# Using Call of Duty as an Insult...Constantly.



## Judge Spear (May 11, 2012)

Has anyone noticed this? It's getting really old. People even use this profusely at my school as well as it being all over the net. Somehow, by some weird new world order, not caring for story, just story, in a GAME automatically translates to strictly caring about two things: Call of Duty and graphics. Somehow, the fact that I play Zelda for clever dungeon exploration, boss fights, 3 heart challenge, speed running, and items and not caring first and foremost about it's story defaults to me playing Call of Duty and loving war. Same goes for when people learn I don't like FF (gonna get heat for that) for all the cutscenes and talking. Nevermind that you could play F-Zero, DoDonPachi, Contra, Castlevania, Sonic, Ratchet and Clank, Bayonetta, or ESPGaluda all day. That's all apparently CoD map packs! 

And why would I invest heavily in Zelda's story after all these years? No matter how epic, they stick to the same formula. Not bad at all, just predictable after what, near three decades. "White girl kidnapped by black dude. White boy saves his ho like a boss." -My lovable idiot friend even if he omitted some other key elements like 4-7 key story items and a magic sword, but you get the gist.

I dunno. Do you think it's a growing fad? This hipster stuff?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (May 11, 2012)

The want to be less like CoD is good IMO. We see enough clones of it anyway.

But yeah, in a game, I'm not big on story. Now don't get me wrong, I'd like a genuinely fun, immersive game with a great story. But for me, a story is _just not necessary._ I like Killing Floor, Mount & Blade, Red Orchestra, Space Empires V, ArmA, and many more. For those it's all about the gameplay, and they're all great. I could not possibly give less of a shit that they lack a story. Those games do very different things and are unique, and that's what really matters to me.


----------



## SirRob (May 11, 2012)

Those people clearly don't get the point of Zelda. Story isn't an important part of Zelda- in fact Shigeru Miyamoto, the maker of the series, has said he likes keeping the story at a minimum.


----------



## Maisuki (May 12, 2012)

CoD is the cancer that is killing gaming.

However, I do have to agree that story alone does not make the game. Gameplay makes the game. CoD has neither, but other games at least have highly entertaining gameplay.


----------



## Aldino (May 12, 2012)

Who's excited for Black Op's 2! :V


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (May 12, 2012)

Go back to your cave you...you..CODFAG!


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 12, 2012)

Lol black ops 2, most retarded looking game ever


----------



## Unsilenced (May 12, 2012)

Go Call of Duty you Call of Dutying Call of Duty!


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 12, 2012)

Because hating popular stuff is cool.

-presumptuous /thread-


----------



## Imperial Impact (May 12, 2012)

Pachi-O said:


> (gonna get heat for that)


Not by me your not, FF's story telling is poo.


----------



## Demensa (May 13, 2012)

I like storytelling games, therefore everyone likes storytelling games :V


----------



## Torrijos-sama (May 13, 2012)

"Armchair General" is the greatest pejorative, and "Call of Duty" is a good adjective for describing similar FPSes and any FPS that uses a cast of Fratboy Super-Soldiers as the protagonists.

And using the term "Call of Duty" is a great way to dismiss people that learned everything they know about guns from video games or Wikipedia.

I've heard it used on the range, too. "Call of Duty Kids" are people that bring the overpriced civilian equivalents of military firearms with hundreds of modifications to ranges, and the term especially applies to those who don't know how to actually use the weapons.


----------



## Maisuki (May 13, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Because hating popular stuff is cool.
> 
> -presumptuous /thread-



Because being presumptuous is cool. 

People don't hate because it's popular. Those people are hipsters. People hate CoD because each release brings nothing new to the table. Again, CoD is the cancer that is killing gaming. It's the Paris Hilton of gaming. It's popular for being popular, not for quality. Activision dominates the market by sucking every last drop out of anything that would normally be a good "single-release" by re-releasing the same material repeatedly with small changes. People hate CoD because it represents a dark future for the gaming industry where publishers expect people to buy the same game every year while simultaneously exerting as little effort into the development as possible.


----------



## Ikrit (May 13, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> People hate CoD because each release brings nothing new to the table.



it's a FPS

what the hell do you expect to change?


----------



## Anubite (May 13, 2012)

> what the hell do you expect to change?



Nothing, absolutely nothing. That is why I play ARMA II: Combined Ops


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 13, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> it's a FPS
> 
> what the hell do you expect to change?



I'm pretty sure that he means that there hasn't really been any appreciable difference from one CoD game to the next since the development of CoD 4. Pretty much every game since then has basically been an overpriced expansion pack with the occasional addition and removal of zombies.


----------



## SirRob (May 13, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> People hate CoD because it represents a dark future for the gaming industry where publishers expect people to buy the same game every year while simultaneously exerting as little effort into the development as possible.


This has been going on way before CoD.


----------



## kylr23 (May 13, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> it's a FPS
> 
> what the hell do you expect to change?



A emotively investing story, less linearity. And more feeling into the story arches of the said fps.....

Back to skyrim yo :V

Edit this is cod bo2:
black Ops II will be the first Call of Duty video game to feature branching storylines, in which the player's choice affects both the current mission and in turn, the overall course of the story. The game will feature special 'Strike Force' missions that are offered as a choice to the player during the campaign. Choosing one of the missions locks out the others unless the player begins a fresh campaign.[6]
Strike Force missions allow the player to control a number of different war assets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, jet fighters and robots. If the player dies in a Strike Force mission, the campaign continues recording that loss, as opposed to letting the player load a previously saved checkpoint. The player's progress in the Strike Force missions may go on to change even the plans of the story's antagonist, Raul Menendez.[6] By the end of the game, the player may have changed the results of the new Cold War, and the player will be shown what could have gone differently.


Inbefore they break the promice.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> Because being presumptuous is cool.
> 
> People don't hate because it's popular. Those people are hipsters. People hate CoD because each release brings nothing new to the table. Again, CoD is the cancer that is killing gaming. It's the Paris Hilton of gaming. It's popular for being popular, not for quality. Activision dominates the market by sucking every last drop out of anything that would normally be a good "single-release" by re-releasing the same material repeatedly with small changes. People hate CoD because it represents a dark future for the gaming industry where publishers expect people to buy the same game every year while simultaneously exerting as little effort into the development as possible.



My friend I am the literal definition of uncool, you could not find a lamer excuse for a human being if you looked under rocks and bridges.

Now that we've established that I was taking the piss out of myself with that auxiliary line in my last post, lets get down to what's important.

First off, what exactly does 'being a hipster' (a nebulous term in this context) do to invalidate the reason why they don't like it?

Secondly, if there was a game that better catered to the FPS market would it not stand to reason that people would play that instead of CoD? It's not like good games don't receive due recognition, the industry is one of the newest in the world and it's primary demographic are people who frequent online gaming communities where most games regardless of publisher will be seen and noticed if they stand out.

Thirdly, the issue is not with game developers, it is with the people who are playing the games; they do NOT want things to change. Developers and publishers are oftentimes little more than corporate pawns who are playing a tune to market trends and trying to maximize profits for their company. They would make a vastly immersive single-player FPS game complete with ridiculously nuanced and dynamic multi-player that changed every iteration if that is what the market actually wanted: they do not. They continuously buy the games that are being published by the same developers and publishers, with the same mechanics, updated graphics, and new maps, it is a poor business decision for Activision to rock that boat.

It isn't a matter of publishers expecting people to 'buy the same game every year', it's the fact that people _*are*_ buying the same game every year that causes the problems you are so distraught with.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 14, 2012)

SirRob said:


> This has been going on way before CoD.



Madden says "hi." :V


Zaraphayx said:


> Secondly, if there was a game that better catered to the FPS market would it not stand to reason that people would play that instead of CoD? It's not like good games don't receive due recognition, the industry is one of the newest in the world and it's primary demographic are people who frequent online gaming communities where most games regardless of publisher will be seen and noticed if they stand out.



Not really. People like what they are familiar with more than anything, why else would people stick with CoD even this long after it's stagnated and festered? I even know a few people who were die hard CoD fans that gave up once they realized that MW3 was the exact same thing as MW2. I was a fan of CoD up until WaW reared its ugly head and seemed to promise more of the exact same thing as MW1 except with Nazi zombies and the same WWII guns that had infested the series since it's debut.



> Thirdly, the issue is not with game developers, it is with the people who are playing the games; they do NOT want things to change. Developers and publishers are oftentimes little more than corporate pawns who are playing a tune to market trends and trying to maximize profits for their company. They would make a vastly immersive single-player FPS game complete with ridiculously nuanced and dynamic multi-player that changed every iteration if that is what the market actually wanted: they do not. They continuously buy the games that are being published by the same developers and publishers, with the same mechanics, updated graphics, and new maps, it is a poor business decision for Activision to rock that boat.
> 
> It isn't a matter of publishers expecting people to 'buy the same game every year', it's the fact that people _*are*_ buying the same game every year that causes the problems you are so distraught with.



That doesn't mean that CoD isn't a cancer of the largest degree. Other game developers at least try to do things differently most of the time, granted most of them go about it the wrong way.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> Not really. People like what they are familiar with more than anything, why else would people stick with CoD even this long after it's stagnated and festered? I even know a few people who were die hard CoD fans that gave up once they realized that MW3 was the exact same thing as MW2. I was a fan of CoD up until WaW reared its ugly head and seemed to promise more of the exact same thing as MW1 except with Nazi zombies and the same WWII guns that had infested the series since it's debut.



I guess games like Minecraft and Team Fortress only got popular because they were 'familiar'

By the way, there are people who play games that are years to decades old and haven't changed very much either, Starcraft I for instance. What exactly is the difference between playing a 10 year old game and playing a series of games over the course of 10 years that undergo minor cosmetic tweaks? Because people are making money off the latter? Is that where the line is drawn?




> That doesn't mean that CoD isn't a cancer of the largest degree. Other game developers at least try to do things differently most of the time, granted most of them go about it the wrong way.



So? In your last post you blamed the gaming industry, I'm blaming the gamers themselves and you've done nothing to contest that claim. Don't bitch about Activision ruining gaming when you really need to hold up a mirror to your fellow gamers and realize that they are the ones buying this "cancer".


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (May 14, 2012)

kylr23 said:


> A emotively investing story, less linearity. And more feeling into the story arches of the said fps.....
> 
> Back to skyrim yo :V
> 
> ...



I imagine the Elite subscribers can buy all the endings for only $19.99!


----------



## Maisuki (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I guess games like Minecraft and Team Fortress only got popular because they were 'familiar'
> 
> By the way, there are people who play games that are years to decades old and haven't changed very much either, Starcraft I for instance. What exactly is the difference between playing a 10 year old game and playing a series of games over the course of 10 years that undergo minor cosmetic tweaks? Because people are making money off the latter? Is that where the line is drawn?
> 
> ...



It seems that you're getting a little too emotional simply because people disagree with you. This is clear through the decline in your rhetoric as your posts continue and the presence of and red-herrings indirectly intended to turn this into a flame war instead of something logical. I realize this post could fall under such qualities, but I would also like to reiterate something I don't think I expressed well. 

You are correct. I forgot to mention that it's other gamers that I'm frustrated with. My issue is with the presumption of developers that the customer is always right. My problem is that the developers and publishers _allow_ this slippery slope to continue. Also, CoD was simply an example. There are several other games, like the Madden series, which I am also frustrated with. All in all, I agree with you to an extent. However, I'm blaming the publishers for _abusing_ the fact that gamers don't want to change. My issue is not with them making money, but with _how_â€‹ they make it.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I guess games like Minecraft and Team Fortress only got popular because they were 'familiar'
> 
> By the way, there are people who play games that are years to decades old and haven't changed very much either, Starcraft I for instance. What exactly is the difference between playing a 10 year old game and playing a series of games over the course of 10 years that undergo minor cosmetic tweaks? Because people are making money off the latter? Is that where the line is drawn?



Because Starcraft I was a game that was good enough to stand on it's own for 10 years straight and counting and Blizzard recognized that, so instead of creating Starcrafts 2-7, they put their efforts toward creating Starcraft II and actually put some work into it. The interim was also taken up with the community creating their own games within the game itself, see the Impossible Scenarios and Tower Defense derivatives.

CoD has released something like 5 games within the past 4 years at full price with barely enough content to fill up a standard Expansion from the early 2000's.



> So? In your last post you blamed the gaming industry, I'm blaming the gamers themselves and you've done nothing to contest that claim. Don't bitch about Activision ruining gaming when you really need to hold up a mirror to your fellow gamers and realize that they are the ones buying this "cancer".



Go re-read my last post. I said the same thing that I've been saying: 


			
				me said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that he means that there hasn't really been any  appreciable difference from one CoD game to the next since the  development of CoD 4. Pretty much every game since then has basically  been an overpriced expansion pack with the occasional addition and  removal of zombies.



I never pointed fingers at anyone, I only ever said what is happening with the games industry that I see is wrong. Look at that statement and tell me where I say "this is the game developer's fault." Regardless of what the root cause is, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to re-release the same content once a year and increment the number at the end for the sake of profit. As you've already noted, Blizzard made one game roughly 10 years ago and it sold millions of copies over those 10 years and continues to sell, and the only other content they've released since then was BW and a single sequel that carried significant graphical updates, an entirely new game engine and tons of new content with it. Do you see the problem now or do I have to draw a picture for you in MSPaint for you to get it?


----------



## Digitalpotato (May 14, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> CoD is the cancer that is killing gaming.



If there's any cancer that's killing gaming, it's the gamers. They basically trained the developers not to step out of their comfort zones because experiments and legitimate attempts at making something new are met with criticism and poor sales figures. And even then, smaller budget games (That aren't Handheld titles) are often met with criticisms about how it "looks like shit" and they're unable to appreciate it because it's not in HD. *cough*XENOBLADE*cough* 

Meanwhile stuff that is big-budget and is merely trying to be soemthing more polished than the previous title(s) are rewarded with sales figures to justify such a cost and showing that yes, there is an interest in this type of game.

Not to mention, they train developers to assume that we are 
a) idiots
b) jerks
c) spoiled and entitled brats

We complain that they treat us like animals so we decide to combat it by shitting on their floor. We constantly insult game devs to their face and wonder why they never post on the forums. We complain about oppressive DRM and instead of simply going without a game, give them more "justification" to come up with better DRM by pirating it. We complain endlessly about too many sequels, only to constantly buy them and ignore all the attempts at new franchises or standalone titles. We complain about how there aren't enough "Core" titles being made only to complain about any "core" titles being made to be too "Dumbed down" or worse of all, complain that they're shitty before they are even released. We complain too much annoying parts of games, only to then bitch about how it's being made for casuals. :V

really it's a two edged sword...yes there are shitty things done by developers, yet at the same time, gamers need to train devs not to think their customers are a bunch of entitled brats who stopped maturing at 16.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> Because Starcraft I was a game that was good enough to stand on it's own for 10 years straight and counting and Blizzard recognized that, so instead of creating Starcrafts 2-7, they put their efforts toward creating Starcraft II and actually put some work into it. The interim was also taken up with the community creating their own games within the game itself, see the Impossible Scenarios and Tower Defense derivatives.
> 
> CoD has released something like 5 games within the past 4 years at full price with barely enough content to fill up a standard Expansion from the early 2000's.



Any FPS game can stand on it's own for 10 years straight, counterstrike had a pretty good run and people still play that, y'know. If CoD hadn't released new games you wouldn't be angry that people are still playing it. You are upset that people are making money by pandering to a market that doesn't want innovation.




> Go re-read my last post. I said the same thing that I've been saying:
> 
> 
> I never pointed fingers at anyone, I only ever said what is happening with the games industry that I see is wrong. Look at that statement and tell me where I say "this is the game developer's fault." Regardless of what the root cause is, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to re-release the same content once a year and increment the number at the end for the sake of profit. As you've already noted, Blizzard made one game roughly 10 years ago and it sold millions of copies over those 10 years and continues to sell, and the only other content they've released since then was BW and a single sequel that carried significant graphical updates, an entirely new game engine and tons of new content with it. Do you see the problem now or do I have to draw a picture for you in MSPaint for you to get it?



This is correct, I mistook you for Maisuki because I made my second post in this thread at some ungodly hour of the night and forgot everything about it until I opened up your reply this morning; my apologies.

But yes, please draw me an MSPaint picture; I could use a few more laughs from this thread.




Maisuki said:


> It seems that you're getting a little too  emotional simply because people disagree with you. This is clear through  the decline in your rhetoric as your posts continue and the presence of  and red-herrings indirectly intended to turn this into a flame war  instead of something logical. I realize this post could fall under such  qualities, but I would also like to reiterate something I don't think I  expressed well.



The guy who is employing a wordier version of 'u mad' is accusing me of trying to incite a flame war. :V

I  guess if I use a swear word and pose a series of questions in rapid  succession it means that I'm getting emotional? My only real mistake was  forgetting it was your post I originally responded to and not that  other guy's. So claiming he was bitching about Activision was not  exactly the right thing to say.



> You are correct. I forgot to mention that it's other gamers that  I'm frustrated with. My issue is with the presumption of developers that  the customer is always right. My problem is that the developers and  publishers _allow_ this slippery slope to continue. Also, CoD was  simply an example. There are several other games, like the Madden  series, which I am also frustrated with. All in all, I agree with you to  an extent. However, I'm blaming the publishers for _abusing_ the fact that gamers don't want to change. My issue is not with them making money, but with _how_â€‹ they make it.



This is just kinda how business works. I don't really know what to tell you because what you are suggesting is pie-in-the-sky level wishful thinking. Most people obviously disagree with you because they keep buying CoD games, and their opinion > your opinion (please do not misinterpret this) because they are in the majority.


----------



## Unsilenced (May 14, 2012)

I'm pretty sure there is always going to be at least one game on the market that's generic and FPSy and rakes in piles of cash. I have no problem with this. If people want to waste their money on CoD that doesn't really effect me. 

What I do have a problem with is immitators. The fact that every other game developer now seems to think that the key to giant piles of cash is to just copy paste little (or sometimes very big) things from CoD into their game. It's ridiculous. 

It's like if a general decided he would dress his men all in blue like Napoleon's because he thought *that* was the key to conquering Europe. 

I don't think they could miss the point an harder.


----------



## Maisuki (May 14, 2012)

Digitalpotato said:


> stuff



My "this" button is broken again. 



Zaraphayx said:


> You are upset that people are making money by pandering to a market that doesn't want innovation.



In a nutshell, yes.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Any FPS game can stand on it's own for 10 years straight, counterstrike had a pretty good run and people still play that, y'know. If CoD hadn't released new games you wouldn't be angry that people are still playing it. You are upset that people are making money by pandering to a market that doesn't want innovation.



Sorry to be so blunt, but, NO SHIT. Why would I be angry at people playing good games? I'm not angry that people play CoD, I'm angry that people continue to buy it despite that it hasn't seen a significant upgrade in a LONG time. I don't like a lot of gamers because they tend to be entitled and bratty when it comes to anything. That doesn't mean that a game series like CoD can't feed this system and be a cancer to the industry.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> Sorry to be so blunt, but, NO SHIT. Why would I be angry at people playing good games? I'm not angry that people play CoD, I'm angry that people continue to buy it despite that it hasn't seen a significant upgrade in a LONG time. I don't like a lot of gamers because they tend to be entitled and bratty when it comes to anything. That doesn't mean that a game series like CoD can't feed this system and be a cancer to the industry.



Okay; I've been avoiding directly contradicting the claim that CoD hasn't changed at all because I wanted to make a different point entirely, but that just isn't working out here.

Have you ever played a CoD game? Do you not understand that the different iterations have over-gone some pretty significant overhauls to their engines, textures, and hell even the STORY-LINES in single-player have not been anywhere close to 'rehashed'. I don't even like CoD and I can appreciate that it is no worse than any other series of games that pump out sequels for more money. Tell me what Starcraft did differently that made a sequel (which I might add is being broken up into 3 delicious wallet-plumping releases) so much better? Let me even compare them side by side:

CoD Sequels:

- Engine upgrades

- Graphical/texture upgrades

- New single-player campaign

- New maps

- Core gameplay left unchanged

- Some guns are removed, some are added, and others are changed

Starcraft II:

- Engine upgrade

- Graphical/texture upgrade

- New single-player campaign

- New maps

- Core gameplay left unchanged

- Some units are removed, some are added, and others are changed

You're right though, you liked Starcraft better than MW1, so it is okay to release the 'same game twice'.

Oh, what about Pokemon? Is that rehashed commercial crap too?

Face reality: you don't like it because you don't like the players who like it, and not liking them is okay.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Okay; I've been avoiding directly contradicting the claim that CoD hasn't changed at all because I wanted to make a different point entirely, but that just isn't working out here.
> 
> Have you ever played a CoD game? Do you not understand that the different iterations have over-gone some pretty significant overhauls to their engines, textures, and hell even the STORY-LINES in single-player have not been anywhere close to 'rehashed'. I don't even like CoD and I can appreciate that it is no worse than any other series of games that pump out sequels for more money. Tell me what Starcraft did differently that made a sequel (which I might add is being broken up into 3 delicious wallet-plumping releases) so much better? Let me even compare them side by side:
> 
> ...



Yes, I have played a CoD game. I've said several times that I was once a fan of the series, back when the upgrades from release to release were tangible and meaningful. I even played some of the more recent games via friends by going over to their places and playing with them. I can't say that there's enough difference from MW1, the last game that I bought, to I believe it was MW2 (I honestly can't tell the difference between them at this point because minor graphical tweaks aren't worth releasing entirely new games for) that I think anyone can reasonably claim that they needed to make another fucking game for it.

And get off the Starcraft bit. I liked it, yes, but I'm not saying that it's the best thing since sliced bread. I never even said that I liked them splitting it into 3 different games, although time has yet to tell whether the content of each game will allow that they each really should be it's own standalone package. And why are you using quotes around "rehashed." I haven't once used that term in my own words, and I have nowhere near made that claim.



> You're right though, you liked Starcraft better than MW1, so it is okay to release the 'same game twice'.



This also confuses the hell out of me. I actually quite liked MW1, I've said that. I also quite liked Starcraft. I've never once expressed preference between one or the other, and I'd even say that MW1 was the last good CoD game released, which ironically enough, has been the same game that Activision has been trying to remake for the passed 4 years or so. And indeed there were some nice, noticeable upgrades from CoD3 to CoD4, the same can't be said of recent installments. When I have difficulty actually telling the difference between CoD#:BOps and CoD#:MW2, there's a problem. You can't tell me that you can't tell the difference between SC and SCII. That my friend is the difference. That and there's actually a substantial amount of time between one release and the next. For fuck's sake, it's already been 2 years since the release of SCII:WoL and HotS isn't even out yet.



> Oh, what about Pokemon? Is that rehashed commercial crap too?



Well, yes, to a degree. Pokemon is good, but let's face it, the last really good game that wasn't a remake was Emerald. The more recent games weren't exactly bad, but they've left a lot to be desired (IMO) and the new Pokemon being released with them seem to be lacking in the creativity department. The thing that keeps me going back, however, is that there are actually some interesting new worlds and gameplay features to keep me interested and playing. Even more, the Gyms and core gameplay mechanics actually get something new with each new iteration, even the remade gyms have new puzzles and things to keep me going with the flow. But CoD? Same guns, more or less, same basic gameplay mechanics, pretty much the same graphics and game engine, pretty much the same in every regard that I care about and nothing that really kept me hooked.

As for people I don't like, I don't like a lot of people. I don't like presumptuous assholes on forums, I don't like people that seem to skim posts and make halfassed replies. I don't like the people that play LoL (but I'm an avid player of that game). I don't like people that read Warriors books and then go batshit about creating their own bullshit spinoffs. But you know what, I'm an avid forum go-er, I play LoL as my main game ATM, and I fucking love Warriors. But no, you totally hit everything else on the fucking head. >:V
-v-


----------



## Maisuki (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Face reality: you don't like it because you don't like the players who like it, and not liking them is okay.



Ok, I can't take this thread seriously anymore.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> Yes, I have played a CoD game. I've said  several times that I was once a fan of the series, back when the  upgrades from release to release were tangible and meaningful. I even  played some of the more recent games via friends by going over to their  places and playing with them. I can't say that there's enough difference  from MW1, the last game that I bought, to I believe it was MW2 (I  honestly can't tell the difference between them at this point because  minor graphical tweaks aren't worth releasing entirely new games for)  that I think anyone can reasonably claim that they needed to make  another fucking game for it.



I'll get to this later with pokemon :V



> And get off the Starcraft bit. I liked it, yes, but I'm not saying that  it's the best thing since sliced bread. I never even said that I liked  them splitting it into 3 different games, although time has yet to tell  whether the content of each game will allow that they each really should  be it's own standalone package. And why are you using quotes around  "rehashed." I haven't once used that term in my own words, and I have  nowhere near made that claim.



No, the comparison is perfectly valid, you used it as an example of a 'good game'. I am saying that the only reason SC2 isn't subjected to the same scrutiny is because you are comparing a technological advance of a decade vs that of a year and change. I find it more worrisome that some of the major imbalances in SC2's gameplay exist after such a long development and extensive beta process (and yet it is lauded as a great game). CoD found a winning formula that a lot of people like, and I don't see anything inherently wrong with giving your customers what they want.

And I wasn't quoting you, I was using it to detonate that I use the term loosely. 



> This also confuses the hell out of me. I actually quite liked MW1, I've  said that. I also quite liked Starcraft. I've never once expressed  preference between one or the other, and I'd even say that MW1 was the  last good CoD game released, which ironically enough, has been the same  game that Activision has been trying to remake for the passed 4 years or  so. And indeed there were some nice, noticeable upgrades from CoD3 to  CoD4, the same can't be said of recent installments. When I have  difficulty actually telling the difference between CoD#:BOps and  CoD#:MW2, there's a problem. You can't tell me that you can't tell the  difference between SC and SCII. That my friend is the difference. That  and there's actually a substantial amount of time between one release  and the next. For fuck's sake, it's already been 2 years since the  release of SCII:WoL and HotS isn't even out yet.



You're right.

I can't

Tell the difference.

You won't be able to tell the difference between WoL and HotS at a glance either. BLIZZARD IS CONFIRMED FOR PASSION LOST, RUINING GAMING, TO THE FORUMS.

Also how is the time between them better? I'd be a little more concerned if a game comes out 3 years after it's predecessor and still doesn't have much of a change when compared to a game that makes the same degree of change in less time.




> Well, yes, to a degree. Pokemon is good, but let's face it, the last  really good game that wasn't a remake was Emerald. The more recent games  weren't exactly bad, but they've left a lot to be desired (IMO) and the  new Pokemon being released with them seem to be lacking in the  creativity department. The thing that keeps me going back, however, is  that there are actually some interesting new worlds and gameplay  features to keep me interested and playing. Even more, the Gyms and core  gameplay mechanics actually get something new with each new iteration,  even the remade gyms have new puzzles and things to keep me going with  the flow. But CoD? Same guns, more or less, same basic gameplay  mechanics, pretty much the same graphics and game engine, pretty much  the same in every regard that I care about and nothing that really kept  me hooked.



Pokemon has kept the same core gameplay mechanics since it was released in the 90's. Double battles didn't revolutionize pokemon, nor did adding two more types. They were tacked on to a base concept and design that was already in place and each incremental iteration of Pokemon: Color Version contributed to making what is now the current 'generation' of the series. They are even remaking the old games with the new mechanics, and Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum were markedly similar to Gold/Silver, Ruby/Sapphire, and Diamond/Pearl respectively. There is nothing that makes them any better than the CoD series. 

They even have the balls to release two games that are practically the same as each-other at the SAME EXACT TIME and make certain little things exclusive to each version. That is straight up bullshit 



> As for people I don't like, I don't like a lot of people. I don't  like presumptuous assholes on forums, I don't like people that seem to  skim posts and make halfassed replies. I don't like the people that play  LoL (but I'm an avid player of that game). I don't like people that  read Warriors books and then go batshit about creating their own  bullshit spinoffs. But you know what, I'm an avid forum go-er, I play  LoL as my main game ATM, and I fucking love Warriors. But no, you  totally hit everything else on the fucking head. >:V
> -v-



I'm glad that you're willing to admit that bitching fruitlessly is fun at least, now I can identify a motive for arguing semantics for no reason.




Maisuki said:


> Ok, I can't take this thread seriously anymore.



I stopped taking it seriously a page ago, welcome to the club.


----------



## Maisuki (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> I stopped taking it seriously a page ago, welcome to the club.



Yet you just posted a nigh-pointless wall of text? Not taking it seriously my ass.


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> Yet you just posted a nigh-pointless wall of text? Not taking it seriously my ass.



Do you even know what a wall of text looks like?

I'm just entertaining myself until midnight when I get to spam-click in Diablo III for a few weeks.

Edit: Also you can't accuse me of being serious and making 'pointless' text walls at the same time, silly.


----------



## Maisuki (May 14, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Do you even know what a wall of text looks like?
> 
> I'm just entertaining myself until midnight when I get to spam-click in Diablo III for a few weeks.



Oh gog... Dat wall of text... Also D3 wooo!
(we all know it's just a rehash of D2, right?) :V



Zaraphayx said:


> Edit: Also you can't accuse me of being serious and making 'pointless' text walls at the same time, silly.



TouchÃ¨ (which way does the little accent thing go again?)


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Maisuki said:


> Oh gog... Dat wall of text... Also D3 wooo!
> (we all know it's just a rehash of D2, right?) :V



If we go by popular opinion, yes.

I'm still playing the shit out of it.

dealwithit.jpg

I may be convinced to recind that claim though because they did change the resource system a considerable amount, among other things.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 14, 2012)

I'm not going to lie, I honestly can't tell if you're really just this dense or if you're trolling. I know that people exist that don't actually bother reading what I write, but it astounds me that so many of you fuckers exist.



> No, the comparison is perfectly valid, you used it as an example of a  'good game'. I am saying that the only reason SC2 isn't subjected to the  same scrutiny is because you are comparing a technological advance of a  decade vs that of a year and change. I find it more worrisome that some  of the major imbalances in SC2's gameplay exist after such a long  development and extensive beta process (and yet it is lauded as a great  game). CoD found a winning formula that a lot of people like, and I  don't see anything inherently wrong with giving your customers what they  want.



You were the one that brought up Starcraft 1. I'm running with it because I found it to be a good game. I've even stated that I found several CoD games to be good. But you seem to be dead set that there's the same level of qualitative difference between the two series' iterations, and there simply isn't. There were massive, noticeable differences from Starcraft 1 to SCII. I can easily tell which is which and I can feel some tangible differences in gameplay when I play them. This simply doesn't exist in CoD games since MW2.



> You're right.
> 
> I can't
> 
> Tell the difference.



Just... for fuck's sake.



			
				me said:
			
		

> And indeed there were some nice, noticeable upgrades from CoD3 to CoD4,  the same can't be said of recent installments. When I have difficulty  actually telling the difference between CoD#:BOps and CoD#:MW2, there's a  problem.



For the love of whatever it is you call 'holy,' please read before you post. It's shit like this that really make me question if you're looking at the same thing that I think I'm writing.



> You won't be able to tell the difference between WoL and HotS at a  glance either. BLIZZARD IS CONFIRMED FOR PASSION LOST, RUINING GAMING,  TO THE FORUMS.
> 
> Also how is the time between them better? I'd be a little more concerned  if a game comes out 3 years after it's predecessor and still doesn't  have much of a change when compared to a game that makes the same degree  of change in less time.



Did I say that I would be able to? I never made that claim. I don't follow game development, I just look at the final product, because between tech demos and release, history has shown that there is quite a difference between what is shown off and what is finally released. And you know what, maybe HotS will just be more watered down drek. I don't know and neither do you. Maybe Blizzard will lose me as a customer if they prove that the only tangible difference between WoL and HotS is a small graphical upgrade, a couple of units and a new story and still price it at $60 USD. And you know what, it would certainly concern me if after 3 years of dev time they released the RTS equivalent of "CoD 22: More of the same Shit," but what concerns me more is how little you seem to be able to comprehend.



> Pokemon has kept the same core gameplay mechanics since it was released  in the 90's. Double battles didn't revolutionize pokemon, nor did adding  two more types. They were tacked on to a base concept and design that  was already in place and each incremental iteration of Pokemon: Color  Version contributed to making what is now the current 'generation' of  the series. They are even remaking the old games with the new mechanics,  and Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum were markedly similar to  Gold/Silver, Ruby/Sapphire, and Diamond/Pearl respectively. There is  nothing that makes them any better than the CoD series.
> 
> They even have the balls to release two games that are practically the  same as each-other at the SAME EXACT TIME and make certain little things  exclusive to each version. That is straight up bullshit



You can't tell me that there isn't at least something significantly different from one Generation to the next. Now, I'll level with you, their practice of releasing 3 games per Generation with marginal differences between them isn't much better than what CoD does, but buying only one game from said Generation isn't a major detriment to you as a player, and if they did the same thing, except compressed each Generation to a single game, we'd be having a much different conversation, now wouldn't we? It's not my problem that people are dumb enough to buy all three games out of a gen (as a single person obsessed with "catching 'em all"), but I personally only ever bought one per. I also personally took it as a business move meant to emphasize joint gameplay between players, so that when you have two kids (siblings) playing the game, there's actually some incentive for you to get two separate copies other than just having two exactly identical games. Y'know, networking and shit.

But you know what? Fuck this. You clearly aren't actually reading my replies so much as skimming over them and reading in what you think I'm saying or what you want me to be saying.

-facedesk-


----------



## Zaraphayx (May 14, 2012)

Stratto the Hawk said:


> I'm not going to lie, I honestly can't tell if you're really just this dense or if you're trolling.



Half and half.



> I know that people exist that don't actually bother reading what I write, but it astounds me that so many of you fuckers exist.



I'm only showing you the same courtesy you showed me.




> You were the one that brought up Starcraft 1. I'm running with it because I found it to be a good game. I've even stated that I found several CoD games to be good. But you seem to be dead set that there's the same level of qualitative difference between the two series' iterations, and there simply isn't. There were massive, noticeable differences from Starcraft 1 to SCII. I can easily tell which is which and I can feel some tangible differences in gameplay when I play them. This simply doesn't exist in CoD games since MW2.



Correct, I brought it up, you ran with it, and when was no longer convenient you did not want to run with it anymore.

The 'noticeable' differences between the two titles only exist because they were made a decade apart. If you play CoD1 and BLOPS2 you will notice a difference. As I keep trying to say, it's not a matter of the game not changing enough, it's that they are milking money out of people who want more of the same by making incremental nuanced changes in the game. This is a byproduct of business and NOT game design.



> Just... for fuck's sake.



Yeah that was really inconvenient wasn't it? :V





> For the love of whatever it is you call 'holy,' please read before you post. It's shit like this that really make me question if you're looking at the same thing that I think I'm writing.



I'll be honest, this entire discussion is occupying less than a fraction of a percent of my attention and I started skimming as soon as I saw you call CoD gaming cancer. That's really all I needed to know that I won't change your mind about this subject and I'm better off soliloquizing.




> Did I say that I would be able to? I never made that claim. I don't follow game development, I just look at the final product, because between tech demos and release, history has shown that there is quite a difference between what is shown off and what is finally released. And you know what, maybe HotS will just be more watered down drek. I don't know and neither do you. Maybe Blizzard will lose me as a customer if they prove that the only tangible difference between WoL and HotS is a small graphical upgrade, a couple of units and a new story and still price it at $60 USD. And you know what, it would certainly concern me if after 3 years of dev time they released the RTS equivalent of "CoD 22: More of the same Shit," but what concerns me more is how little you seem to be able to comprehend.



You agree with me, continue arguing semantics, are aware that I'm not even bothering to read said arguments concerning semantics, and then act like I am the one who is lacking a full comprehension of what's going on.



> You can't tell me that there isn't at least something significantly different from one Generation to the next. Now, I'll level with you, their practice of releasing 3 games per Generation with marginal differences between them isn't much better than what CoD does, but buying only one game from said Generation isn't a major detriment to you as a player, and if they did the same thing, except compressed each Generation to a single game, we'd be having a much different conversation, now wouldn't we? It's not my problem that people are dumb enough to buy all three games out of a gen (as a single person obsessed with "catching 'em all"), but I personally only ever bought one per. I also personally took it as a business move meant to emphasize joint gameplay between players, so that when you have two kids (siblings) playing the game, there's actually some incentive for you to get two separate copies other than just having two exactly identical games. Y'know, networking and shit.



And it's not anyone's problem that people buy CoD:22 either, yet CoD is gaming cancer and Pokemon isn't. Reality is that people DO buy all 3 games of a generation and that is not even the slightest bit different than buying the new CoD title every time it is released. No one is twisting anyone's arm to buy 'the new shiny' here.

The point you make about networking is a valid one to a degree, but I don't see how I am discouraged from buying the same version as my sibling and battling and trading with them anyway if we both like the featured legendary of one version more than another.



> But you know what? Fuck this. You clearly aren't actually reading my replies so much as skimming over them and reading in what you think I'm saying or what you want me to be saying.
> 
> -facedesk-



lol


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-VDTPmY2Zg&feature=plcp


----------



## Kesteh (May 20, 2012)

Zaraphayx said:


> Walls of fucking text



So. You _do_ know that MW:2 and its successors are pretty much expansion packs, right?


----------



## DarrylWolf (May 20, 2012)

Sure, I think it's a problem. Especially when the valedictorian at my college graduation actually referenced CoD as a way to teach graduates about teamwork.


----------



## Randolph (May 20, 2012)

Pachi-O said:


> I dunno. Do you think it's a growing fad? This *hipster* stuff?


Please, everyone, just... stop using this fucking word whenever someone doesn't like something mainstream.

It's getting _really_ old.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 20, 2012)

SirRob said:


> This has been going on way before CoD.



Madden.

Which btw, hilariously lines up most of the wall when I look for used games.


----------



## Stratto the Hawk (May 21, 2012)

Kesteh said:


> So. You _do_ know that MW:2 and its successors are pretty much expansion packs, right?



As many times as I say this, I think he mentally transforms statements like this into "every CoD game since the first was basically an expansion pack." >:V


----------



## Armaetus (May 21, 2012)

CoD became shit AFTER MW1.


----------



## Abundance (May 21, 2012)

People who play CoD aren't real gamers.

Quake master race.


----------



## Arik~Vulpes (May 21, 2012)

Glaice said:


> CoD became shit AFTER MW1.


Agreed. I stopped playing after I noticed MW2's story line wasn't very good. That and the multiplayer pissed me off.


----------



## Rilvor (May 22, 2012)

When EA and Activision are dead, and Bobby Kotick no longer has any power anywhere, then I will worry about the behavior of gamers towards developers. There is an incredible amount of immaturity, but it comes nowhere near as villainous as the companies who are destroying gaming. But please, go, fight with yourselves and forget about the real target here.


----------



## Kesteh (May 22, 2012)

Hopefully these expansions ("games") will go the way of Sonic and just die miserably with every release. People would only buy it to record the obvious bugs/flaws or just to do a 'let's play' of self-punishment just to show how miserable it can be.

There was already a gigantic flaw in MW3 which allowed a player to use a glitch that was like a 3-in-1 hack: Infinite ammo, rapid fire, and never ending clip. It was a glitch that would do this just by pressing TWO buttons on your controller.


----------



## Captain Howdy (May 22, 2012)

When some type of war game comes on TV, my friends and I pause the video before it gives us the name, and we put bets down on which game it is. Tom Clancy, CoD, BF, or something new~


----------



## Randolph (May 22, 2012)

Abundance said:


> People who play CoD aren't real gamers.
> 
> Quake master race.


You see, it's fucks like you that make everyone think all Quakers are elitist assholes.


----------



## OssumPawesome (May 22, 2012)

Randolph said:


> You see, it's fucks like you that make everyone think all Quakers are elitist assholes.



In stark contrast to the reality of the situation?


----------



## Judge Spear (May 24, 2012)

Kesteh said:


> Hopefully these expansions ("games") will go the way of Sonic and just die miserably with every release. People would only buy it to record the obvious bugs/flaws or just to do a 'let's play' of self-punishment just to show how miserable it can be.
> 
> There was already a gigantic flaw in MW3 which allowed a player to use a glitch that was like a 3-in-1 hack: Infinite ammo, rapid fire, and never ending clip. It was a glitch that would do this just by pressing TWO buttons on your controller.



My friend was playing MW2 (before he sold it a month after, go fucking figure) and I saw him do a glitch where he phased...into a rock. He then started shooting people from inside the rock.
And Sonic died? I thought he made a comeback!?



Randolph said:


> Please, everyone, just... stop using this fucking word whenever someone doesn't like something mainstream.
> 
> It's getting _really_ old.



My apologies. I was asking if anyone _thinks _this is the case. 
And there's a difference between people not liking something mainstream and everyone using it as a label for those who don't like one measly underground or less than popular product.



DarrylWolf said:


> Sure, I think it's a problem. Especially when the valedictorian at my college graduation actually referenced CoD as a way to teach graduates about teamwork.



Oh, if only you were joking. Everyone I ever played CoD with who took it seriously and were actually _really_ good stayed quiet (contrary to popular belief that it's always a rage fest). They didn't say a damn thing!

Must be that telepathy. It's all the rage, I hear! :V


----------



## Abundance (May 24, 2012)

Randolph said:


> You see, it's fucks like you that make everyone think all Quakers are elitist assholes.



You must be the epitome of perfect manners and civility.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 24, 2012)

Please...I'm not trying to seem above anyone, but please don't feed into it, seriously.


----------



## Genobee (May 25, 2012)

I despise the manner in which Activision has dealt with CoD. To me it is an absolutely horrid game.

Now with that said - it is just my opinion. MY opinion. I have no reason to go around telling others that they shouldn't like a game I don't. That is just plain idiotic to me. So I will never quite get why everyone uses that as an insult. Afterall I'm sure they play quite a few games most gamers probably hate. Plus if they enjoy the game then so be it. It doesn't matter. It has no effect on me what-so-ever.


----------



## Aetius (May 25, 2012)

I personally miss the World War 2 CoD games.


----------



## Batty Krueger (May 25, 2012)

Yeah cod2 was the last one I really enjoyed.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 25, 2012)

I did like Big Red One a lot.
I noticed something a while back, though. When Doom came around, it was all super/space marines that dominated along with (I'm assuming) Marathon and Quake up to the first Halo. Then a metric shit ton of WWII games hit the scene in the early decade. I just remember X-Play reviewing a WWII shooter every two episodes back when the show was cool. few years later, now FPS games are this modern style that's the forefront of the FPS genre. They were all three there all the time, but it seems to shift dominance every few years, not in a pattern of course. So I don't think the FPS genre is dead per se, rather it just had a...Mega Man Battle Network 3 sort of random style change. Only this one happens to be the worst style by consensus. >.> 

It'll switch to something else in time, I think. Until then, I'll just play Nexuiz and Turok DH.


----------



## Anubite (May 25, 2012)

Cod 2 and its expansion or whatever you call it was my last favorite, that's also because i am a WW2 buff. Nothing like shooting some kraut with a lee enfield from a reasonable distance and then running around with captain price to make your day a little brighter.

Also, Captain price never dies, ever.


----------



## Kosdu (May 25, 2012)

I can't think of what to say.

Great games like Thief go unnoticed, yet the tremendous pile of shit that is COD sells millions. The WW2 iterations were fine.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.


----------



## Anubite (May 25, 2012)

Men of War doesnt get much praise but its my favorite RTS game, its amazing and very well balanced. Everything in that game makes me happy.


----------



## Randolph (May 25, 2012)

Anubite said:


> Also, Captain price never dies, ever.


There are far better vidya characters that never fucking die.

Though I admit, I know no other that sports such a classy mustache. What a terribly structured sentence.

HNNNG.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 25, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> I can't think of what to say.
> 
> Great games like Thief go unnoticed, yet the tremendous pile of shit that is COD sells millions. The WW2 iterations were fine.
> 
> I don't want to live on this planet anymore.



Thief went unnoticed? I haven't played it, but I heard about it many times and saw lots of gameplay over the past two years. Even Zero Punctuation praises it. That guy hates everything! I missed the sale on that game recently on Steam. I just wish CoD didn't push out the kind of shooters I like. I miss the days of Gradius and DoDonPachi.


----------



## Sly-Wolf (May 25, 2012)

Black Ops was the last playable one. MW2 and MW3's multiplayer was just awful when I played it. The stories are ok though.


----------



## KigRatel (May 25, 2012)

In my opinion, the only definitely good CoD games were the original and CoD 2, and i'm only assuming the first one was good, since it demanded a sequel. I don't know about CoD 3 or CoD 4, but everything after that certainly does not impress (the only exception to this is the Nazi Zombies mode, which I think deserves to be a standalone game).

But you know what's really interesting? I remember, on the Steam Forums, everyone was complaining about the piss-poor fanbase the CoD series has, as always, so I decided to experience it first-hand and go to a CoD forum. To my surprise, there was not a single immature RAGE thread or thread whining about Valve games. I was quite surprised, especially considering that you get both of those types of thread a-plenty in FSPF (or SPUF if you like).


----------



## Judge Spear (May 26, 2012)

Imperial Impact said:


> Not by me your not, FF's story telling is poo.



I completely passed you, but from the few I've played, I have to agree with that. *activates force field* Even the acclaimed FFVII was a trainwreck to me. TO ME.


----------



## Anubite (May 26, 2012)

> There are far better vidya characters that never fucking die.



True, but that mustache man, that's what makes him a boss. Kane is the ultimate character who never dies IMO.


----------

