Call of Duty 4

[Dire Roach]

From that video's comments:

I guess it's cause your playing the game not like it's supposed to be played...
lol

 

[Castanova]

Too easy.

Too easy to make yourself look like a moron? You spent two posts trying to disprove my analogy and then finding out that it wasn't a real analogy after all, you decide to attack me for lack of wit because you have no other option. I can feel myself coming over to your extremely well-thought-out argument already! Let's just stop the thread right now!

Since you have proven yourself completely incapable of critical thought, I shall outline the concept for you: Yes, tactics are an example of options. As are the examples I gave. You see, they're called EXAMPLES. That means they apply in certain situations but not necessarily all. A game with one shot kills can be intelligent and it can also be stupid. A game that allows you to pick between sniping and playing Rambo ALSO can be intelligent and it can be stupid.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Probably not. I can't assume anything with Down's babies.

Drum roll, please. AND THE FLIP SIDE IS TRUE. A game that only allows you to snipe can be stupid or it can be intelligent. A game that only allows you to go Rambo can be stupid or it can be intelligent. Different scenarios are possible, you see.

In other words, the reason you gave for CoD4 being the Oblivion of FPS games is completely and totally invalid. You think CoD4 is stupid, fine. You just happen to have NO CLUE the reason why you think so. Either that, or you're just being a tard on purpose. I'm still going with that you got frustrated with the game's difficulty and would very much like to blame the developers rather than blame your own retardation.

Easy, indeed.

 

[vrok]

CoD4 is a piece of shit. Too easy and extremely linear thanks to having the incredibly stupid magical checkpoints as the only way to make enemies stop spawning. Fuck, if you go a different route than the "correct" one, that leads to the same destination, you sometimes have to go practically in to the fucking spawn point to reach the checkpoint zone. Ridiculous. Nothing more than trial & error here to find out which way is the right one, but hey it doesn't matter since you're practically invulnerable so randomly zigzagging forward to find the correct path into the checkpoint zone is not a problem. Fun gameplay indeed!

The only cool thing about the game left is the AC-130 level since the multiplayer component is nothing more than an easy mode version of CS so console retards and noobs can get some kills too.

End of discussion.

 

[shihonage]

CoD4 is a piece of shit. Too easy and extremely linear thanks to having the incredibly stupid magical checkpoints as the only way to make enemies stop spawning. Fuck, if you go a different route than the "correct" one you sometimes have to go practically in to the fucking spawn point to reach the checkpoint zone. Ridiculous. The only cool thing about the game is the AC-130 level since the multiplayer component is nothing more than an easy mode version of CS so console retards and noobs can get some kills too.

End of discussion.

While yes, Quake 2, for instance, allowed more freedom than COD4, COD4 is a different kind of FPS. It traded meandering non-linearity for a tighter on-rails campaign which allowed for heavy scripting to make one feel as if they're inside an epic movie.

All the voiceovers and sequences of interactive scripted events go down the toilet once you start to make a not-on-rails FPS. It's a different approach, with different design trade-offs.

 

[Jeff Graw]

finding out that it wasn't a real analogy after all, you decide to attack me for lack of wit because you have no other option.

Making a comparison that's not a real one and that doesen't make any sense, to try and mimic my examples that actually *do* make sense, only makes you look stupid.

Now here is where it gets fun... hypocrisy!

A game with one shot kills can be intelligent and it can also be stupid.

An extremely realistic game with one-shot kills would be an intelligent shooter.

FAIL.


And for the fun doesen't stop there, we also have... irony!

As are the examples I gave. You see, they're called EXAMPLES.

Here you're lecturing me about examples.

An "intelligent shooter" would give you a variety of options and courses of action. Think Farcry.

Here I'm giving an example.

A game where weapon selection and working off of the environment to stay alive would be intelligent. It has nothing to do with ZOMG I wanna play a sniper but then next time I want to play Rambo!!!! LOL!!!!!1 That's a game with variety, sure, but it most certainly is not "intelligent."

Here you are not understanding, or just ignoring it.

 

[Castanova]

I love stupid people.

In your first example, I said an EXTREMELY REALISTIC game WITH one-shot kills would be an intelligent shooter. In other quote, I said a game with one-shot kills could possibly be stupid. If you still can't glean the difference then you should get yourself checked out for Autism.

And who gives a fuck about Farcry? We're not talking about Farcry. You said that CoD4 is stupid because you need to play aggressively in order to progress. I proved that this statement is patently false (regardless of whether CoD4 is truly stupid or not). You can do your best to pick apart my sentences out of context all you want, it just makes you look desperate.

Can you come up with a REAL reason why CoD4 is stupid? You can but you're not willing to say because it involves your own inadequacy.

 

[vrok]

While yes, Quake 2, for instance, allowed more freedom than COD4, COD4 is a different kind of FPS. It traded meandering non-linearity for a tighter on-rails campaign which allowed for heavy scripting to make one feel as if they're inside an epic movie.

All the voiceovers and sequences of interactive scripted events go down the toilet once you start to make a not-on-rails FPS. It's a different approach, with different design trade-offs.

Endless spawns with ridiculous checkpoint zones is still wrong, rails or no rails. Poor design decisions like that hardly make me feel like I'm inside an epic movie. It makes me feel like I'm in a stupid game.

Go on the right side of the crate and enemies spawn in your face, go on the left side and enemies go poof. But like I said earlier, you're pretty much invulnerable so you can go right first, find out it was the wrong way, go back and go left instead. Hooray! Everyone wins!

 

[shihonage]

Endless spawns with ridiculous checkpoint zones is still wrong, rails or no rails. Poor design decisions like that hardly make me feel like I'm inside an epic movie. It makes me feel like I'm in a stupid game.

Go on the right side of the crate and enemies spawn in your face, go on the left side and enemies go poof. But like I said earlier, you're pretty much invulnerable so you can go right first, find out it was the wrong way, go back and go left instead. Hooray! Everyone wins!

Yeah, the spawning was annoying in some situations more than others, but I figured they did it to prevent the player from exploiting the game by sniping everyone from distance when they eventually show their nose in the window or doorframe.

 

[kingcomrade]

It's not so much that, is that there's not really many places to stand or advance to and the places that are there, your allies take all the spots and get in your way.

 

[Jeff Graw]

In your first example, I said an EXTREMELY REALISTIC game WITH one-shot kills would be an intelligent shooter. In other quote, I said a game with one-shot kills could possibly be stupid.

So a game with one shot kills is only intelligent if it's "extremely realistic"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a game with one shot kills already be "extremely realistic" compared to most other FPSes? Even giving you the benefit of the doubt, because "extremely realistic" is both relative and vague, your assumption is still the same: more realistic -> more intelligent. That's stupid. You can have a realistic game that's stupid, and you can have a brilliant game that's totally abstract. Your "one shot kills could possibly be stupid" comment is you beginning to realize that while trying to hide the fact you were wrong.

And who gives a fuck about Farcry? We're not talking about Farcry.

*sigh*, you aren't listening. You were lecturing me about examples, while you ignored the example I used to illustrate an intelligent shooter and set up a straw man.

You said that CoD4 is stupid because you need to play aggressively in order to progress.

No, I said the game was stupid because the respawn system is broken, and because the entire game consists of getting from one checkpoint to the next, to the next, to the next, ad infinitum. There's no tactics or thinking involved because any strategy other than "get to the next checkpoint" is worthless when the enemies are just going to respawn moments after you kill them anyway!

I proved that this statement is patently false (regardless of whether CoD4 is truly stupid or not).

No you didn't. You've been too busy making pointless "non-comparisons" and arguing semantics over what makes a shooter intelligent while losing horribly at it.

Can you come up with a REAL reason why CoD4 is stupid? You can but you're not willing to say because it involves your own inadequacy.

Bah, when I was really into UT I played at Godlike level. Can you say the same?

 

[ricolikesrice]

...

he said took CoD4 took him 10 hours playing "tactically" - thats the point you could have stopped argueing with that retard :wink:

 

[Jeff Graw]

I like arguing with retards, it makes me look really smart.

 

[Castanova]

So a game with one shot kills is only intelligent if it's "extremely realistic"?

You are a true example of a mindless, stupid fuck. Do you read anything I write? When did I say a game with one shot kills IS ONLY intelligent if it's "extremely realistic"? I never did. Why do you constantly try to pick apart my sentences, completely fail reading comprehension, and then complain that my entire argument is based on semantics? And you're calling ME a hypocrite? I should call your mother and ask her to abort you.

No, I said the game was stupid because the respawn system is broken, and because the entire game consists of getting from one checkpoint to the next, to the next, to the next, ad infinitum.

Here comes Mr. Semantics to the rescue (the one who hates when I use semantics!). You're complaining that the game is stupid because the game mechanics force you to play aggressively. That's what that means. Rushing for waypoints is playing aggressively. You can make it more granular by mentioning the respawns and the checkpoint all you want.

The hilarity is, you've held up HL as an one of the greats (which it is). And yet HL had no tactics whatsoever. You unload your weapon into the enemy. If you run out of ammo, you hit your enemy with a crowbar. The intelligence is overwhelming. Farcry? Extremely intelligent. I can stalk around in the jungle and when I see some badguys I can zoom in and snipe them. Or I can run forward and shoot them with a machine gun! No wait. LET ME THROW A GRENADE. The amount of options are OVERWHELMING!

Bah, when I was really into UT I played at Godlike level. Can you say the same?

Well, golly gee. I believe you. You're an FPS god. I also played UT at the Godlike level. And I used to play it with my dick and balls controlling the mouse while I read a magazine and watched TV, too. You're good at FPS games. That's why respawning enemies offended you so much. Because it's a waste of time for someone so good at FPS games. Got it.

he said took CoD4 took him 10 hours playing "tactically" - thats the point you could have stopped argueing with that retard

I didn't clock the fucking playtime and log it down for your consumption. And I said tactically in the sense that I didn't run straight forward, grabbing at the next checkpoint ASAP which seems to be the only way Jeff "Down's Baby" Graw was able to complete the game. Maybe CoD4 IS a stupid game considering the fucking morons that were drawn to this thread. I can use emoticons too. :wink:

 

[Jeff Graw]

You are a true example of a mindless, stupid fuck. Do you read anything I write? When did I say a game with one shot kills IS ONLY intelligent if it's "extremely realistic"? I never did. Why do you constantly try to pick apart my sentences, completely fail reading comprehension, and then complain that my entire argument is based on semantics? And you're calling ME a hypocrite? I should call your mother and ask her to abort you.

You're technically right here, I should have said "So a game with one shot kills is only guaranteed to be intelligent if it's extremely realistic?", so slightly bad wording on my part. Hardly deserving of that laughably juvenile response of yours though. Here's an example to disprove your "An extremely realistic game with one-shot kills would be an intelligent shooter" assertion though: Running a tank through an African village blowing shit up. No matter how realistic you make the simulation, that's still a "stupid" game. Likewise, a completely unrealistic and abstract game could be highly intelligent. Again, think chess.

Here comes Mr. Semantics to the rescue (the one who hates when I use semantics!). You're complaining that the game is stupid because the game mechanics force you to play aggressively. That's what that means. Rushing for waypoints is playing aggressively. You can make it more granular by mentioning the respawns and the checkpoint all you want.

Playing aggressively can mean many things, and while in CoD 4 it means rushing check points, in most other games it means something totally different. Rushing checkpoints, on the other hand, can only mean one thing. The fact that you can't call it rushing checkpoints but rename it "aggressive playing" only betrays your feeble and dishonest strategy of denormalizing my position. That's a strategy exclusively used by people who don't know how to win a real argument.

Farcry? Extremely intelligent. I can stalk around in the jungle and when I see some badguys I can zoom in and snipe them. Or I can run forward and shoot them with a machine gun! No wait. LET ME THROW A GRENADE. The amount of options are OVERWHELMING!

I'm guessing you don't play at higher difficulty levels? "Going rambo" is always an option in Farcry, but rarely is it the best one. The most correct tactic depends on the situation and the resources at hand. Oh, and sarcasm doesen't work well for you. Any idiot can make broad generalizations like you just did about any game they want to. Actually take some time to argue your point maybe?

I didn't clock the fucking playtime and log it down for your consumption. And I said tactically in the sense that I didn't run straight forward, grabbing at the next checkpoint ASAP which seems to be the only way Jeff "Down's Baby" Graw was able to complete the game.

I'm fully aware that you can stop, admire the scenery, and kill a few baddies if you want to. But in most cases *it's pointless* because they'll just respawn moments later and all of your added effort will be for naught.

 

[RK47]

uh if he's praising farcry then that would make crysis automatically awesome isn't it?

 

[The_Pope]

@Casta:

A game with more options inherently requires more intelligence than one without. When there is one option, you pick that option all the time (kind of like your oh so intelligent hypothetical 1 shot kill all the time game - point and click once to win the game). The purpose of intelligence is to decide between options, and where there are no options intelligence is redundant. Thus, more options gives more opportunity for using intelligence.

By the way, your checkers comparison just makes it really obvious that you never actually played a proper FPS 1v1. Not believing that Jeff played on godlike is also pretty funny - godlike bots are pretty easy to beat once you know what you're doing. Keep talking about things you don't understand, eventually people will think you're teh smrt.

 

[Castanova]

@ Pope

First of all, what you said is not true. Options doesn't inherently mean intelligence. Now, if you're talking about more VIABLE options, then maybe it means intelligence... but only if the viability of these options changes depending on the situation at hand. When I open my closet in the morning, I can pick from ~20 different shirts which are all viable options. Doesn't make the process of dressing myself "intelligent." Second, I contrasted checkers with single player FPS, not 1-on-1 multiplayer.

Jeff Graw came in here, spewing as much bile as possible, trying to claim that CoD4 was the Oblivion of shooters (due to low intelligence) while HL/UT were the FO/Arcanums of shooters. I never, ever once suggested that CoD4 is an intelligent game. Rather, and this was a completely secondary point, I stated and proved that Graw's main reason for touting CoD4's stupidity was actually invalid - the fact that the game "forces" you to move forward.

The main point here was that calling CoD4 "stupid" while calling HL "intelligent" is akin to calling The Matrix "stupid" and Die Hard "intelligent." Maybe HL is smarter than CoD4 but guess what - they're both "stupid." Graw realized his HL/UT namedropping didn't suit his half-assed argument so he reeled in Farcry as backup. Farcry has more viable options, sure, but again. This is an action game. It is stupid. It requires the intelligence of a ten-year-old to realize that you can't go Rambo-style on the hardest difficulty level.

@ Jeff

I can't get enough enjoyment out of watching you look down your nose at me and my insults at you when pretty much 99% of your posts recently in all threads including this one have been troll-like insult spews. You misread everything I wrote in this entire thread and now that you have nowhere left to run, you retreat to this civilized air where you get to pretend like I'm the one that crossed the line. Seriously, go fuck yourself.

 

[RK47]

It's just a forum .

 

[Jeff Graw]

@Casta:

It's funny that the moment my argument closes around you, and you have nowhere left to run, that you start beating around the bush. As for your post... sure, I'm an unpleasant guy, and I do throw insults around. I also have a think skin, I couldn't care less that you say that my Mom should have aborted me, but those kinds of comments cross a much different line -- the line that makes you look like a retarded pre-pubescent little boy who's just figured out "naughty" words for the first time.

It's been fun though, and I look forward to the next time I embarrass you in an argument and you wuss out. While it's quite obvious that you're getting worked up and distressed over this thread, I rather enjoy owning random internet geeks. It calms me.

 

[GeneralSamov]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

 

[entertainer]

Oh and I agree with Occasionally Fatal. Exactly what makes it "one of the worst ww2 RTS's ever". Apart from you being a dumbfuck.

The fact that it's a CnC type of game or more exactly a DoW mod in ww2 theatre and more importantly have unrealistic things that don't make any sense in ww2 games like "tanks with healthbars" or unit production not to mention the game requires no actual thinking unlike games like supcom, close combat or soldiers since it's all about twitch gameplay, speaking about soldiers, coh copied a lot of it's features and claims they done it first. Oh and don't forget the hollywood campaign, but hey if ign says it's the best rts ever so it is for you.

Also, die in a fire.

 

[Comrade Hamster]

...more importantly have unrealistic things that don't make any sense in ww2 games like "tanks with healthbars" or unit production not to mention the game requires no actual thinking unlike games like supcom, close combat or soldiers since it's all about twitch gameplay...

Whatever the fuck you're on, please stop.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I like arguing with retards, it makes me look really smart.

Is that why you antagonize the people at Gamespy forums, HURLEYBIRD?

Just joking. To be completely honest, I was quite on your side during that Civ IV debate. Man, all you did was say that you didn't like Civ IV and you even detailed your reasons for doing so, but people went all "LOL, he hates a popular games, he's a troll!".

But you know, you claim to have thick skin, but it really seemed like they managed to successfully piss you off, because you definitely did not seem happy with all that.

 

[Jeff Graw]

Is that why you antagonize the people at Gamespy forums, HURLEYBIRD?

Ah, good times. Nice guess work by the way.

But you know, you claim to have thick skin, but it really seemed like they managed to successfully piss you off, because you definitely did not seem happy with all that.

The GSI kiddies have been known to piss me off from time to time. I can debate one guy, no problem, win or lose I don't lose my cool. A dozen different people with a dozen stupid opinions can get tiring though. That's why I reserve posting at GSI for special occasions, like the last time when Gamespy declared a game an upcoming masterpeice in a preview.

...more importantly have unrealistic things that don't make any sense in ww2 games like "tanks with healthbars" or unit production not to mention the game requires no actual thinking unlike games like supcom, close combat or soldiers since it's all about twitch gameplay...

Whatever the fuck you're on, please stop.

Seconded, as that health bar comment was insanely stupid. Not that getting rid of health bars isn't a good idea, which it probably is, but that criticism applies to pretty every RTS ever made, not just one game.

 

[Castanova]

It's been fun though, and I look forward to the next time I embarrass you in an argument and you wuss out. While it's quite obvious that you're getting worked up and distressed over this thread, I rather enjoy owning random internet geeks. It calms me.

I never once got worked up in this thread. In fact, I enjoyed myself while I blasted you and your clear idiocy. This argument wasn't about me, it was about your unfounded comments about CoD4 vs other shooters on the first page. I gave you the Cliffs notes of my main points in my last post since you were too daft to understand them in the first place and instead chose to try to look for inconsistencies in my individual sentences (which were proven to not exist). You're a legend in your own mind, my friend. Keep on truckin.