack2]

You see your 5 year old cousin playing CoD and your first reaction was 'Wow, these games sure have gotten easier!' and not 'Why the hell is a 5 year old being allowed to play a highly violent shooter'?

Why does it matter in the slightest if a five year old is playing a violent game?

 

[Negatempest]

You see your 5 year old cousin playing CoD and your first reaction was 'Wow, these games sure have gotten easier!' and not 'Why the hell is a 5 year old being allowed to play a highly violent shooter'?

Silly me, I too thought this thread would be about "Why are preteens playing violent videogames", but apparently we're the only two to notice?

Oh hey, the Title kind of gives away the whole not a hate thread. . Different games effect different individuals differently. I grew up with Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct and those games didn't exactly get me to go out into town and beat up an individual to a pulp to see how they bleed.

 

[Negatempest]

Now on topic. Games getting longer? Nah, don't believe it. Though I will say they are just about the same length as games were in the past. Though they are really holding your hand all the way through, a game like old school Rainbow Six would be a huge welcome from me and my wallet.

 

[Something Amyss]

I can now understand now why game devs make a game like CoD they way they do. Get more people to play a game that requires very little skill since every hero is a bullet sponge. You get more people playing Checkers, than Chess..... but I want more Chess too.

Of course, the single player's not really much of a draw in the first place, and the online component really doesn't have "heroes," so your point is kind of...Off.

I thought you were on to something with the snack food thing, but I was thinking in a different way, I guess.

The one thing I've found really enjoyable about CoD is that I can get into a multiplayer match in like 4 seconds and be enjoying myself in like 10. It's sort of a go-to when I don't want serious gaming, like a handful of chips. That would be my take, anyway.

There's definitely a reason why bite-sized gaming sells.

It ruins any sense of tension when you can just retreat behind a wall and get back to full health in a few seconds.

Yeah, walking over a health pack every five seconds is far more tense.

 

[Something Amyss]

I should add I've never played much of a CoD game, but I tried MW3's story, and it's just whack-a-mole with a few very minor exceptions. Boooooring.

Silly me, I too thought this thread would be about "Why are preteens playing violent videogames", but apparently we're the only two to notice?

Or, perhaps, most people read the thread title and chose to focus on the point at hand.

If you want to know my thoughts on kids playing M titles I'd be glad to give them to you. Make a thread or PM me or something. However, we were given a point for discussion, and people actually took it.

 

[Pink Gregory]

You see your 5 year old cousin playing CoD and your first reaction was 'Wow, these games sure have gotten easier!' and not 'Why the hell is a 5 year old being allowed to play a highly violent shooter'?

Silly me, I too thought this thread would be about "Why are preteens playing violent videogames", but apparently we're the only two to notice?

Oh hey, the Title kind of gives away the whole not a hate thread. . Different games effect different individuals differently. I grew up with Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct and those games didn't exactly get me to go out into town and beat up an individual to a pulp to see how they bleed.

Well...yeah, but to a 5-year-old, I doubt CoD is as much in the realm of fantasy as something like Mortal Kombat is. It is VERY young to be playing CoD...not that there's any evidence for that having a real effect on kids. Still just makes me a little uncomfortable.

Maybe that's why it's such a big seller, they've hit the ultimate accessibility, for better or worse.

 

[Negatempest]

I can now understand now why game devs make a game like CoD they way they do. Get more people to play a game that requires very little skill since every hero is a bullet sponge. You get more people playing Checkers, than Chess..... but I want more Chess too.

Of course, the single player's not really much of a draw in the first place, and the online component really doesn't have "heroes," so your point is kind of...Off.

I thought you were on to something with the snack food thing, but I was thinking in a different way, I guess.

The one thing I've found really enjoyable about CoD is that I can get into a multiplayer match in like 4 seconds and be enjoying myself in like 10. It's sort of a go-to when I don't want serious gaming, like a handful of chips. That would be my take, anyway.

There's definitely a reason why bite-sized gaming sells.

It ruins any sense of tension when you can just retreat behind a wall and get back to full health in a few seconds.

Yeah, walking over a health pack every five seconds is far more tense.

Yeah, a snack, aka handful of chips, is just another word for "junk food". You know, food that is good to eat for a few minutes, but is far from filling or hearty.

You may have forgotten, but health packs were far from plentiful. You usually had to horde them for long periods of time or wish you find more around the corner, same with ammo. So it had you think of every move you make and every shot you take instead of having a near limitless supply of health, ammo, or weapons. I am not saying that CoD is a bad game, far from it. I am saying is that what makes me satisfied at the end of the day is hard to come by in the AAA market. T^T

 

[Something Amyss]

You may have forgotten, but health packs were far from plentiful.

Odds are, I was gaming well before you. What people call "old school" shooters are the shooters I grew up on. I was an adult before Columbine shook up the ratings deal. While the ESRB dates back to the early 90s, by the time most of these games were a scandal, I was old enough to play the bloodiest, most violent games, so I was. Shooters included. Given the demographcis of this site, the odds are I was curb stomping fiends from Hell on Mars when you were still playing with those spelling blocks. I think you're simply falsely romanticising them, because it was pretty easy to get health/ammo.

However, I was kind of hoping someone would point this out, because it goes more to my real point in terms of game design: over the years, it became easier and easier to find health packs in games (and I didn't think it was that hard to begin with), which is the real problem: level design, not the aesthetics of it.

People fawn over the health pack system so much because it is retro, but will completely ignore the way a game will now lavish them on you in such a way that it's almost impossible to die because you're tripping over them. Or respawn points every five seconds. People forgive these as long as they're not accompanied by regenerating health because regenerating health is less what's wrong with games and more a symbol people use to demonstrate what's wrong with games.

If things aren't tense when you're being shot at and need to hide, that's the fault of the game design.

I'd also point out that one of the reasons people like the health pack system is so they can feel like badasses, not exactly conducive to the tension people supposedly crave. This is constantly brought up in regards to the type of games people crave. Is Duke Nukem really supposed to be tense? If so, epic fail (without even getting to DNF). The biggest problem I had with early shooters was sometimes incompetent level design. In fact, if you really want "challenge," what you need to do is forget arguing over health systems and go back to the days where bad level design was practically a given.

 

[Negatempest]

You may have forgotten, but health packs were far from plentiful.

Odds are, I was gaming well before you. What people call "old school" shooters are the shooters I grew up on. I was an adult before Columbine shook up the ratings deal. While the ESRB dates back to the early 90s, by the time most of these games were a scandal, I was old enough to play the bloodiest, most violent games, so I was. Shooters included. Given the demographcis of this site, the odds are I was curb stomping fiends from Hell on Mars when you were still playing with those spelling blocks. I think you're simply falsely romanticising them, because it was pretty easy to get health/ammo.

However, I was kind of hoping someone would point this out, because it goes more to my real point in terms of game design: over the years, it became easier and easier to find health packs in games (and I didn't think it was that hard to begin with), which is the real problem: level design, not the aesthetics of it.

People fawn over the health pack system so much because it is retro, but will completely ignore the way a game will now lavish them on you in such a way that it's almost impossible to die because you're tripping over them. Or respawn points every five seconds. People forgive these as long as they're not accompanied by regenerating health because regenerating health is less what's wrong with games and more a symbol people use to demonstrate what's wrong with games.

If things aren't tense when you're being shot at and need to hide, that's the fault of the game design.

I'd also point out that one of the reasons people like the health pack system is so they can feel like badasses, not exactly conducive to the tension people supposedly crave. This is constantly brought up in regards to the type of games people crave. Is Duke Nukem really supposed to be tense? If so, epic fail (without even getting to DNF). The biggest problem I had with early shooters was sometimes incompetent level design. In fact, if you really want "challenge," what you need to do is forget arguing over health systems and go back to the days where bad level design was practically a given.

I would never say I am far older than you, cause I'm not. But I will say there is no reason to be a stick in the mud for your explanation of health packs. Remember, I would love games like some early Rainbow Six and have games similar to Flashpoint. Though there are, "Health Packs". They can't really be used at any given moment, also you can be killed from a lucky shot. I also would love to have the choice to move around in an area to find different ways to get into a location like a Special Forces kind of way, instead of being hand held all the way through.

I would not say incompetent level design in an FPS is the problem, just a lazy one. Being far to easy to splash respawn points here and there. I have also played the old school fps as well. The only reason that you remember health packs are easy to find is because you know where to look. I didn't, so I had to be careful of what I did. Thus a challenge, instead of being guaranteed full health after pausing in a safe location for a few seconds. Though what is the most annoying of this mechanic is the blurring screen. It's very intrusive. -_-

 

[Christopher Fisher]

Yeah, health packs do create more tension. Now, if they throw health packs at you every few seconds, then yeah, that decreases the sense of tension for sure--it's all about finding the right balance. It's a matter of making the player fear for their life. When you know that you can just duck behind cover and heal, it creates no tension whatsoever. People like this style because it makes them feel like a badass. When I play something like CoD or Halo, I never once am worried about my health, because I know can get back to full health in a second or so. When I go back and play a game like Black Mesa, there's a genuine sense of anxiety when I am fighting enemies because I don't know when that next heal station might come along.

 

[Something Amyss]

But I will say there is no reason to be a stick in the mud for your explanation of health packs.

Thankfully, as that's a strawman, there's no worries. Still, the point remains: health systems are not the problem here. Overall game design is, because if the design is good, the method of acquiring health will be irrelevant to things like tension.

I don't know why you find this so disagreeable, but whatever.

 

[Negatempest]

But I will say there is no reason to be a stick in the mud for your explanation of health packs.

Thankfully, as that's a strawman, there's no worries. Still, the point remains: health systems are not the problem here. Overall game design is, because if the design is good, the method of acquiring health will be irrelevant to things like tension.

I don't know why you find this so disagreeable, but whatever.

*Goes back to read original post, than Amaranth's*
...Wait.. wait wait.. Did you just agree with what I originally meant, but placed in a confusing way to make it seem like it was different, but wasn't?

 

[Something Amyss]

You see your 5 year old cousin playing CoD and your first reaction was 'Wow, these games sure have gotten easier!' and not 'Why the hell is a 5 year old being allowed to play a highly violent shooter'?

I watched Terminator movies when I was five... Sorry, I see no problem in him playing such games and reacting otherwise would be rather hypocritical.

To be fair, his point doesn't immediately say that kids watching adult movies is fine, so he probably didn't have you specifically i mind when he made the statement.

 

[Rad Party God]

Spoiler: Snip.

I can now understand now why game devs make a game like CoD they way they do. Get more people to play a game that requires very little skill since every hero is a bullet sponge. You get more people playing Checkers, than Chess..... but I want more Chess too.

Funny you post that; I just finished a match of competitive chess, and I can't quite get enough. :-D

COD... Well, it's good at what it offers. A nice FPS to play to feel like a badass, which always has people attracted. This also reminds me of the people who say that they like "realism" and point to COD as an example, but that's a story for another day.

"Make a something for the intelligent, and it will be niche. Make something for the idiot, and there becomes a monopoly."

It's a saying that I quite find fitting about this situation. Many people use games as escapisim, so they aren't going to be as interested in the experience as some of us will be.

It actually reminds me of all those Skyrim/Dark Souls arguments that I had with my friends. One's a fantasy badassery simulator while the other's one of the best ways to truly invest yourself in a game. Am I going to recommend a Skyrim fan Dark Souls? Vice-versa? I can't recommend them as they're a fine example of apples and oranges.

Most people picked Skyrim from my experience, as they wanted to feel the badass they were. Only two of my friends picked Dark Souls, but they did not see the difference between the two games. One game targeted one niche, and the other did the same thing.

It's all just a matter of personal preference. I personally like my games to assault my testicules and make me feel part of the experience via difficulty and some aspects that you mentioned, OP. What I seek isn't for everyone and I'm cool with developers choosing to guarantee income to experiment and further the medium. I don't see this happening, which makes me a sad panda...

Well, I'm a fan of Skyrim (and The Elder Scrolls overall) and I definitely loved Dark Souls and I could definitely see how different it was (already my favorite RPG of this gen and one of my favorites of all time), sometimes I prefer to play Dark Souls, but I still like to play Skyrim. Both games, although sharing the same genre, are entirely different experiences that should be approached as that.

As you said, apples and oranges.

OT: Yeah... I don't worry too much about it anymore, I treat those games as a "rental affair", games that I would definitely like to play, but I definitely wouldn't buy it, pretty much like most AAA games that have been coming out lately, if I want a meaningful experience, I just buy something from GOG or buy something indie and wierd, heck, Dark Souls definitely can offer hundreds if not thousands of hours worth of replay value.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I totally understand CoD being the way it is now. I just wish more games were available similar to Flashpoint in the form eof mechanics. With the AI having some form of competent thought. I also loved Rainbow Six games in the form of kinda stealth gameplay.

Complaining about a niche market being under treated is like complaining about your ice cream being too cold.