1. Post #41
    zacht_180's Avatar
    May 2010
    697 Posts
    http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1176557

    I created this thread a few weeks back in commemoration of real shooters.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  2. Post #42
    Voted WORST Gold Member 2012
    Killuah's Avatar
    August 2005
    15,315 Posts
    Call of Duty generally is a linear experience but to equate it to pressing buttons on a dvd player is stupid.
    No, it's metaphorical speaking.

  3. Post #43
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,248 Posts
    No, it's metaphorical speaking.
    Even in a metaphorical sense its a poor comparison.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  4. Post #44
    Gold Member

    November 2007
    8,432 Posts
    I think the reason they've been having SP is the same reason Halo 3 and Reach had SP.

    Publisher requirements.

    Hell, if they got rid of SP in the next COD then we might have some real innovation going.
    As long as they don't charge $60 for it, I would buy it. Hell, drop the shitty singleplayer and charge me $30 and I'm sold.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  5. Post #45
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,248 Posts
    As long as they don't charge $60 for it, I would buy it. Hell, drop the shitty singleplayer and charge me $30 and I'm sold.
    I wouldn't count on anything but a full 60$ price tag. Hell black ops is still 40 bucks and MW2 just came down to 20.

  6. Post #46
    Gold Member
    BrickInHead's Avatar
    March 2007
    17,155 Posts
    the pc community's perception of cod has honestly been hilarious. they lauded cod4 as one of the greatest modern fps's, and then with the release of mw2 were excited until finding out that infinity ward removed dedicated server support. you see a paradigm shift during those moments and cod effectively becomes villified - cod4 as the paramount, ultimate cod, and all cod's afterwards being "disgusting cash cows with terrible game play." and just as this video shows, that terrible gameplay was always there. cod4 had the same balancing issues as mw2. cod4 had just a ridiculous story as mw2. cod4 is mw2.

    cod4 is not a good game. it is mediocre.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 21 (list)

  7. Post #47
    Gold Member
    OH-SNAP!'s Avatar
    September 2009
    2,660 Posts
    I don't know about you guys, but I play games to have fun.

    I don't look at the game's complete technical issues when I play. If it's fun to me, I'll be playing it. I like Call of Duty games. I still play and have fun with them. When I stop having fun with them, I'll stop buying and playing them. I agree that CoD will get old eventually. Everything gets old sometime, and who's to say that your favorite game series isn't going to get old? Also, I am aware of the fact that CoD games are clones of each other, but I do still get excited for new CoDs coming out.

    And I'm not just a CoD "fanboy" as you normally call people who actually enjoy playing the games. I enjoy playing Battlefield as well. I'd just prefer to have more fun playing my MW3.

    But who am I to say anything; I'm going to be rated dumb by everyone that dislikes CoD anyways. I'm just a gamer with an honest opinion about a topic at hand. Just thought I'd share.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 6Dumb Dumb x 5Disagree Disagree x 1Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  8. Post #48
    SparkDog's Avatar
    October 2005
    300 Posts
    They should've put infinitely spawning civilians in the airport level
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United States Show Events Funny Funny x 15Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  9. Post #49
    I don't know about you guys, but I play games to have fun.

    I don't look at the game's complete technical issues when I play. If it's fun to me, I'll be playing it. I like Call of Duty games. I still play and have fun with them. When I stop having fun with them, I'll stop buying and playing them. I agree that CoD will get old eventually. Everything gets old sometime, and who's to say that your favorite game series isn't going to get old? Also, I am aware of the fact that CoD games are clones of each other, but I do still get excited for new CoDs coming out.

    And I'm not just a CoD "fanboy" as you normally call people who actually enjoy playing the games. I enjoy playing Battlefield as well. I'd just prefer to have more fun playing my MW3.

    But who am I to say anything; I'm going to be rated dumb by everyone that dislikes CoD anyways. I'm just a gamer with an honest opinion about a topic at hand. Just thought I'd share.
    that's kind of why EVERYONE plays games, to you know...have fun. CoD can be fun, but it's still a very broken game. Playing a broken game isn't fun, and that's the entire point of criticizing it

    I'm going to rate you dumb, not because I disagree with you, but because you completely missed the point. People are pissed because of people who are blindly accepting the COD franchize without looking at other games at all, and because of people who think it's the only game of it's kind ever, and because of people who look at others that say "I don't think it's fun, so unbalanced' and ignorantly yell that it's "totally balanced and there's nothing wrong with the game" when they have no idea what they're even talking about.

    It's not because COD is bad, it's because it's an OK game, but it's still has huge flaws that could easily be fixed but can't, and people completely don't get it and just blindly defend it.

    [SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUP][SUB][SUB][SUP]also, your steam profile... an idler group and "^^ im just yur average girl gamer :))"

    wow[/SUP][/SUB][/SUB][/SUP][/SUB][/SUP][/SUB][/SUP][/SUB][/SUP][/SUB]
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  10. Post #50
    1STrandomman's Avatar
    May 2007
    2,019 Posts
    I don't know about you guys, but I play games to have fun.

    I don't look at the game's complete technical issues when I play. If it's fun to me, I'll be playing it. I like Call of Duty games. I still play and have fun with them. When I stop having fun with them, I'll stop buying and playing them. I agree that CoD will get old eventually. Everything gets old sometime, and who's to say that your favorite game series isn't going to get old? Also, I am aware of the fact that CoD games are clones of each other, but I do still get excited for new CoDs coming out.

    And I'm not just a CoD "fanboy" as you normally call people who actually enjoy playing the games. I enjoy playing Battlefield as well. I'd just prefer to have more fun playing my MW3.

    But who am I to say anything; I'm going to be rated dumb by everyone that dislikes CoD anyways. I'm just a gamer with an honest opinion about a topic at hand. Just thought I'd share.
    I certainly wouldn't blame you for having the tastes you do, considering the subjectivity of it all. On the other hand, would it be too much to ask for you to not buy more COD games unless they make a significant change? You've admitted yourself that they're all clones, and the unreal sales numbers have disrupted the market. In fact, if I were you, I'd be pretty mad at Activision. Think about it, by rushing games out at full price, putting out expensive DLC, and now this subscription service... they're taking advantage of you.

  11. Post #51
    AeroSinthetic's Avatar
    August 2010
    1,518 Posts
    I don't even really think the multiplayer is that fun. It's basically see enemy, shoot enemy, find new enemy to see and then consequently shoot. Not to mention the "snipers", or how you get yelled at for actually sniping rather than quickscoping.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows XP United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  12. Post #52
    Gold Member
    OH-SNAP!'s Avatar
    September 2009
    2,660 Posts
    I find CoD fun. Which is why I play it. I don't see how I'm missing the point. I get the point of the video: "CoD is rushed, and broken." I see threads/videos/people talking about this almost every day, and not one has made me wanna change my opinions about CoD. I (want to) buy DLC because sometimes I want a small change. When I want a big change, I buy a new game. I don't know; maybe I find broken and rushed games fun? All of this is my opinion, which we are all entitled to.

    I don't even really think the multiplayer is that fun. It's basically see enemy, shoot enemy, find new enemy to see and then consequently shoot. Not to mention the "snipers", or how you get yelled at for actually sniping rather than quickscoping.
    Another point why people hate on CoD. This is one of my few complaints about this game series. But then again, not everyone is a bitch-scoper when they snipe. I do admit, most people complain when you "hard-scope" but that's what sniping is supposed to be. The community of this game is what mainly fucked the series up.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  13. Post #53

    February 2010
    3,109 Posts
    the pc community's perception of cod has honestly been hilarious. they lauded cod4 as one of the greatest modern fps's, and then with the release of mw2 were excited until finding out that infinity ward removed dedicated server support. you see a paradigm shift during those moments and cod effectively becomes villified - cod4 as the paramount, ultimate cod, and all cod's afterwards being "disgusting cash cows with terrible game play." and just as this video shows, that terrible gameplay was always there. cod4 had the same balancing issues as mw2. cod4 had just a ridiculous story as mw2. cod4 is mw2.

    cod4 is not a good game. it is mediocre.
    Repetition made the flaws a bit more obvious, but COD 4 is way less bloated with crap too, in my opinion, and the story became increasingly more ridiculous, things like Soap and his hair, the heartbeat sensors, ridiculous scenarios trying to make a show, the damn killstreaks became worse... that kind of stuff was way less prominent in MW1.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Brazil Show Events Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  14. Post #54
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,677 Posts
    Expected a multiplayer critique, got singleplayer. I can't say he isn't right but saying CoD is objectively worse as a singleplayer shooter than 90% of other shooters on the shelf is wrong. Everything he says can be applied to the gamer darling Battlefield 3. I get that CoD is the most popular game so it's probably the best way to communicate his (mostly legitimate) points, but he seems to be implying CoD is the only game that suffers from these issues. The fact of the matter is that the modern shooter takes the campaign as an extended tutorial that sets some backstory for the unlock and progression fueled multiplayer.

    It's not like this is a new thing either. The previous singleplayer iterations of CoD were the exact same as they are now, with possibly even worse points like more infinite wave checkpoints and worse AI. This is because the singleplayer is a tutorial. It sets the background. It says "You are here, in this time and place, and this is what is going on" before dumping you in a multiplayer arena and having you shoot Nazis while sprinting everywhere.

    I also disagree with the notion that literally the only reason the games continue to sell well is because the name. Obviously some people will just buy a CoD title because it is CoD, but that doesn't explain increasing sales rates after every single release. And not small increases either; we are talking 10-30 percent additional from the previous year alone. As it turns out, people just really like Call of Duty. It's a solid all around shooter that anyone can pick up but has the depth to keep people playing for months (or, more correctly, until the next one comes out in November).

    I'm not saying that CoD doesn't have it's problems. I'd say at best it's a solid FPS, and at worse (MW3) mediocre and tired. They are just kind of "okay" all around. They are fast, low-input high output experiences. They are the McDonalds of video games. And that's okay. Clearly a lot of people like McDonald's. Sometimes they don't want to consider tactical strategy when playing a video game. Sometimes they want to run around and exploding Paris, dual-wielding SMG's and killing Russians because it's just fun to do.

    For the multiplayer complaints I'd say it's another mix of good and bad points. The game is definitely made for the casual player...because most shooters are made for the casual player these days. As it turns out, marketing to a lot more people makes a lot more money, and so FPS developers have gotten on the gravy train and dumbed down their mechanics for common consumption. Again, this is not something CoD alone does. It's just how the market works. I disagree whole heartedly with his point on "skillless" killstreaks. Obviously it doesn't take much "skill" to bomb someone by designating them on the map and praying they stand there, but I'm pretty sure that person excercised his ability to play the game by killing 5 people on the enemy team without dying himself. Killstreaks are a natural evolution of mechanics present in most highly competitive games. Being rewarded for doing well is a cornerstone of games like CS and DotA, where you get more money to buy better gear if you do better. There is nothing wrong with that as an idea. I will agree CoD takes it too far with it's map encompassing air strikes and tactical nukes and EMP's and other sillyness, but the idea that killstreaks are in and of themselves "skillless" is wrong.

    I'll give this guy credit. He is a lot more cerebral then most people who bash CoD. Most of his points are right, if only because they relate to the FPS genre as a whole in 2012 rather than this specific game. I'd have loved a video talking about all these in relation to the genre from Halo to Battlefield to CoD to Medal of Honor, but when CoD is such an easy target to hit I realize it's easy to lose focus.

    Edited:

    things like Soap and his hair
    lmao what.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  15. Post #55
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,955 Posts
    Uhh yeah, if you're calling CoD shit because its singleplayer sucks, you need to do some long and hard thinking about the depths to which you will sink to complain about something
    But because it's not what most people play that makes it ascend common conventions of criticism by making it not critiqueunable?

  16. Post #56
    CUNT DESTROYER
    Hunterdnrc's Avatar
    August 2008
    10,881 Posts
    I dislike the tone that he has during the video, something about his voice irks me.

    Edited:

    Also, the Call of Duty campaigns were more like a movie. I'm not nearly pretentious enough to dislike a movie because it doesn't show me enough bad stuff about war. That doesn't make it a bad game. The shit he pointed out earlier do, but it's hardly noticeable when you're playing the game just to play it, rather then looking for reasons to dislike it, but that's just me. Like or dislike a game, but don't shit on someone because they do like it. I play Battlefield, I play Halo, I play Call of Duty. Then I can also play ARMA or Half Life. This guy needs to get this through his skull and stop being such a condescending piece of shit.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  17. Post #57
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,955 Posts
    I dislike the tone that he has during the video, something about his voice irks me.

    Edited:

    Also, the Call of Duty campaigns were more like a movie. I'm not nearly pretentious enough to dislike a movie because it doesn't show me enough bad stuff about war. That doesn't make it a bad game. The shit he pointed out earlier do, but it's hardly noticeable when you're playing the game just to play it, rather then looking for reasons to dislike it, but that's just me. Like or dislike a game, but don't shit on someone because they do like it. I play Battlefield, I play Halo, I play Call of Duty. Then I can also play ARMA or Half Life. This guy needs to get this through his skull and stop being such a condescending piece of shit.
    The thing is call of duty tries to pull the "horror of war" card all the time and fails miserably at it because it comes across as being a half-assed attempt to seem "deep"
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 9 (list)

  18. Post #58
    I laughed at the beginning when he shot his mate.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Poland Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  19. Post #59
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,677 Posts
    The thing is call of duty tries to pull the "horror of war" card all the time and fails miserably at it because it comes across as being a half-assed attempt to seem "deep"
    I think the only time it tried to sell the horror of war was in W@W which was done exceedingly well.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  20. Post #60
    Gold Member
    Demolitions2's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,265 Posts
    On the subject of CoD getting stale, like i've said in another thread I still enjoy Black Ops a lot. Treyarch saw what IW was doing to MW2 and decided they wanted to make the game about having FUN instead of being hyper competitive. While CoD is pretty samey, Black Ops did a lot to distance itself to the series, compared to MW1, 2, and 3. WaW is kind of a toss up. That was arguably MW1 with a reskin, though I enjoyed it for awhile, and they definitely added enough to warrant a full price IMO. My only fear is that Activision is going to see Black Ops 2 as an opportunity to make Black Ops more like MW3 in order to appeal to that crowd again. A LOT of MW2 players hated BO because it was slower, felt different, and had "silly" things added in [RC cars, Crossbow, Ballistic Knife, Flamethrower, etc.].

    For the multiplayer complaints I'd say it's another mix of good and bad points. The game is definitely made for the casual player...because most shooters are made for the casual player these days. As it turns out, marketing to a lot more people makes a lot more money, and so FPS developers have gotten on the gravy train and dumbed down their mechanics for common consumption. Again, this is not something CoD alone does. It's just how the market works. I disagree whole heartedly with his point on "skillless" killstreaks. Obviously it doesn't take much "skill" to bomb someone by designating them on the map and praying they stand there, but I'm pretty sure that person excercised his ability to play the game by killing 5 people on the enemy team without dying himself. Killstreaks are a natural evolution of mechanics present in most highly competitive games. Being rewarded for doing well is a cornerstone of games like CS and DotA, where you get more money to buy better gear if you do better. There is nothing wrong with that as an idea. I will agree CoD takes it too far with it's map encompassing air strikes and tactical nukes and EMP's and other sillyness, but the idea that killstreaks are in and of themselves "skillless" is wrong.

    The main problem with killstreaks in MW3 is that they don't encourage playing well to get them, they encourage camping, and using less than reputable strategies in order to get them. They haven't exercised their ability to play the game. They have done what they could to take advantage of other people, using cheap tactics in order to get a killstreak, which allows them more kills with little effort. CoD4 had the perfect set up for killstreaks. Nothing was too big or hard to deal with. I agree that killstreaks can be a fun addition to a game, but they shouldn't be part of the game entirely. They should be the small bit of sugar on top. A little extra for doing well [or better yet, for helping your team and working together].

    As for the dumbing it down, yes they did. But they also left in MAJOR balance issues with the game. So now you have a game that is easy to pick up and play, but hard to keep playing because you have people who need to either play like a dickhead JUST to be a dickhead, or play like a dickhead in order to win and be better than everyone else. More than half of the weapons are rendered useless, because if you are using anything other than a few overpowered set pieces, you might as well be throwing rocks. Highly competitive, and casual do not mix.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  21. Post #61
    CUNT DESTROYER
    Hunterdnrc's Avatar
    August 2008
    10,881 Posts
    I think the only time it tried to sell the horror of war was in W@W which was done exceedingly well.
    Like the German guys who you had to shoot or let the guy burn? That done was pretty well.

  22. Post #62
    Ah yes "opinions"
    Jackald's Avatar
    October 2005
    16,955 Posts
    I think the only time it tried to sell the horror of war was in W@W which was done exceedingly well.
    MW1 with the nuke.
    MW2 with the airport shooting
    MW3 with the kid blowing up

  23. Post #63
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,677 Posts
    MW1 with the nuke.
    MW2 with the airport shooting
    MW3 with the kid blowing up
    The first one sure, the other two were just terrorist things to make you want to not like the bad guy. Not really trying to make a statement on war is a philosophy.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3 (list)

  24. Post #64
    Gold Member
    Demolitions2's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,265 Posts
    MW1 with the nuke.
    MW2 with the airport shooting
    MW3 with the kid blowing up
    To me, the nuke was actually tastefully done. It was a big twist, and a shocker for most gamers who had never seen such a plot element put into a game. The aftermath where you control the character had an almost poetic feeling about it. I for one felt like shit after that because it made me think about war in a deep manner. To me though MW2 and MW3 were just trying to cash in on the shock factor again, because they saw how much people liked it in the story. Same goes with killing off characters the player gets attached to. CoD4, when Gaz got shot i flipped shit. But then they start killing off characters like they need to be cut from the script in 5 minutes to make room for more killing.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 13 (list)

  25. Post #65
    Gold Member
    Raidyr's Avatar
    February 2007
    23,677 Posts
    The main problem with killstreaks in MW3 is that they don't encourage playing well to get them, they encourage camping, and using less than reputable strategies in order to get them. They haven't exercised their ability to play the game. They have done what they could to take advantage of other people, using cheap tactics in order to get a killstreak, which allows them more kills with little effort. CoD4 had the perfect set up for killstreaks. Nothing was too big or hard to deal with. I agree that killstreaks can be a fun addition to a game, but they shouldn't be part of the game entirely. They should be the small bit of sugar on top. A little extra for doing well [or better yet, for helping your team and working together].

    As for the dumbing it down, yes they did. But they also left in MAJOR balance issues with the game. So now you have a game that is easy to pick up and play, but hard to keep playing because you have people who need to either play like a dickhead JUST to be a dickhead, or play like a dickhead in order to win and be better than everyone else. More than half of the weapons are rendered useless, because if you are using anything other than a few overpowered set pieces, you might as well be throwing rocks. Highly competitive, and casual do not mix.
    Completely agree with CoD4 killstreaks working fine. UAV's at 3 kills let even average players keep the game moving by highlighting campers, bombing runs took out entrenched enemies, and the helicopter was a nice bonus for players doing really well.
    Black Ops had good killstreaks to up until 8 or 9 kills then it got stupid.

    As far as balance goes, eh. Most shooters never get balance right. Just kinda something you have to grin and bear. Even the most competitive shooters have awkward balance.

  26. Post #66
    CUNT DESTROYER
    Hunterdnrc's Avatar
    August 2008
    10,881 Posts
    Soaps death was done well. Price's reaction to it at least.

  27. Post #67
    beep
    codemaster85's Avatar
    January 2006
    7,557 Posts
    I forgot soap died in mw3

  28. Post #68
    Gold Member
    The Vman's Avatar
    December 2008
    8,134 Posts
    I laughed so hard at :40 seconds when he's looking over the area completely clear of enemies, then takes one step and the whole place lights up with gunfire.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 10Funny Funny x 3 (list)

  29. Post #69
    Gold Member
    Cone's Avatar
    August 2011
    18,981 Posts
    I think the only time it tried to sell the horror of war was in W@W which was done exceedingly well.
    BO also did something similar, though not entirely as well or on the same scale, with Reznov and Hudson. Like, it's very obvious who the bad guys are, but it's fairly clear Reznov is at best a very manipulative person and that Hudson does anything he has to, and I think they actually sold both of them quite well.

  30. Post #70
    Gold Member
    SlayerFin's Avatar
    May 2008
    4,243 Posts
    They don't teach us about war in school. I have had to do my own research to figure stuff out. The reason they do it is because they don't think it's important enough or some might find it offensive.
    War is important thing to talk about and it's common knowledge to be aware of it's history.
    This is a problem that if someone might find it offensive.
    Things need to be said like they are without embellishing, no matter if someone finds it offensive.
    One of the most important things in life that say things like they really are without avoiding the subject.
    Of course there is an expection on little children.
    Anyway, back to the topic. I agree with him what he said about COD.

  31. Post #71
    insert long title here
    SEKCobra's Avatar
    January 2009
    15,143 Posts
    I laughed so hard at :40 seconds when he's looking over the area completely clear of enemies, then takes one step and the whole place lights up with gunfire.
    I always laugh at poor trigger placement, played Serious Sam 3 recently and parkoured my way around them ain path and killed the enemies from an elevated position, my coop partner came back from being afk and walekd down the street, spawned 2 hordes of enemies while I was behind them..

  32. Post #72
    Lizzrd's Avatar
    December 2009
    8,786 Posts
    Why would he waste his time over-analyzing Call of Duty?

    The bandwagon of hatred of Call of Duty is in my opinion more annoying than people who think it's the greatest game of all time.
    If you don't like something, stop giving it attention.
    Because the games industry needs to learn that it's not a thing one should try to replicate, it's a thing to shun.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Norway Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  33. Post #73
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    the games industry isn't a child, it doesn't learn things.
    it creates the best selling product and that's about it
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  34. Post #74
    Gold Member

    December 2006
    2,632 Posts
    Criticism of anything?
    Must be a hater!
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Zing Zing x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  35. Post #75
    Gold Member
    Greenen72's Avatar
    September 2009
    8,678 Posts
    So what you are saying is it's okay to have a terrible single player as long as the multiplayer is good?
    Yeah, when the multiplayer is what most of the people play. Otherwise, I can apparently call Dead Rising shit game of the millenium because the multiplayer sucks/is dead.

    Edited:

    But because it's not what most people play that makes it ascend common conventions of criticism by making it not critiqueunable?
    You can't call the entire game shit because singleplayer sucks. Call singleplayer a heaping pile of shit, but the multiplayer can still be fun

  36. Post #76
    Sphene
    Qaus's Avatar
    September 2010
    10,831 Posts
    Dear video game industry,
    Where the hell did arena shooters go? No, I will not accept Nexuiz until I learn how to pronounce it.

    Signed,
    Raijin

  37. Post #77
    Gold Member
    TheTalon's Avatar
    June 2008
    19,829 Posts
    If you want to make an actual decent Call of Duty game. Go back to World War II. Slow the fucking shit down. Stop putting so much shit on the screen at every second that makes people not prone to seizures have them, and maybe we'll be onto something

    As far as I'm concerned, CoD 1 and 2, and 4 are the only ones worth playing, end of discussion

  38. Post #78
    Gold Member
    benzi2k7's Avatar
    July 2007
    7,750 Posts
    The thing is call of duty tries to pull the "horror of war" card all the time and fails miserably at it because it comes across as being a half-assed attempt to seem "deep"
    most videogames fail miserably at projecting a certain narrative though, there's huger problems within the game industry than call of duty we have to get past before games can come anywhere near movies & tv shows* in terms of emotional content. we've not even got past using women as sexual objects in the majority of games yet, i don't see why you think any game can present war in a serious manner.

    *games should be going in a different direction rather than emulating tv shows/movies which is a huge proble because it doesnt work in an interactive medium at all
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  39. Post #79
    Uncle Bourbon's Avatar
    November 2011
    4,754 Posts
    blood on the screen so realistic.
    B-B-BLOODY SCREEN! ~SO REAL~

    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Finland Show Events Late Late x 2Funny Funny x 1Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  40. Post #80
    Gold Member
    aVoN's Avatar
    December 2005
    2,880 Posts
    Lol, I actually said "Bbbbblooody Screen! So real" and the guy above me posted it earlier and was even late.
    Damn ninjas.
    So I will just say: I played MW2 and BO in SP and MP. Even MW3. And all can't do a shit against BF3. (The old war :)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Germany Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)