Call of Duty: Black Ops II

[Psychotic]

Yeah I mean, what sort of replayability factor would their possibly be in a game like Call of Duty?

A lot for me, I suppose, but that's just because as I've said, I play 'em for cheap thrills.

[Kaiden]

http://www.ps3trophies.org/news/news-65 ... cords.html

sigh

promises something Call of Duty fans have never seen before

[RedDynasty]

http://www.ps3trophies.org/news/news-6564-Black-Ops-II-Already-Breaking-Retail-Records.html

sigh

promises something Call of Duty fans have never seen before

Ah much better
No srsly, i dont know what to say, i really dont.
Just....why. Why did this gaming generation focused more graphics and less and less on storyline,gameplay, and other shit that is RELEVANT to a game

[Psychotic]

The comment feed on that article are testament to why I hate the modern day "gamer".

The fact Activision can make over a billion dollars on this shit is utterly insulting and just as pathetic.

It sends a horrible message throughout the gaming industry in general: Why put effort into your games when you can just change one of your old games graphics a bit, add in a few new weapons (optional) and then change the name for an instant billion dollars? Why go to the effort to write engaging dialogue and plotlines when it's simply easier to sell-out to the "Activision Method" and churn out the same boring bullshit every year?

From a publisher standpoint it's the best thing in the world. Developers might not like that, but that ultimately depends on whether the developer is into the game or into the money it can make, I suppose. Either way, the precedent has been made, and it's not a good one.

[e] I just died inside. If I could lose anymore faith in humanity I probably would have. Lucky for this guy, I can't.

At least its fun gameplay (unlike AC)
At least there's no online pass (like Sony, EA and Ubisoft games)
At least you can play through the campaign without the game breaking (unlike Bethesda)

Call of Duty has, from what I know, been using Steamworks for years. No, you don't need to be online all the time to play it, but you do need to be online to activate it and you must active it to play it at least once so you can then play it in offline mode. Steam is mildly better than Ubisoft's methods. Mildly because it's still better, but that doesn't make it good.

Bethesda may have scored themselves the nickname of "Bugthesda" but frankly, I'd rather play their buggy games than any of the Call of Duty series. It's not a matter of how stable the game is, it's the fact that generally speaking, many of the bugs found in their games have never been game-breaking for me. Most have been pretty amusing and ultimately, the gameplay is still hundreds of thousands times better than I think Call of Duty's will ever be.

This kind of dribble frustrates me to no end largely because I know so many people like this. Worse still, I have to work with these people. Essentially, any game that requires thought and effort is a "bad game" and "not fun". It all comes down to that instant gratification regime again, and I'm just tired of playing video games when that's all there really is.

It's sad because once upon a time I wanted to work in this industry, but the more I see the crap EA and Activision pump out, the more I just want to go back to web design. I would honestly rather design a sparkly Twilight fansite for someone than than say I worked on whatever crap these publishers are designing.

[Hanover Fist]

Call of Duty is the dubstep of video games, basically.

Also, I've found the bugs in Fallout hilarious. The other day I was firing my gauss rifle at flying deathclaws. However, I got a potentially game breaking bug has begun to recur: whenever I venture anywhere in the vicinity of Tenpenny Tower my character will just die inexplicably.

There is hope left in humanity having any sense of taste, though. It's just tragically stratified now; strewn liberally into small havens of fandom and in-the-know subcultures. The hipster syndrom is the culprit for taste seeming relative. Also the media, but that goes without saying now.

[Psychotic]

I don't see how you can compare the Call of Duty franchise with dubstep, honestly.

Dubstep isn't my cup of tea but it takes a lot more skill to perform beautifully and masterfully than Call of Duty does. You don't need to be very patient with games like Call of Duty, yet you can't just shove some random shit together and label it as "good music".

And yes, I understand the irony in that last statement.

[Siva]

Dubstep isn't my cup of tea but it takes a lot more skill to perform beautifully and masterfully than Call of Duty does.

Whoa whoa whoa

[Psychotic]

Dubstep isn't my cup of tea but it takes a lot more skill to perform beautifully and masterfully than Call of Duty does.

Whoa whoa whoa

At the core of a first-person shooter game is the ability to use the WASD keys to move up, down and to strafe left and right. Then you have the mouse to rotate the camera and to aim and fire.

That's essentially it: A generic shooter such as Call of Duty really is little more than a point and click shooter.

I'm not saying that it doesn't take skill to do this, however. I am not saying that you cannot master the art of killing people in Call of Duty or any other multiplayer game. It does take skill to get a good win:lose ratio but frankly, I find that a completely different ballpark to creating any form of music.

Dubstep is older than many people think, and much dubstep doesn't just use synthesizers and keyboards but also drums and bass, which both take skill to use. Hell, even using a synthesizer takes skill to use, and if you've never actually played a keyboard you won't know how difficult that can be either. The only reason I don't like dubstep is because I don't like the sound, I also don't like synthesizers because I know them as too "fake", too artificial.

Both Call of Duty-like games and dubstep require some form of skill to master, I just believe that dubstep - like any music - requires more skill, or in the very least a different kind of skill, to master successfully.

Like I said: Anyone can pick up an instrument and make music, that doesn't make it good however. Likewise, anyone can play Call of Duty but that doesn't make them good, either.

Honestly, I don't like dubstep. I find it to be a fad and one I don't like but many people thought this about rock and metal and here they are still to this day. Fad or not, I don't like it but many people do, and whilst I might have in the past, I don't like people trying to abuse a genre they simply do not like.

The only music genre I really don't "get" is gangsta rap.

[Hanover Fist]

Pedantic and presumptuous as always. Dubstep can be good, but its only known by that name anymore as a synonym to Skrillex, which is my least favorite dubberstepper.

Im more down with pantyraid and iBenji when it comes to that. Just like when it comes to sensationalist pop shooters I prefer the Treyarchs (multiplayer AND story) to all of the generic, linear ass Modern Warfares.

But this new Black Ops doesnt look as bad (tho it looka absurd, it cant possibly be as mindlessly cash cow esque as Infinity Ward recycles). However my point was COD is seen the same way dubstep is. As Skrillex. As Modern Warfare. As some re release of the same shit except this time with exploding RC cars and remixed disco samples.

[Hanover Fist]

Also, music which requires the Fair Use act too generously, to me, is not an original work that I can take seriously. This is also a parallel to games

[Psychotic]

Pedantic and presumptuous as always. Dubstep can be good, but its only known by that name anymore as a synonym to Skrillex, which is my least favorite dubberstepper.

Im more down with pantyraid and iBenji when it comes to that. Just like when it comes to sensationalist pop shooters I prefer the Treyarchs (multiplayer AND story) to all of the generic, linear ass Modern Warfares.

But this new Black Ops doesnt look as bad (tho it looka absurd, it cant possibly be as mindlessly cash cow esque as Infinity Ward recycles). However my point was COD is seen the same way dubstep is. As Skrillex. As Modern Warfare. As some re release of the same shit except this time with exploding RC cars and remixed disco samples.

Using an ad hominem in your argument does not accentuate your point. It does not somehow prove you are superior to me. What it does is make you look completely insecure and, in general, look like a giant tool.

Attack the argument, not the person making it.

I see your point in comparing Dubstep and Call of Duty-like games due to them being something of a defining feature within their respective genres but frankly, I don't find that a fault of the genre but rather, the fans of those kinds of games/music.

Aside from that, Call of Duty is obviously not seen as a "re-release" of the "same shit" to the general public because the general public seem to be the ones spending their money on buying the junk. The same actually applies to Skrillex, as well. I wouldn't put all the blame of the developers/publishers of these games either, but they are definitely exasperating the issue, rather than trying to fix it (and why would they? That doesn't make money).

I wouldn't call Call of Duty the defining game in the "generic shooters" genre, either. There's plenty of games made before Call of Duty that were fairly "generic" (which is subjective in and of itself). In fact, I'd argue that most shooters are fairly generic, at least where gameplay is concerned. Story-wise, shooters isn't the only genre to have half-assed storylines these days.

Call of Duty is a bad game in my opinion based on how and why it is created. I feel it is a bad game because of what it is, not just because of what everyone else thinks it is. In fact, I don't even care what everyone else thinks of it. I don't care if it makes over $1 billion in revenue each year, that hardly makes it a good game, which is probably what your point is but that's how the subjective mind of humans work, I suppose. And also possibly the "group mentality" thing.

[Hanover Fist]

I really dont have the energy to be doing these pissing contests everytime someone who wants to generalize me when they cant even interpret what Im saying. Especially when half the time the posts get erased and i have to start over like right now.

All I can say is my views are expreased from personal experience and not groupthink. Im too out of touch with people to have my opinions changed through impressionable thinking. Not to mention every around me thinks Call Of Duty is tits. Iv played every single one, and I got tired of them in minutes. Despite Black Ops and World at War Zombie modes being quite thrilling, trying to differentiate the marginal differences between near identical shooters makes me not care.

As well, having to painstakingly spell out every meaning behind my posts before you try to do it for me, is also a waste of time. Once again I find myself telling you this:

You dont know me, and shouldnt wish to.

[Hanover Fist]

Oh and setiously, Im posting from a cell phone half assed here, cuz most every long winded post you make is just restating what I've already said quite eloquently several years ago. The only reason I think you're a tard, is because you're paraphrasing me while trying to discredit me.

And Im not trying to prove Im not a moron, iv already lost the popularity contest here, but just because you have a stick up your ass and cant take a joke or a deserved retort without going into butthurt litigation mode, you should probably read more, and stop preaching to the choir.

I didnt presume you were a chump until it became apparent. Incidentally made so by your U Mad presumption. Since youll use it against me, ill spell out that im implying my assholing posts are reactive to being shortsightedly generalized by newblood psuedointellectual who might just be DestroyerZero.
Oh but that'd be presumptuous

[Psychotic]

[e3] Blah, blah, blah. Wall of text now destroyed (seriously, who's gonna read it?).

Basic points:

1. I agree that I am both presumptuous and pedantic, I just didn't like your personal attacks that had nothing to do with my arguments.
2. I don't care for you or your opinion, I just find it entertaining to respond to your own arguments because I disagree with them.
3. I think you're just a lesser version of the original me, quite frankly, which is why I find you amusing.
4. Still not sure who and/or what DestroyerZero is but oh well. I can live with that. Somewhat.
5. <s>I had a five. I forgot it. Oh well.</s> I understand deleting my previous post and adding 5 points is presumptuous.

[e] And who the hell is DestroyerZero?

[e2] I understand you won't read half of this post because it, like all my posts, is long-winded. Though at least tell me who DestroyerZero is, because that part just confused me.

[James]

Please cease personal attacks.

Edit: This was directed at the conversation, not an individual.

[Hanover Fist]

If insecurity is flipping the bird to those that imply I am talking out of my ass, when really they're using my own point against me, then ima schitzo. Nowadays I put thoughts down with shorthanded, sloppy comparisons that are just ironic jokes. There's a name for exagerated likenesses being thrown out in humor (hyperbole?), but as unfunny as you may find them, you shouldnt deny taking the time to condescend them is actually an attempted slight. Maybe im just paranoid, but at least you can see im direct. Homie dont play that.

As for Call of Duty being a cash cow that's cheapening the standard of sixty bucks a pop, or whatever point is being exhausted here; it's been obvious for the past five plus years that franchise games, like the Twilight movies, are all aesthetic substitutions for the substance in a good idea that any casual consumer for any medium can be easily swayed to buy.

Enough dopes buy it once, and a fraction of that is put into the sequel that is essentially the more stable variant of what the predecessor SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Same case with Gears of War. Or DLC that contains the games content.

The worst of it to me is how the idea, or at least, the end product, is a piece that is dolled and sold like a cheap whore then discarded by pimp and client alike when it has become old news to the new hot chick on the block that, with special affects and CGI, is made to look prettier when isnt really much different, and in the end... the only difference is the novelty of her tightness. And when that fades, and so does the look... Its on with the next franchise, trend, subculture genre, or remix.

[Psychotic]

So effectively we're wasting ~$60 US on a game that'll we'll end up replacing with a replica piece of crap in a few years, is what you're saying?

Yeah, I agree with not liking that regime, and it's like this for games in general, it seems.

[Hanover Fist]

But other games go down in value faster than COD despite higher replay value.

Edit: but its easy to say any online game has potentially infinite replay value. But it shoildnt be sixty dollars the entire season all the way until the sequels release. (usually only some months later) CoD buyers are pretty much paying high price for expansion packs, new maps, a couple new weapons, etc.

Even before the price goes down, CoD online is most awesome before the maps are memorized by hardcores. Any chump who still pays forty dollas to play the game doesnt have a chance and still gets fucked with the sequel coming out three months later and the price of the game they just blew money on then being sold for half that.

[Hanover Fist]

So effectively we're wasting ~$60 US on a game that'll we'll end up replacing with a replica piece of crap in a few years, is what you're saying

Im saying chivalry is dead.

[Psychotic]

That's the largest issue I have with multiplayer games like Call of Duty and it's why I wasn't a big supporter of Left 4 Dead 2. The fact CoD is released every year just sounds like absolute hell from a consumer standpoint but excellent from a marketing one.

"Replay value" almost seems like a myth these days.

[ynnaD]

This begs the question though, if COD was changed into a two/three development cycle and time actually taken to improve the games, would we change our opinions?

[Hanover Fist]

Well im still playing Fallout and DX series games.

It wasnt so long ago games that were sequels that still used the same engine werent even marketed as such. My favorite example is Ghost Recon. The first one came out, and then another one with a completely dofferent setting and plot game out with the same engine except improved with better weapons and fixes.

Incidentally as soon as they added numbers to the ends of Ghost Recon I stopped getting them and just rented.

A most recent I can think of is Half Life Episodes. Orange Box proved to me that the industry still had homies. Course those homies are apt to start some shit up that's suspect, its so happens that good deals are also great market strategies. This was another point I might have tried being clearer.

[Hanover Fist]

This begs the question though, if COD was changed into a two/three development cycle and time actually taken to improve the games, would we change our opinions?

I think their demographic target audience would lose interest. Its been conditioned to expect succesive releases of the same multiplayer. Halo sort of did this bit at least did it with some class and an engaging (intermittently) engaging story.

CoD is just a Micheal Bay flick. I mean they blew up New York while you're in a helicoptor thats some Transformers shit right there.

What im sayin is, at this point, no matter what either company does, the stories arent really my style anyway. At this point its only the characters anyone plays for in any campaign.

The people dont want to be enthralled so much by an elaborate, believable story behind the political maneuvering of each nations invasion or attack. Muthafuckas just want to be SOAP or Marcus Fenix or Master Chief for an hour and blast on some noobs or NPCs set to novice.

[James]

Other games go down in value to help them sell. Activision videogames rarely go down in RRP value because
l they know people will buy them.

Check the history of Steam for COD game prices. It's interesting.

[Psychotic]

Good deals are definitely good marketing strategies, just look at the constant stream of specials on Steam. Something must be working for them to have so many and on a very frequent basis.

I personally exclude games like Fallout and Deus Ex from those of the past 5-7 years. I don't consider them to be of the same class at all. The new games may be based loosely off older games but I just find the older games to be so much better in all aspects, not just one or two, though I could just be stuck in the past.

This begs the question though, if COD was changed into a two/three development cycle and time actually taken to improve the games, would we change our opinions?

Hah, good question! I'd be willing to give it a go if the developers could show me something different than what we've been seeing in shooters of the past 5-7 years.

I brought the sequels to F.E.A.R. because I figured they'd be as compelling as the first two. Turns out they weren't. They're decent enough to play when I want to kill something with a gun but ultimately, the sequels aren't nearly as good as the original. The original's gameplay wasn't necessarily the best but the sequels don't try to be that much different in a world full of generic sequels and first-person shooters.

I felt the same for games like BioShock, the new Wolfenstein and Singularity. Actually, another somewhat unrelated issue I have with these games is that at their core they're generic shooters with a gimmick added to try and hide the fact they're generic shooters. BioShock's "plasmids", Wolfenstein's "Thule Medallion" or Singularity's "Time Manipulation Device" all sound interesting on paper but are ultimately just fancy distractions.

Note I'm only looking at the gameplay, not any of these games storylines.

[Hanover Fist]

I drooled for the Thule Medallion because it had the potential to make an online multiplayet experience that might resemble DXMP augs.

[James]

This begs the question though, if COD was changed into a two/three development cycle and time actually taken to improve the games, would we change our opinions?

Not mine. Each Call of Duty game is given a substantial and healthy development cycle ALREADY.

[Psychotic]

I drooled for the Thule Medallion because it had the potential to make an online multiplayet experience that might resemble DXMP augs.

Ah yes, I never have tried the game out on multiplayer, but I don't usually play multiplayer in many of these games so I guess I'm missing out on half the game or something like that.

[James]

Crysis 2 is the closest game to DXMP despite being a MW clone. Shame it is unbalannced DLC P2W garbage.

[Hanover Fist]

The new wolfenstien multiplayer only uses the "veil" medallion.

Iv only played a demo of Crysis 2, but I couldnt get excited. My girlfriend says its normal...