Decline CoD Advanced Warfare ft. Kevin Spacey

[chestburster]

Yes it does, for two reasons:

(1) inexperienced player can't handle pushing more than two buttons at a time, which hinders their ability to enjoy said "exciting" set-pieces. They're not retarded, at least not all of them. They just don't have any gaming experience playing games. Contrary to popular belief, it is a good thing to bring more people into playing games, not to scare them away.

Why? What good has the massive increase in player base done for me since 1998?

I don't know. Maybe you can finally play a game together with your friend, who was never interested in the older games?

 

[tuluse]

I don't know. Maybe you can finally play a game together with your friend, who was never interested in the older games?

Great now not only am I doing something I don't like, but I have to pretend to like it to make my friend comfortable.

 

[chestburster]

I have to pretend to like it to make my friend comfortable.

And that is wrong because?

Or you know, you can try to increase your own enjoyment by finding some merits in COD, instead of being determined to rip it a new one, sexbad style.

 

[Necroscope]

Never played a COD game and this trailer didn't convince me to give it try.

 

[Western]

I have to pretend to like it to make my friend comfortable.

And that is wrong because?

Or you know, you can try to increase your own enjoyment by finding some merits in COD, instead of being determined to rip it a new one, sexbad style.

 

[sexbad?]

The only merits are the two that you get to stick your face between in the Pripyat mission.

 

[DemonKing]

I've played most of the COD games and after the original MW they haven't really gone anywhere new. I always treated them as casual multiplayer games with a quick campaign included if you want to go that route. The problem is that since they've dropped dedicated servers for the PC version the multiplayer just doesn't work well enough to be worth the purchase. I tried the free weekend for Ghosts they had a few weeks back and the lag was shocking (and I have a 100 Mps fibre connection) and graphically the first "Next Generation" COD looked just as aged as previous titles have in the last few years.

Unfortunately that leaves the Battlefield series as the only current mainstream shooter game that is playable on PC online. I thought BF3 was pretty good but BF4 hasn't moved the series along as much as I would like.

In any case I'm sick to death of games set in the Modern or near future. WW2 in the current BF engine would be great - but apparently WW2 is a dirty word at the moment. I guess BF:Star Wars will be something new but the lack of innovation is disturbing.

 

[anus_pounder]

some point

No it wasn't.

anus_pounder brofists this

Yeah it was.

anus_pounder brofists this

God, I love you anus_pounder , I want to have tasteful sex with you so bad

I'm ok with this.

 

[chestburster]

In any case I'm sick to death of games set in the Modern or near future.

The lack of plasma guns and lasers in modern games is disturbing indeed.

 

[groke]

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

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

Ultimate Doom is one of the great revenge stories of our age, though:

 

[Valestein]

I've played most of the COD games and after the original MW they haven't really gone anywhere new. I always treated them as casual multiplayer games with a quick campaign included if you want to go that route. The problem is that since they've dropped dedicated servers for the PC version the multiplayer just doesn't work well enough to be worth the purchase. I tried the free weekend for Ghosts they had a few weeks back and the lag was shocking (and I have a 100 Mps fibre connection) and graphically the first "Next Generation" COD looked just as aged as previous titles have in the last few years.

Unfortunately that leaves the Battlefield series as the only current mainstream shooter game that is playable on PC online. I thought BF3 was pretty good but BF4 hasn't moved the series along as much as I would like.

In any case I'm sick to death of games set in the Modern or near future. WW2 in the current BF engine would be great - but apparently WW2 is a dirty word at the moment. I guess BF:Star Wars will be something new but the lack of innovation is disturbing.

I'd dig a game set in the Korean war, which is a sadly unexplored setting/conflict for FPS.

 

[agentorange]

"people don't want freedom, they want boundaries"

oh the ironing

 

[Tom Selleck]

 

[Tom Selleck]

Also, everybody, we can talk about how Call of Duty: Ghosts was written by Academy-Award winning screenwriter Stephen Gaghan, and it was bad. Also Paul Haggis did like, Modern Warfare 3, and he also has won Academy Awards for The Facts of Life and Liberalism and it too, was bad.

So, I mean, there must be something wrong in the very DNA of the Call of Duty series to make (arguably) talented men write bad stories in games trying to be gamemoviestories.

 

[Angthoron]

Game writer is not a position that drives the project, at least not in the AAA, unless you're the company owner or something of the sort, a-la Metzen.

In AAA, a writer receives an assignment on the general topic and flow of the game as designed already. If he's particularly lucky to be in the core design team, he'll be able to set some of the direction here. However, since AAA is generally designed by market research committees, general result is that the writer simply has to give flesh to the already mis-shapen skeleton of a plot. Yeah, they might try to be smart/authentic/whatever in dialogues, yes, they might add a couple of neat details, but that's generally the extent of it. Revive Hemingway, Tolstoy and Plato, force them to work for Activision in game writing department, they won't likely do any fucking better. It's the way the system is set up to run.

 

[Infinitron]

I've played all the PC CoD games up to Blops2 - not removed from inventory, of course. The only ones that seem like they're seriously trying to be "well-written" are the Black Ops games, with their character-driven psychological thrillerish storylines. Of the two, only the first one comes close to succeeding.

Which reminds me, it's probably time to play Ghosts now.

 

[GarfunkeL]

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

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

I guess reading the second paragraph was too hard. Seriously. Praising MW and slamming later CoD titles is really pointless, because, as I already wrote, MW didn't bring anything good to the shooter table, that had not already been covered by other shooters before. Just like all other CoD titles. This is yet another pointless argument between teenagers who never played earlier games, and thus think that CoD1 and MW1 are some sort of Hall Of Fame entries. What did MW/CoD do better than NoLF? Half-Life? Unreal? And so on and so forth.

 

[dnf]

Ever since COD1, the series main appeal and the reason it is/was so praised is because it let you play in large scale battles, just like Dynasty Warriors. What FPS did the illusion of large scale battles better than COD? lol, Infinitron p. much played them all while calling decline on peeps that liked the game, maximum jew.

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

Okay, I'll bite; how did the Illusive Man get himself thrown back in time? Was it Reapers?


I'll bet it was Reapers.

That's Martin Sheen

I know, but this guy more or less comes off as the 21st century equivalent.

 

[A user named cat]

see, i would buy this argument if the pieces would form a whole like in deus ex. but they don't, it's a glorfied, 3d duckhunt aimed at easily amused (man)children. the shooting is not fun, the writing isn't tolerable and even the most basic things (enemies spotting and then shooting) do not work right. the shitty "but it doesn't try to x!"-excuse does not work. they made a level where being stealthy was the point and fucked it up.

It only stops working when you approach it in a way that makes it doesn't work.

E.g., refuse to go "stealth" when the game's setting and plot demand such; or deliberately going backwards during snowmobile chase; or shoot friendly NPCs; or bunny hopping when NPCs give "emotional" speeches, etc.

All these can't be blamed on the game. It's the player that's at fault.

It's a player's fault that a game breaks or ceases to function properly when you decide to stop following the yellow brick road? Ever heard of "failsafes"? Player freedom? Basic video game design? What the fuck, please punch yourself in the face.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

see, i would buy this argument if the pieces would form a whole like in deus ex. but they don't, it's a glorfied, 3d duckhunt aimed at easily amused (man)children. the shooting is not fun, the writing isn't tolerable and even the most basic things (enemies spotting and then shooting) do not work right. the shitty "but it doesn't try to x!"-excuse does not work. they made a level where being stealthy was the point and fucked it up.

It only stops working when you approach it in a way that makes it doesn't work.

E.g., refuse to go "stealth" when the game's setting and plot demand such; or deliberately going backwards during snowmobile chase; or shoot friendly NPCs; or bunny hopping when NPCs give "emotional" speeches, etc.

All these can't be blamed on the game. It's the player that's at fault.

It's not the player's job to keep the game from falling apart. If I act like a retard, the game should appropriately punish me for it. First two situations should get you immediately gunned down, third one should either make you fail immediately (if friendly NPC is vital to the mission) or make the mission a lot harder. Doing silly shit during serious business dialogues is the only situation where the player is the one "to blame" for "ruining it".

edit: uh, what the guy above said.

 

[DalekFlay]

I used to like CoD 1 (and United Offensive) and 2, but replaying them last year made me realize they're actually really... not sure what the right word is. Basic? I'm also less comfortable playing a game that treats WW2 in that way now than I was when I was younger.

1, 2 and 4 were kind of fun. At the time their linear cinematic style was unique and different. Now every fucking shooter is like that, so it's annoying and not at all different, and even the originals feel lame in retrospect.

 

[FeelTheRads]

All these can't be blamed on the game. It's the player that's at fault.

If I see a mic in a movie it's my fault that I looked. I shouldn't have looked.
Games should also not be played, but looked at, amirite?

Contrary to popular belief, it is a good thing to bring more people into playing games, not to scare them away.

Why?

P.S. You're a moron.

 

[A user named cat]

I used to like CoD 1 (and United Offensive) and 2, but replaying them last year made me realize they're actually really... not sure what the right word is. Basic? I'm also less comfortable playing a game that treats WW2 in that way now than I was when I was younger.

1, 2 and 4 were kind of fun. At the time their linear cinematic style was unique and different. Now every fucking shooter is like that, so it's annoying and not at all different, and even the originals feel lame in retrospect.

I thought 1 and 2 were pretty fun as well but after that, enough was enough. Instead of improving, they went the complete opposite direction. I actually still replay COD2 now and again just for some mindless war shooting action. It was on the brink of the decline much like Morrowind, yet still good even if you could sense the direction they were heading.

 

[Carrion]

1, 2 and 4 were kind of fun. At the time their linear cinematic style was unique and different.

I really don't know what "unique" or "different" there is about CoD 2 or 4, and if there ever was uniqueness to CoD1, it wore out after a few hours of gameplay. Scripted corridor shooters had already become the norm in 2003, CoD was just a bit more heavy-handed with it than most and had more NPCs shouting "fire in the hole" and firing bullets that never actually hit anything.

Allied Assault was pretty fun and varied, and the Omaha Beach scene worked because it was just an intense five minutes in a game that largely focused on one-man commando missions and sabotage behind enemy lines. I guess the adjectives "unique" and "different" do apply to that specific chapter of the game. CoD took that mission as a blueprint for what it wanted to do, but it became very dull very fast because of how much it restricted you and how artificial it was. At least the game still had some sense of pacing, especially when it came to the British campaign, which apparently was the least popular of the three because people are morons.

CoD2 was total and utter shit made for braindead people, no saving graces. No pacing of any kind (the fighting usually began before the black screen at the beginning of the mission had time to fade out, and it went on and on and on with the same level of intensity until the mission ended, rinse and repeat), regenerating health (I simply refused to believe at first that they actually decided to implement it), zero freedom whatsoever and endless rehashing of the same locations and ideas from the previous games. It sucked as a shooter and didn't have anything else going for it either. CoD2 is the embodiment of decline just as much as anything that has come out later.

I only tried the Modern Warfare demo, but it was exactly the same as CoD2, just in a different setting. Maybe the rest of the game is the greatest thing since Doom in both writing and gameplay, but I'll never find out.

:whyamieveninthisthread: