Jimquisition: Defending Call of Duty

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Jim carries some valid and strong points,although his delivery could use some refinement in my eyes. However,I'm here to follow up on his request for an intelligent rebuttal. Here's mine;

Killstreak rewards. In an online multiplayer experience,there always needs to be a chance of turning a game around. This exists...For people who can string together 4+ kills in a row without biting someone's bullet. And,the most likely scenario,the side that's performing the best will be getting the killstreaks. Thus striking down any chance people had on turning that match around.

Killstreak rewards keep up momentum,but they also ruin the competitive balance that any multiplayer game should have. Yes,it may be fun and cool to call in an AC-130 "Spooky" gunship,then be the gunner,but those on the recieving end will simply curse your name because there's nowhere to hide anymore.

I don't hate COD, I used to enjoy it in fact, as the developing franchise it was. Do you know why I enjoyed it? Because it wasn't everywhere, so if every company tried to copy it, people gave them a pass, because we only just jumped the gun on 3D gaming when I was on the up-and-up, and fancy laser-discs too. So we all took what we could get back then, because anything with a budget was great, it stood on top of the heaping piles of "non-budget" games where quality was hit or miss.

Now there is no excuse. I hate it not as a game, or a franchise, but I hate it for the trend it is. It's created this massive trend, where it's waaay too big for it's own good. All the top corporations are trying to copy it and reign in it's shadow (and corporations are pretty damn massive these days), so all we see, over and over, or at least the past several years, is the same thing. All the hype, all the same-y.

I hate it the way I hate hearing about a celebrity divorce. I hate it then, because I know the trend it causes. The unceasing stories of scandals, the gratuitous amounts of links and blurbs and bloggers and non-stop bullshit that permeates the digital world and every newsstand from where I sit to where the world drops off into oblivion. Because it is bland. I don't hate it because it's popular, I hate it because it's now bland, AND it is popular. It doesn't deserve to be in my face everywhere, nor should it receive the glory of completely changing the video-gaming landscape and all of the industry's investors with it.

All that said however, I do believe the trend is coming to a halt, thankfully. I do believe we are starting to see less of it, and more forays into RPGs, and other experimental titles, which is always a good thing. I believe that finally, developers can be strung along only so far, and by and large do not wish to be hamsters on a wheel.

Halo is essentially over, Call of Duty is stale and that goes for it's illegitimate offspring as well. I believe everyone recognizes this by now. Including those that actually make games, and for the sake of gaming, please add some tabasco to the stew to spice it up a little.

The more I think about this, the more I think the title needs a revamp. Call of Duty as an entity doesn't need defending, but certainly casual players who get ridiculed for enjoying it in any capacity, do.

Good points, poor execution, lacking vision. This is my third post on this video and I still think this is unfair to the average punter who hates Call of Duty because of its terrible qualities (Black Ops singleplayer can fuck off), and to the "artsy" crowd who actually defended Call of Duty as an exemplary single-player experience.

I still love the Jimquisition, though.

norwegian-guy:

GundamSentinel:
While not very subtly put, I completely agree with what he's saying. People will always be hating on what's popular, because that's what the 'cool kids' do, but a bit of sense seldom goes amiss.

Do people REALLY hate something because it's popular for that reason alone? Can you point out 3 popular things that people hate purely out of that aspect?

I admit it's more complicated than that. It's got more to do with the way people form opinions and how these are distributed in groups. All people are part of a group (or imagine themselves to be) based on either common likes or common dislikes. The reason people consider themselves part of a group, (for instance, part of a group of people who heartily dislike CoD) can have multiple reasons.

- They're not the target audience/have nothing to do with it. Not being included in anything leads to spite.
- They were 'late to the party'.
- It's not in their frame of reference containing things they're apparently 'supposed to like' because friends like the same things. Stupid, but that's the way social groups can work.
- They know nothing about it, but think they should have an opinion all the same (that's what it's all about these days, right? Being opinionated. The popularity of Twitter is living proof), and being contrary is fun.

I can't imagine there is anyone who hasn't been guilty of it because of one or more reasons. It could concern any possible topic, not just games. Just to name a few:

FFXIII, any Final Fantasy other than VII, Final Fantasy in general, JRPGs in general, Halo, shooters in general, games in general, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, boybands, anime, metal, jazz, classical music (oddly enough), Avatar, Harry Potter, Pokémon, global warming, Obama, gun laws, Star Wars Prequels, science-fiction in general, sequels, superhero movies, McDonalds/Burger King, furries, cosplayers, student societies, Japanese cars, French cars, Belgium, alcohol... I could keep this up all day.

Just a sample of things I heard people have explicit (mostly condescendingly negative) opinions about without knowing what they are talking about. Still, I doubt there are many people who haven't voiced an uneducated opinion about any of these.

Something I feel I should mention:
Oddly enough I've also seen people vigourously defending things they know nothing about, because they think they ought to like it, as it is in their frame of reference (own taste, friends' taste). It seems to be much rarer, but I know of people who violently defend Counterstrike just because their friends play and like it.

lithium.jelly:

GundamSentinel:
-snip-

So that explains his Witcher review. It's popular, so he hates it. And yet he defends CoD? <eyeroll>
Honestly, Jim's opinions are pretty questionable, I no longer think he has anything to say that is relevant to me.

True, he is a hypocrite. Doesn't make all he says BS though.

Taerdin:

GundamSentinel:
-snip-

I hate when people put on that whole 'people hate what's popular because it's cool' nonsense. It's not cool to be critical of what's popular. What's cool is to like the same thing everyone else likes, to be in with the popular crowd.

That's why I use parentheses. Sure it's not cool, it's just plain stupid.

Also:
image
Greek now? That's not fair...

Bit of an off-topic thing here.

Something struck me while reading through this thread concerning the pacing issue, he doesn't actually say 'well paced', he says 'wonderfully paced'.

Unfortunately I am not proficient enough with the english language to know wether or not there is a difference, it did however strike me that while 'well paced' is often used as a synonym to 'slow and steady', 'wonderfully paced' might not be.

Wonderfully is an adjective that describes something as being good, and what is good is subjective so when hearing 'Wonderfully paced' I translate more into 'pace that suits me' rather than 'slow and steady'.

I am from sweden and I grew up on Monty Python and Hollywood simultaneously, in addition to this a close family friend was english, so I spoke a bit of english in conversation fairly early, as such I have a genuine interest in english, especially when it comes to differences between English and US English, and when something like this pops up it intrigues me to no end.

Anyone know the difference, or lack thereof between the two, educated guesses perhaps?

Jim's got progressively better from episode one, but i still can't get behind his abrasive, arrogant attitude despite it being a part of the show and how he does things.

kroldok:
Bit of an off-topic thing here.

Something struck me while reading through this thread concerning the pacing issue, he doesn't actually say 'well paced', he says 'wonderfully paced'.

Unfortunately I am not proficient enough with the english language to know wether or not there is a difference, it did however strike me that while 'well paced' is often used as a synonym to 'slow and steady', 'wonderfully paced' might not be.

Wonderfully is an adjective that describes something as being good, and what is good is subjective so when hearing 'Wonderfully paced' I translate more into 'pace that suits me' rather than 'slow and steady'.

I am from sweden and I grew up on Monty Python and Hollywood simultaneously, in addition to this a close family friend was english, so I spoke a bit of english in conversation fairly early, as such I have a genuine interest in english, especially when it comes to differences between English and US English, and when something like this pops up it intrigues me to no end.

Anyone know the difference, or lack thereof between the two, educated guesses perhaps?

It's more of an enhancement - while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great. It doesn't change the meaning so much as the emphasis.

When he was doing commentary over gameplay footage, I liked what he had to say. But every time the shot is of him behind that ridiculous pulpit, he just comes off as trying too hard. And that moronic bit on Osama at the end of the piece. Jeesh...

Still... better by far than previous episodes.

The series is improving, but seriously: He should get a better mic for the parts where he's on camera.

Captcha:

I can't help but feel that COD is somewhat unbalanced online. Yes, there's always a learning curve for any online game but the people with more experience ALSO having better weapons seems unfair. And that's the same with the kill streaks - the winner keeps on winning. It certainly encourages you to play the game more so that you can get better but I prefer to be motivated by simply having a good time. And that's not to say that COD isn't fun but it can also be very frustrating. It seems to be that the best people in the game (those who get all the kill streaks) have all the fun whilst everyone else suffers from their success, rather than a more mutual level of fun for everyone.

Does this guy just try and ignore the falws people dislike the game for on purpose? This is the first time i have seen this show and i am baffled as to WHY it is here.

The problem with CoD is not the weapon unlocks it is the amount of weapon unlocks. There are so many it makes the game hard to balance which is the biggest problem with recent CoD games. Melee has also been blown way out of proportion in the game. No I am not asking for realistic melee I just want my bash back. It is not an inherently bad series but has become shit and stale due to a huge amount of games in a short time span. Then there are the killstreaks I shouldn't have to explain the killstreaks after CoD4.

I would have to agree with him. Except for the compliments to the narratives. Modern Warfare 2's story was fairly good, and kept me interested. As for Black Ops, I told myself I'd play through the single player before I took it online...I reached the Viet Nam levels, and thought, screw this, and put Halo: Reach on.
Sometimes a story just doesn't grab me. Sometimes it feels tiresome. BioShock 2 is a good example of one that just seemed weary. It plays like a fast-paced game, but the story seemed determined to take it slow. Like spending a racing game in the pit.

As for multiplayer, I do think Treyarch's sequel easily surpasses Infinity Ward. My biggest problem with the previous game was that infernal quick-scoping....AND the bragging that came after it. It rather frustrated me, because it meant that the sniper class was essentially worthless, unless you wanted to quick-scope. In Black Ops, I felt pretty capable of occupying a window or a balcony, and sniping to my heart's content.

So, yeah. I agree. I don't hate the games, and I don't think liking the games discredit you as a 'gamer'. Yes, the little children are incredibly annoying, and the endless YouTubers showing off their skill seriously pisses me off sometimes. It's no lie that the most vocal players are also the worst. Ragequitters, shouters, racists, sexists, thirteen year olds, we all know the sort.
That isn't Treyarch's fault. That's stupid damn kids whose parents shouldn't even be letting them play. I have no issue with young'uns playing older-rated games, hell, I'm almost nineteen, and I've been playing eighteen-rated games since the first Grand Theft Auto, but when the kids are screaming and shouting and throwing shit like that, they really ought to go back to My Little Freakin' Pony.

I agree with the sentiment of this video somewhat. CoD 4: Modern Warfare was a good game. I have more of a gripe with Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, or their campaigns at any rate. They jumped the shark to such a degree that it pulled me out of the game completely.

I think part of the reason that the series attracts so much hate is because it's so high-profile and well-known. If someone bashed on an obscure indie game there would likely be less people paying attention to them, and we all love attention.

There is always going to be a backlash to popular things once they've outstayed their welcome with some people I reckon.

SirBryghtside:

kroldok:
Bit of an off-topic thing here.

Something struck me while reading through this thread concerning the pacing issue, he doesn't actually say 'well paced', he says 'wonderfully paced'.

Unfortunately I am not proficient enough with the english language to know wether or not there is a difference, it did however strike me that while 'well paced' is often used as a synonym to 'slow and steady', 'wonderfully paced' might not be.

Wonderfully is an adjective that describes something as being good, and what is good is subjective so when hearing 'Wonderfully paced' I translate more into 'pace that suits me' rather than 'slow and steady'.

I am from sweden and I grew up on Monty Python and Hollywood simultaneously, in addition to this a close family friend was english, so I spoke a bit of english in conversation fairly early, as such I have a genuine interest in english, especially when it comes to differences between English and US English, and when something like this pops up it intrigues me to no end.

Anyone know the difference, or lack thereof between the two, educated guesses perhaps?

It's more of an enhancement - while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great. It doesn't change the meaning so much as the emphasis.

Thank you, still a bit confused though, when you say "while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great" that sounds to me like it is a question of preference (Good < Great).
Pacing in and of itself does not note this difference as one can pace slowly or quickly ("He paced nervously back and forth, moving quickly between the computer and the kitchen, the forums refusal to update was annoying".) or (He paced between the phone he expected to ring and the bedroom, slowly stumbling about seriously pondering just going to sleep and forgetting about it all).
So a follow-up question just to make sure i get it right is:
Do the terms 'well-paced' and 'wonderfully-paced' actually note a specific degree of speed (in this case slow)?

kroldok:

SirBryghtside:

kroldok:
Bit of an off-topic thing here.

Something struck me while reading through this thread concerning the pacing issue, he doesn't actually say 'well paced', he says 'wonderfully paced'.

Unfortunately I am not proficient enough with the english language to know wether or not there is a difference, it did however strike me that while 'well paced' is often used as a synonym to 'slow and steady', 'wonderfully paced' might not be.

Wonderfully is an adjective that describes something as being good, and what is good is subjective so when hearing 'Wonderfully paced' I translate more into 'pace that suits me' rather than 'slow and steady'.

I am from sweden and I grew up on Monty Python and Hollywood simultaneously, in addition to this a close family friend was english, so I spoke a bit of english in conversation fairly early, as such I have a genuine interest in english, especially when it comes to differences between English and US English, and when something like this pops up it intrigues me to no end.

Anyone know the difference, or lack thereof between the two, educated guesses perhaps?

It's more of an enhancement - while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great. It doesn't change the meaning so much as the emphasis.

Thank you, still a bit confused though, when you say "while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great" that sounds to me like it is a question of preference (Good < Great).
Pacing in and of itself does not note this difference as one can pace slowly or quickly ("He paced nervously back and forth, moving quickly between the computer and the kitchen, the forums refusal to update was annoying".) or (He paced between the phone he expected to ring and the bedroom, slowly stumbling about seriously pondering just going to sleep and forgetting about it all).
So a follow-up question just to make sure i get it right is:
Do the terms 'well-paced' and 'wonderfully-paced' actually note a specific degree of speed (in this case slow)?

No, it just means that the degree of speed is preferable if it is 'wonderfully paced' to if it was 'well paced'. I never realised English was so confusing :P

CoD4 is famous for it's slightly artistic story and commentary on human condition. Heck even Yahtzee noted it for it's atmospheric Chernobyl and amazing nuclear explosion seen.

So yeah. MW2 and all CoD's after gained more hate, plus people who don't like twitch shooters. And it's sequels are hated for having far worse stories

EDIT: So yeah I'm going to stop watching these now I think. I've given it a chance, the truth is Jim just doesn't have very interesting things to say. They're very obvious and don't make you think. I don't ever really agree with Bob but he always is interesting whereas this is at the level of a competent forum poster.

Mr. Omega:
You're defending CoD on the Escapist, one of the most sequel-phobic, anti-mainstream, "popular is bad (Unless it's Valve)", indie-snobby sites on the internet... that takes balls.

Yes, yes it does.

I love all the hate Jim gets. Not only does he piss off the snobbier subsection of the Escapist audience with actual valid reasons why CoD isn't that bad of a game, he also ticks off the prudish while doing it.

It's been "cool" in the gamer community to hate on popular games for quite some time, so it's nice to see an advocate for the other side of the argument.

here is my question... why do so many people like "beyond good and evil"..? no really, go play it again, right now, come back in a few hours and tell me that game doesn't suck. because i want to know who is stupid and susceptible to corny morals and dodgy political and philosophical statements.... or is that the other way around. either/or the game was a shitty splinter cell, at least that was some sort of challenge.

lovest harding:

Hyper-space:

Sylocat:
*sigh* Is his solution to each complaint about his overacting just to overact even more? Is he deliberately trying to try way too hard to be funny? Is his intention to come off as desperate "ironically?"

You sir, seem quite frustrated, maybe it was the subject of this episode that made you so?

Anyways, I welcome this new show and its counter-opinion to what is essentially the ethos of many gamers (and that includes members of the Escapist), that is, complete generalization of people based on something as unfounded as taste in video-games.

But isn't the what this video is doing to two different groups (complete generalization):
A) The people who dislike CoD, who may very well have valid reasons (I've never played them, so meh, just not something I'm interested in).
B) The 'games are art' crowd. I firmly believe games can be art. But I certainly don't go around complaining about games that I don't consider art.

It's one thing to point out the fallacies of generalization, it's another to play into them while trying to counteract them.

Anyway. The video was fine enough. I guess since I haven't really dealt with the CoD games, I just have never seen this (honestly, I can't think of a single time where I've heard/read someone complain about the games because they aren't art, as a matter of fact, I've heard plenty of people tout the story lines as on par with war movies like Saving Private Ryan, a realistic and sobering view of violence and war).
I didn't like the way he was treating the 'games are art' crowd, though. Maybe I'm just being a bit too sensitive (as I understand he wasn't poking fun at the whole movement, just the people who complained about CoD not being art). But that probably stems from my lack of knowledge too. xD

Jim's style is over-the-top in order caricaturize the opponent, and i think that he was just generally poking fun (he was after all, wearing make-up and gaudy clothing). So i do not think that he views the "games are art" crowd (aren't we all?) in the same way as he portrays them, as from what i've seen/read of him, he seems to be exactly the kind of guy to make this kind of joke.

One has to also consider the fact that he has maybe had different dealings with people (hes a games journalist after all, hes been around) and maybe he is satirizing a different type of people (as opposed to you), for i myself haven't stumbled upon someone who criticizes CoD for not being artsy.

I think this just addresses people who in general think that liking Game A (over say, Game B) somehow lessens your character and/or opinions, which sadly [i]is[/is] something i have encountered on this forum many times and seems to be a staple of many gamers. These are the same people who will furiously put down something as popular like CoD or Halo, but in the same breath defend old FPS titles like Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament.

SirBryghtside:

kroldok:

SirBryghtside:
It's more of an enhancement - while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great. It doesn't change the meaning so much as the emphasis.

Thank you, still a bit confused though, when you say "while 'well-paced' is good, 'wonderfully-paced' is great" that sounds to me like it is a question of preference (Good < Great).
Pacing in and of itself does not note this difference as one can pace slowly or quickly ("He paced nervously back and forth, moving quickly between the computer and the kitchen, the forums refusal to update was annoying".) or (He paced between the phone he expected to ring and the bedroom, slowly stumbling about seriously pondering just going to sleep and forgetting about it all).
So a follow-up question just to make sure i get it right is:
Do the terms 'well-paced' and 'wonderfully-paced' actually note a specific degree of speed (in this case slow)?

No, it just means that the degree of speed is preferable if it is 'wonderfully paced' to if it was 'well paced'. I never realised English was so confusing :P

Alright, thank you for the info.
And no it's not that confusing, I just get like this because I have been pumped full of english from so many different places (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Australia, Southafrica, western US, southern US..... and so on)I am just insanely intrigued by the differences between them all, mostly it's about slang, but things like this also pop up from time to time.

And now for the discussion part not aimed specifically at "SirBryghtSide", but the thread as a whole, i just don't want to double-post (Sorry Bryght):

Thing is though, this does put a different spin on the 'pacing' issue as the statement 'wonderfully-paced' is clearly not meant as "CoD is a slow, thoughtful game" but rather meaning "The pacing of CoD is one I like".
In the same vein, I would call Painkiller a 'well-paced' game, despite the fact that unless you backtrack or go treasure-hunting not 30 seconds pass without an insane army of demons spawning in to fight you (Yahtzee makes this statement in his review of Painkiller, and he is so absolutely correct it's almost scary), the reason for this is that Painkiller is designed to be an insane FPS joyride of psychotic mayhem (as opposed to a game like Deus Ex).

And concidering CoD is after all an FPS set in a war-torn environment (again as opposed to Deus Ex secret-agent-spy-stealth-hacker-thingy), maybe crazy-fast pacing is the way it was intended to be (just a theory).

Why does everyone who likes popular things just assume I don't like that thing simply because it is popular? I have also been told I don't like Twilight because it was so popular when that is just not true. What I don't like is forgettable characters, simply nonsensical story lines, and of course Deus Ex Machina endings.
I don't hate COD because it's populuar, I hate it because of it's own marits.

I like the subject matter and the points made in this show. The problem is I dislike the bits where he's on camera.

As for the subject at hand, I agree. While I don't like CoD myself (I don't particularly care for online multiplayer and the single player campaign for MW1 didn't really hold my interest. It a matter of personal preference.), I have many friends that do and most are respectable people. I tend to get the opposite. Every once in a while, I receive flak for NOT like CoD because "You're a gamer, you MUST like CoD." Sorry dude, different strokes for different folks.

Even regular newspapers still have columnists that disagree with everyone who writes for the newspaper and people read just to hate (Andrew Bolt for the Australian readers)

I just wish they didn't try so hard to do this with the Escapist recently though.

Come back Lisa Follies! All is forgiven! Rebecca Mayes, where art thou?

Hyper-space:

lovest harding:

Hyper-space:

You sir, seem quite frustrated, maybe it was the subject of this episode that made you so?

Anyways, I welcome this new show and its counter-opinion to what is essentially the ethos of many gamers (and that includes members of the Escapist), that is, complete generalization of people based on something as unfounded as taste in video-games.

But isn't the what this video is doing to two different groups (complete generalization):
A) The people who dislike CoD, who may very well have valid reasons (I've never played them, so meh, just not something I'm interested in).
B) The 'games are art' crowd. I firmly believe games can be art. But I certainly don't go around complaining about games that I don't consider art.

It's one thing to point out the fallacies of generalization, it's another to play into them while trying to counteract them.

Anyway. The video was fine enough. I guess since I haven't really dealt with the CoD games, I just have never seen this (honestly, I can't think of a single time where I've heard/read someone complain about the games because they aren't art, as a matter of fact, I've heard plenty of people tout the story lines as on par with war movies like Saving Private Ryan, a realistic and sobering view of violence and war).
I didn't like the way he was treating the 'games are art' crowd, though. Maybe I'm just being a bit too sensitive (as I understand he wasn't poking fun at the whole movement, just the people who complained about CoD not being art). But that probably stems from my lack of knowledge too. xD

Jim's style is over-the-top in order caricaturize the opponent, and i think that he was just generally poking fun (he was after all, wearing make-up and gaudy clothing). So i do not think that he views the "games are art" crowd (aren't we all?) in the same way as he portrays them, as from what i've seen/read of him, he seems to be exactly the kind of guy to make this kind of joke.

One has to also consider the fact that he has maybe had different dealings with people (hes a games journalist after all, hes been around) and maybe he is satirizing a different type of people (as opposed to you), for i myself haven't stumbled upon someone who criticizes CoD for not being artsy.

I think this just addresses people who in general think that liking Game A (over say, Game B) somehow lessens your character and/or opinions, which sadly [i]is[/is] something i have encountered on this forum many times and seems to be a staple of many gamers. These are the same people who will furiously put down something as popular like CoD or Halo, but in the same breath defend old FPS titles like Doom, Quake and Unreal Tournament.

As I said, I could be wrong in that just because I can't really relate to much of anything in the video.

I've seen that (liking Game A makes you better than someone who likes Game B) too, but obviously (since I didn't exactly catch on) if that is the ultimate goal his 'comedy' (I just don't find him funny) got in the way of the point. It seemed more a pointless attempt to defend CoD from backlash more than anything else.

Tdc2182:

Assassin Xaero:
Call of Duty was a good series, but when MW2 was released it did become shit. Plus, World at War's Russian side of the campaign kicked the ass of CoD4's and MW2's combined.

This really bugs me. What did it do good? Anything at all? I'll give Gary Oldman did a good job at shouting at me to do shit, but it was literally the most boring campaign I've played in CoD.

I just thought it was fun, the ending was pretty moving, and after it was over I wanted to play it again, so they did something right. Might be a little biased too, because I always loved the city setting rather than trenches, deserts, jungles, etc. The American side, well, the banzi thing got annoying after the 5,000th time, and I didn't like getting shot at from people in bushes I could never see.

Call of Duty 4 was decent, but the timed missions were annoying, and it still wasn't nearly as good as CoD/CoD2 were. MW2. Umm... hmm... I was going to save time by putting what I liked about it, rather that was I hated, but I can't think of anything...

Glademaster:
The problem with CoD is not the weapon unlocks it is the amount of weapon unlocks. There are so many it makes the game hard to balance which is the biggest problem with recent CoD games. Melee has also been blown way out of proportion in the game. No I am not asking for realistic melee I just want my bash back. It is not an inherently bad series but has become shit and stale due to a huge amount of games in a short time span. Then there are the killstreaks I shouldn't have to explain the killstreaks after CoD4.

I think they need to expand on the system of COD points as used in Blops, making all the weapons available at level 5, but tier the weapons so that there is one group that is like 1500 points, and another thats double or triple that, but make the price go down as you level up. That way, if people want that one Lv44 gun, they can buy it by saving up points, or they could wait until Lv44 and buy it cheaper. The system would of course need some work.

Also I hate the fucking melee, but to rant about it would make this post unbearably long, so suffice to say, shit needs to be changed.

And on kill streaks... yeah, I would almost say they should go the way of Homefront and use a battle point system to buy the kill streaks, so people can actually have a chance. I know some of use have seen youtube videos of Cod players like Thunder and can see how easily he gets those kill streaks, but those are only they few good ones. Atleast using a BP system will give the players unable to string 8 or 9 kills together before dying a chance at the blackbird or chopper gunner.

Bolo The Great:
This is the first time i have seen this show and i am baffled as to WHY it is here.

I think he is aiming for more controversial (to us, not to society) goal. I think he is a fat, arrogant prick... and yet I keep watching him... what does that tell you?

Indeed Jim, thank god, for you.

COD isn't shit because it's popular.

Screw art for the moment. COD is shit because it's helping to stagnate the medium.
To acctually play, yes it's fine.

But in acctual terms of inovation and technilogical achievment what has it accomplished?

Yes it's good business sense to stick with what works and what sells, but unless the mould gets broken every now and again we'll never see any change, the games industry will completely stagnate, profits will drop, investors will pull out and the AAA branch of the industry will have to retreat for a while to lick its wounds and recover. None of us want that.

As for unlockables, battlefield did it first.
There was another before battlefield but I can't think off the top of my head, i'm going to have to look it up...

end of.

I'm swayed.

Jim, welcome to my weekly list of videos I will watch.
At first I had my doubts, but your videos improved and you got to tell me where you got that clowns hat!

Riddle78:
Jim carries some valid and strong points,although his delivery could use some refinement in my eyes. However,I'm here to follow up on his request for an intelligent rebuttal. Here's mine;

Killstreak rewards. In an online multiplayer experience,there always needs to be a chance of turning a game around. This exists...For people who can string together 4+ kills in a row without biting someone's bullet. And,the most likely scenario,the side that's performing the best will be getting the killstreaks. Thus striking down any chance people had on turning that match around.

Killstreak rewards keep up momentum,but they also ruin the competitive balance that any multiplayer game should have. Yes,it may be fun and cool to call in an AC-130 "Spooky" gunship,then be the gunner,but those on the recieving end will simply curse your name because there's nowhere to hide anymore.

I shall attempt to refute this.
There is a single hitch in your complaint. I have highlighted it.
The solution is, quite simply enough, kill the enemy team.
Perks and killstreaks do not, contrary to popular belief, make you a god. A bullet will still kill you. Quite simply all that is required is the skill to put that bullet into someone's head. Complaints about the AC-130 be damned, don't let them get it.

Pretty good episode, felt a bit more serious that than previous ones, but that only showed that Jim can make well reasoned arguments. So well done.

Call of Duty are great games until they went all Modern. Prefer the WW2 games. The MW games just bore me and are not as fun.

Jim Sterling:
Defending Call of Duty

Very much how men and women of the military defend this nation's freedom overseas, Jim Sterling defends Call of Duty. In many ways, Sterling's cause is more righteous and noble than anything a soldier has ever, ever done.

Watch Video

Why don't you try deploying to the shittiest part of the world to defend the freedom of your country. Does defending a video game sound more righteous than defending your right to defend a video game? I thought not.

Not bad, Jim. Nice little dig at Yahtzee too, clever and subtle. (How'd you do that? heh. but seriously...) I think the problem is there isn't any (and should never be) clear definition of what is and is not a "good game". Like you, Bob, and James touched on today in the Extra Consideration, what makes a "good game" is entirely subjective, as long as the game isn't so horribly broken the disk needs a roll of duct tape to run properly (no I don't know how that would work. shut up, it's a metaphor. heh.). Maybe the bigger issue is that a large percentage of an audience will hate on something because it's different than what they play, often in direct competition to the hated product.

PS. Farmville isn't bad because it sucks (which it does, there is very little "game" in the game). Farmville is bad because Zynga is evil.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here