Stop all the COD Hate
- Thread starter Timberwolf0924
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It proves nothing beyond the fact that a whole lot more people on steam are playing Skyrim than are playing MW3.Computer-Noob said:
I don't know about anyone else, but I never said that MW3 sucked because it was so popular. I said it sucked because it lacked innovation and was stale. I said the fact that it was so popular was a sad commentary on the gaming community.Computer-Noob said:
I have the same issue with a lot of other games, especially the ones you all listed.Burn2Feel said:
Madden, FIFA, NCAA, NBA, all those cannot change, because the game does not change. Heck, the only thing that could have changed with Tiger is you could have had "Pimp Tiger '11" where you got to pimp the hoes, using a sneak meter to stay away from the spouse. XD
But, in all seriousness, the market is continuously ruined by games that just simply don't make improvements, even though they could. CoD's campaign is new, but watching it makes me feel like someone just sat down in front of CoD4 and MW2, figuring out which was the coolest and then Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V onto it, and filling in the rest. It just...isn't that great, when storylines like Portal 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, all are made for the same cost, but they make less.
The issue is that, by buying games that are just "last year's iteration", you're telling publishers, that's what you want. You want a game that is exactly the same as last years with some improvement. Its the same with Madden, Sonic, Dynasty Warriors, etc. You purchase a game knowing full well it could or is the last year's game with a new number at the end, you are telling publishers that you want games like the same. Unfortunately, I cannot accomplish this on my own.
This entire point begs the question:Computer-Noob said:
If these games are nearly-identical to each other in execution and style, then why bother picking up the next installment at all? Nobody gives a fuck about Black Ops anymore, and even fewer people care about Modern Wankery 2. So what gives?
Now, as someone who doesn't bother with online multiplayer in shooters anymore, I'm guessing that the "real life" answer is that if you don't buy the latest iteration of COD4.x, you won't be playing with everyone else who has the "updated" online version; at which point it honestly has little to do with whether the gameplay changes or improves between each iteration because now it's a matter of access and popularity (economically, this "popularity=value" is based on the logic of a Network Good).
So, following that logic, COD4.x could easily be treated as a match-based MMO, but where the subscription is divvied up into $60-$70 annual installments instead of monthly fees.
(small wonder Kotick wanted to force a mandatory subscription down his players' throats)
I wouldn't have a problem with this if it wasn't forcing so many other publishers to march rank-and-file behind this overhyped franchise, churning out clone after clone and putting nary an original thought into it because the investors/publisher might pull out.
All the while, the gaming sheep gobble it up, 'bah' back in approval, and I'm left wondering where the fuck the variety in gaming has gone.
Yes. Yes, all driving games are the same. All GTA games have the same core. Madden is a sports game, it's never going to change. Also, I think you'll find that the gross on GT5 is MW3's gross divided by 100. So, they make money, but they have good graphics, and they actually change engines once every 4 games.Timberwolf0924 said:
Twilight (Sparkle) Lover....
Anywho, I do agree with alot of the discord, (see what I did there) they make slight changes, swap the weapon skins and armor skins and put out a new game. But we're to blame for the popularity of it. We've all been guilty of buying the same game from the same developer over and over. But just because a game is popular doesn't mean you have to bash it. Same went with Halo, I played it, didn't like it as much as 99% of my friends, but I didn't bash it (to much, damn pistol) and I still don't play Halo to this day. But enough of this rant, we can let this thread die now, I just had to bump it once more. haha
Anywho, I do agree with alot of the discord, (see what I did there) they make slight changes, swap the weapon skins and armor skins and put out a new game. But we're to blame for the popularity of it. We've all been guilty of buying the same game from the same developer over and over. But just because a game is popular doesn't mean you have to bash it. Same went with Halo, I played it, didn't like it as much as 99% of my friends, but I didn't bash it (to much, damn pistol) and I still don't play Halo to this day. But enough of this rant, we can let this thread die now, I just had to bump it once more. haha
It is like Scientology because people fork out tons of cash so they can worship something that isn't even that good and is clearly just a way for a dick in a suit to build a Scrooge MacDuck style pool of money.42 said:
It sounds to me like you are in denial my good sir, innovation is important or we wouldn't even be playing FPS, we'd be playing side-scrolling platformers in 8-bit graphics without microwaves or HD tvs. If not for innovation we wouldn't have fire... or cars... or nuclear weapons, so maybe innovation can be sketchy. Humans need innovation, period. You make not even one solid point in your thing aside from saying it's 'fun', which is all about perspective. I've never had fun with CoD, either playing it or watching friends play it... well since CoD 2 anyway (The singleplayer used to be epic in those games, before Activision shit canned the orginal design team right after MW2 and replaced it with the guys who made all the bad CoD spin-offs).
Oh, and there's a lot more than just destructible environments (which matter a lot in a heated fight as you can take out the enemies cover, or buildings they're using, it makes it so no place is safe adding more hectic flow to the battlefield, you know... like a real battlefield rather than just a game of toy soldiers) and vehicles, it's got massive maps, better tools (mortars anyone?), and a larger player count, along with a much more clever point system that even gives you bonuses for laying down suppressing fire or calling out foes.
All of this adds so many layers of strategy it's insane. I hate multiplayer first person shooters as a general rule of thumb, they get so boring after about a week of play, but Battlefield has changed that, I can't stop coming back to it because every time something crazy and new happens.
It's like comparing Checkers to Chess, I mean, sure, for dumb people Checkers is great and all, but in no way is it reasonable to say it's a better game than Chess, and anyone who says so either hasn't learned how to play chess or isn't any good at it (-cough-dyingabunchatfirstmakespeoplehatebattlefieldbecausetheyrealizetheysuck-cough-)
Your fear of innovation makes me sad. =< You're exactly the type of customer I feared a bland game like CoD would create, like a 1984 character, just totally content with monotony, a happy slave to the corporate machine who balks at the idea of freedom and innovation.
Just curious, have you played Battlefield 3? If not, just rent it, and really give the multiplayer a go... You'll die a bunch at first, happens to everyone but once you get a feel for the maps and the flow of combat I promise you'll find more satisfaction and variation there than in any CoD game.
You sir have made my evening with that Tiger quip XDImper1um said:I have the same issue with a lot of other games, especially the ones you all listed.Burn2Feel said:
Madden, FIFA, NCAA, NBA, all those cannot change, because the game does not change. Heck, the only thing that could have changed with Tiger is you could have had "Pimp Tiger '11" where you got to pimp the hoes, using a sneak meter to stay away from the spouse. XD
But, in all seriousness, the market is continuously ruined by games that just simply don't make improvements, even though they could. CoD's campaign is new, but watching it makes me feel like someone just sat down in front of CoD4 and MW2, figuring out which was the coolest and then Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V onto it, and filling in the rest. It just...isn't that great, when storylines like Portal 2, Dark Souls, Skyrim, all are made for the same cost, but they make less.
The issue is that, by buying games that are just "last year's iteration", you're telling publishers, that's what you want. You want a game that is exactly the same as last years with some improvement. Its the same with Madden, Sonic, Dynasty Warriors, etc. You purchase a game knowing full well it could or is the last year's game with a new number at the end, you are telling publishers that you want games like the same. Unfortunately, I cannot accomplish this on my own.
I will admit that on the surface, CoD lacks improvements because, in all honesty, it really hasn't many. But, at the same time it doesn't really need to. Innovation is reserved for those games that really stand out, Portal is a prime example, and if a game sells for what it is, then that's what companies want.
The campaign didn't need much changing as it was part of a trilogy. If the game changed too much, continuity issues, if it didn't change enough (as it did) we get this internet flamestorm. Multiplayer wise, I'd claim that it has changed. Like in the way one Pokemon game changes to the next generation; enough to feel familiar and not need a ton of explanations, but more than enough to rethink your playing styles. To call Modern Warfare 3 a "DLC" does it great unjustice, it's no different to saying Skyrim is just an Oblivion add-on (and by no means am I making that claim, just in case of flames)
On your final note, I wholeheartedly agree. But, if one company does amazing well because of "x", others will copy or at least imitate it. Going back to Portal, just think of the hundreds of pointless "easter eggs" involving cake and lies in games that came after. If something stands out, publishers will notice how well it grabs our attention and sell straight to our demand.
