Decline CoD Advanced Warfare ft. Kevin Spacey

[chestburster]

It was a series of elaborate target practice rooms with regenerating health and people telling you exactly where to go. Except when it tried to be a stealth game and all you had to do was follow a waypoint attached to your commanding officer. .

See, I've never understood this kind of criticism against COD: it IS INTENDED to be a (barely) interactive "movie" game, and has been advertised as such. That's all it offers, and that should be all you expect and demand from it.

Asking for anything more and complaining about the lack thereof is just plain ridiculous. (unless for Kodex Kredit, which is Kool).

There are points where you can bunnyhop across open fields and nobody will notice because you haven't actually hit any of the detection triggers.

Proof or I refuse to believe this could happen. The two Infinity Ward MW games were scripted in a very competent way. What you described sounds like from the bad copycat Medal of Honor games.

 

[Flying_Dutchman]

But, Modern Warfare was leagues better than COD1. The plot was great, gunplay was intense, and everything was just spot-on, except the campaign longevity. Everything post-MW was crap. Utter crap. It was a copy-paste job with little or no innovation.

No it wasn't. It was a series of elaborate target practice rooms with regenerating health and people telling you exactly where to go. Except when it tried to be a stealth game and all you had to do was follow a waypoint attached to your commanding officer. There are points where you can bunnyhop across open fields and nobody will notice because you haven't actually hit any of the detection triggers. This is the same exact formula for all the CoD4 games that came after CoD4 Part 1.

Yeah it was. What COD 1 offered, MW did five times better. I liked that "movie game" approach back then, because it was something fresh in the FPS genre. But then Activision started heavily exploiting the idea, what resulted in a series of short and shitty games.

I got over regenerating health a while ago. To be more specific, I got over it after I played Crysis 1.

Also, what kind of argument is about people telling you exactly where to go? How is that in any way worse than 85% of other FPS titles out there? Most FPS games are super linear and have people telling you exactly where to go.

 

[DeepOcean]

See, I've never understood this kind of criticism against COD: it IS INTENDED to be a (barely) interactive "movie" game, and has been advertised as such. That's all it offers, and that should be all you expect and demand from it.

Yes, anyone that buys COD knows what they are buying. The problem is you may like COD as a "cinematic game" but there is no problem if you like other things as well but most people that are "gamers" these days are only after the spectacle and grinding for experience on a multiplayer game.

One just like to watch pretty stuff and the other behave like a pavlov dog wanting cheap and quick fix. There is no problem in indulging in that shit as everyone likes to see pretty shit and appeal to their pavlov instincts once and awhile but if people can't rise above that shit, they are fucking monkeys and there are more fucking monkeys than intelligent and curious people and all those monkeys have wallets. Then, lo and behold, all shooters are like call of duty. If you don't care about pretty graphics with explosions and shallow gameplay or waste your life grinding in shallow gameplay and want some different and interesting gameplay, good luck to you.

 

[Infinitron]

Demanding a full length "Why COD1 was good and everything after it sucked" editorial from sexbad

 

[chestburster]

pavlov instincts

COD to "real" games is like porn to "real" films. Complaining that COD doesn't allow for much "player agency" is like complaining a porn doesn't have deep plot.

To COD's credit, at least they got the prettiest actress and the best production value, while their competitors look like home-made shit featuring mid-aged fat ugly woman.

 

[sexbad?]

It was a series of elaborate target practice rooms with regenerating health and people telling you exactly where to go. Except when it tried to be a stealth game and all you had to do was follow a waypoint attached to your commanding officer. .

See, I've never understood this kind of criticism against COD: it IS INTENDED to be a (barely) interactive "movie" game, and has been advertised as such. That's all it offers, and that should be all you expect and demand from it.

Asking for anything more and complaining about the lack thereof is just plain ridiculous. (unless for Kodex Kredit, which is Kool).

There are points where you can bunnyhop across open fields and nobody will notice because you haven't actually hit any of the detection triggers.

Proof or I refuse to believe this could happen. The two Infinity Ward MW games were scripted in a very competent way. What you described sounds like from the bad copycat Medal of Honor games.

I don't subscribe to the belief that intention is an excuse for poor quality. I also don't like defeatism.

You will get your proof. I actually recorded it a while ago but the drive it was on fucked up, so I will do the mission again. It's so good.

Demanding a full length "Why COD1 was good and everything after it sucked" editorial from sexbad

I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through, so I can't do that, but in my experience they were pretty okay. They also tried to make you feel like you're in a movie, but they at least went into this endeavor with the assumption that you had some sort of mental capability beyond quick reaction time. The parts where you're on your own are nice, and plenty of the parts with NPCs didn't have those NPCs dragging you along by the ear down the only path you could go down anyway.

I don't think I have any really high praise for the CoD 1 and 2, apart from the sounds. From CoD4 onward all the guns are quiet like marshmallow whispers.

The best cinematic WW2 FPS is Return to Castle Wolfenstein imho, barring the occasional shitty monster sections. The level design turns me on, and even the second stealth mission was actually great.

 

[chestburster]

I don't subscribe to the belief that intention is an excuse for poor quality.　I also don't like defeatism.

Except that MW1& 2 is not of "poor quality." ONly maybe not the quality YOU are looking for.

Look, "poor" presumes a referential framework of "what is good or poor". Each GENRE of entertainment demands different referential framework. MW1& 2 belong to their own genre and are always intended to be. You can't use the referential framework for other genres to judge them. That would be just stupid.

Why not complain that COD doesn't do JRPG combat or that COD doesn't play like Football Manager?

Also it's not "defeatism" when one simply accepts the fact that in the world, there are shitty things intended for shitty purposes and glorious things for glorious purposes. A toilet is "intended" for taking a shit. And it can do that job perfectly. Just don't expect it to be a particle accelerator.

 

[Zed]

advanced warfart

 

[Flying_Dutchman]

I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through, so I can't do that, but in my experience they were pretty okay.

Funny how your criticism towards MW comes from "I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through". In order to notice the differences between the two titles is, you know, to play them.

They also tried to make you feel like you're in a movie, but they at least went into this endeavor with the assumption that you had some sort of mental capability beyond quick reaction time.

Yeah, but that wasn't the first time they made their first attempt at "movie game" department. They did it before with Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

 

[Infinitron]

inb4 oldfag seeing this thread and complaining about how the Codex is going down the toilet

I mean, Modern Warfare fanboys? Come on.

 

[GarfunkeL]

The plot was great, gunplay was intense, and everything was just spot-on, except the campaign longevity.

Hahaha lol.

 

[chestburster]

I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through, so I can't do that, but in my experience they were pretty okay.

Funny how your criticism towards MW comes from "I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through". In order to notice the differences between the two titles is, you know, to play them.

Maybe he did play them, with the only intention to break both the script and sense of immersion.

Such as bunny hopping all around when the game demands restraint of action.

TBH, this kind of player behavior is why they decided to make a lot of the stuff in the game non-interactive in the first place, because ADD players tend to do stupid shit and not do what the game story demands.

 

[Flying_Dutchman]

The plot was great, gunplay was intense, and everything was just spot-on, except the campaign longevity.

Hahaha lol.

And yet people tell me I'm a hipster...

 

[GarfunkeL]

You know what shooter had a great plot and intense gunplay? Doom. It also lasted longer than five hours and had no quick-time events.

EDIT: and before you throw a hissy-fit about, I'm talking about how fucking ridiculous it is for someone to praise MW or COD1 or MoH when they aren't categorically any better than Half-Life(s) or Unreals or Prey or Doom(s) or Rise of Triad or fucking original Wolfenstein 3D.

 

[chestburster]

a great plot ... Doom

 

[Flying_Dutchman]

You know what shooter had a great plot and intense gunplay? Doom. It also lasted longer than five hours and had no quick-time events.

Doom is your counterargument? Really?

Sure, Doom was an iconic shooter with intense gunplay. At that time. But dude, what plot? If you really wanted to offer an FPS as an example of great plot and intense gunplay you'd say Half-Life 1.

I mean, just because it's awesome to hate COD, Activision and Bobby Kotick, that doesn't mean MW1 was a bad shooter. For me, it was a breath of fresh air. What MW caused in the future and how it influenced the production of other FPS titles, that's another story, which I'm not talking about.

 

[Utgard-Loki]

yeah, instead of shooting ze evil germans with a garand, you shot the evil iraqis/afghanis/russians with a m4. such an innovative idea. i can't even contain my massive erection.

 

[J_C]

You know what shooter had a great plot and intense gunplay? Doom.

And you know what shooter didn'T had a plot? Doom.

yeah, instead of shooting ze evil germans with a garand, you shot the evil iraqis/afghanis/russians with a m4. such an innovative idea. i can't even contain my massive erection.

You know you can strip down any good shooter with a good plot to bare gameplay, and say that all you do is shoot enemies. Doom didn't have a plot. At all. Oh sorry, it had a plot: You are a space marine, and a mars base is overrun by demons. Kill them all!!!! You can't say with a straight face that the plow of MW is on the same level. MW had a good plot, which played out during the mission, and betwwen the mission during the briefing.

 

[sexbad?]

I don't subscribe to the belief that intention is an excuse for poor quality.　I also don't like defeatism.

Except that MW1& 2 is not of "poor quality." ONly maybe not the quality YOU are looking for.

Look, "poor" presumes a referential framework of "what is good or poor". Each GENRE of entertainment demands different referential framework. MW1& 2 belong to their own genre and are always intended to be. You can't use the referential framework for other genres to judge them. That would be just stupid.

Why not complain that COD doesn't do JRPG combat or that COD doesn't play like Football Manager?

You're an idiot. Because it is a first-person shooter, not a JRPG or a management sim. Believe it or not, there are many shooters on the market, and there are plenty that have done stealth and combat better in both World War II and modern settings.

Here is the stealth that totally isn't poor by any reasonable standard of measuring stealth:

I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through, so I can't do that, but in my experience they were pretty okay.

Funny how your criticism towards MW comes from "I haven't bothered to play any of the really early CoD games all the way through". In order to notice the differences between the two titles is, you know, to play them.

I did play them, just not all the way through. They were alright, but not fun enough for me at the time, so I stopped.

They also tried to make you feel like you're in a movie, but they at least went into this endeavor with the assumption that you had some sort of mental capability beyond quick reaction time.

Yeah, but that wasn't the first time they made their first attempt at "movie game" department. They did it before with Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

Then the same developers went on to make their fourth, fifth, sixth etc. attempts at a "movie game," and their assumption that you had some sort of mental capability beyond quick reaction time became much smaller.

 

[sexbad?]

You know what shooter had a great plot and intense gunplay? Doom.

And you know what shooter didn'T had a plot? Doom.

Doom did have a plot: Demons from Hell invade. It's pretty great imho.

It didn't have anything more than that, though.

 

[Flying_Dutchman]

Then the same developers went on to make their fourth, fifth, sixth etc. attempts at a "movie game," and their assumption that you had some sort of mental capability beyond quick reaction time became much smaller.

The "movie game" approach was heavily exploited post-MW, granted.

 

[Duraframe300]

No

Bad codex

No

 

[Utgard-Loki]

that's clearly intended. the zone has many strange anomalies. a jumping bush with a sniper rifle is the least of your worries, tovarich. ignore and continue.

 

[sexbad?]

I mean, just because it's awesome to hate COD, Activision and Bobby Kotick, that doesn't mean MW1 was a bad shooter. For me, it was a breath of fresh air. What MW caused in the future and how it influenced the production of other FPS titles, that's another story, which I'm not talking about.

You're right. CoD 4 wasn't a bad shooter because of its eventually huge brand name or because of the reputation of its publisher. I don't judge the quality of much of what I actually play based on its social context like that. It was bad because of its own lack of merits: its lack of AI and subsequent overreliance on scripts that can be easily understood and exploited; its funneled level design that gives you waypoints if you're too stupid to see a straight line or too curious to go out searching all the invisible walls; and its weak gunplay with quickly regenerating health, quiet guns, and AI companions who don't really do a damn thing on their own or take any fire.

 

[chestburster]

You're an idiot. Because it is a first-person shooter, not a JRPG or a management sim.

It's a movie where you can push some buttons occasionally.

Also since you clearly lack of reading comprehension ability of the rhetoric of hyperbole, here is an easier one for you:

why not complain that ARMA doesn't have cinematic first-person cutscenes?

"All Ghillied UP" level

Yes I'm well aware of that level. Yes you were hopping like a fucking idiot. Yes the enemies didn't see you since you were away from their line of sight.

So what? Does that make that level a failure or only shows that you have ADD or were intending to act like you have?