Jimquisition: Defending Call of Duty

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT
 

hawkeye52:
(despite their CoD clone called BFBC:2 which was stunningly shit)

I read that entire thing and this stuck out at me. My brain just...they play so differently! Clone!? DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

While the only Call of Duty game I've played was the first Modern Warfare in 2009, two years after it came out, and I have to say it was pretty good. Now I hardly ever play multiplayer, but I played a few games and it was pleasant. I thought the single player campaign was really good.

Really I personally have no problems with call of duty, but I have seen what it does to people. They play nothing except for the multiplayer, which is fine, but to them it's like other games and even CoD single player is nonexistant.

Woodsey:

No_Remainders:
... I actually agree with him, so much.

I especially like his making fun of the abnoxious pricks who say it's bad because it's not art.

Obnoxious*, and those people come about because the majority settle for what they're given.

Its like the whole anti-intellectualism thing you get here (and moreso in the States it seems, given FOX news and their audience size). Try and move away from the lowest common denominator - and that is what Call of Duty aims for, and no that is not me saying everyone who plays it is stupid - and you're pretentious.

... I'm terribly sorry for the typo. It'll never happen again.

And I'm not anti-intellectualism, and neither is being happy with a decent game, which is what CoD is, regardless of its status of "Gaming for idiots".

But I don't think you can argue that the majority of people who "demand" that games should be art and that slate CoD for not being such are pretentious. After all, they seem to think of themselves as better than everyone else who enjoys CoD, and for some reason they can't comprehend the word "opinions".

I had to laugh at the Black Ops "has a wonderfully paced narrative".

No_Remainders:

Woodsey:

No_Remainders:
... I actually agree with him, so much.

I especially like his making fun of the abnoxious pricks who say it's bad because it's not art.

Obnoxious*, and those people come about because the majority settle for what they're given.

Its like the whole anti-intellectualism thing you get here (and moreso in the States it seems, given FOX news and their audience size). Try and move away from the lowest common denominator - and that is what Call of Duty aims for, and no that is not me saying everyone who plays it is stupid - and you're pretentious.

... I'm terribly sorry for the typo. It'll never happen again.

And I'm not anti-intellectualism, and neither is being happy with a decent game, which is what CoD is, regardless of its status of "Gaming for idiots".

But I don't think you can argue that the majority of people who "demand" that games should be art and that slate CoD for not being such are pretentious. After all, they seem to think of themselves as better than everyone else who enjoys CoD, and for some reason they can't comprehend the word "opinions".

You spelt a word wrong, and considering the distance between A and O, I thought it might be likely that it wasn't a typo, and would be nice to point out the right spelling so you don't look like an idiot when you keep doing it. I won't point out the irony of "I'm not anti-intellectualism" being the beginning of your next sentence.

Anyway, the implication in the video is that people who don't like it and do pick perfectly good reasons not too are all inherently pretentious and "arty types"; that they hate it, "just because". That's not true - no, there's nothing wrong with enjoying it particularly, but its deemed the biggest release every year in spite of not being the best at anything. You described it yourself as just "decent".

The issue isn't that people enjoy it, its that they put it on a pedestal as something special. Its why games like Heavy Rain are then praised for their writing despite dodgy dialogue, plot holes the size of your face and often poor voice-acting.

Alright, a legitimate argument against it he wants, then one he'll get. For most matches (in my own experience), slight server (or host) lag makes the game about 75% luck, and about 25% skill. I have seen and experienced many instances where I have emptied half a clip into a person, only to die without him firing a shot, then see on the killcam that he shot me before I even began firing. Basically, the netcode is balls, and if that was improved, it would be much better. Also, I find that some of the ingame achievements to unlock different perks and weapons cause players to not play the game properly, and instead focus on them.

Oh, and playing anything but TDM or DM is pretty much pointless, as any team game like sabotage is usually taken to be TDM by about half of the people playing anyway.

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.

Anyway, the defenses have been pretty good. It's not the best defense, but it's good. And I do not like the whole "CoD players are dicks" mentalities.

I find that describing the Escapist community in that light takes serious balls.

Either way, it isn't any better than the "CoD players are all teenagers who ignore their girlfriends" stereotype, but hey, there are a lot of stereotypes of gamers that play certain games. The "WoWFag" that spends fourteen hours a day looting for gold in WoW, the "hard-core PC gaming fucktard", etc.

Still, great episode Jim!

hawkeye52:
(despite their CoD clone called BFBC:2 which was stunningly shit)

I call bullshit. Bad Company 2 played very differently to Call of Duty. Similar(ish) controls, yes, but it took a completely different mind-set to approach them. The classes were clearly outlined by the actions you had to take and the abilities each class had, as opposed to the weapons they could carry. Call of Duty's classes were outlined more by the weapons than anything. I could go on and on, but I've said it once and I'll say it again, trying to compare Battlefield to Call of Duty is fucking stupid.

Srdjan Tanaskovic:
Then why is COD to blame at all? "Everyone thinks COD did it, that means it's COD's fault".

The problem with CoD isn't so much linearity, as almost all shooters are linear to some degree, but the way it handles scripting. Almost everything you see on the screen in a CoD single player is scripted, the explosions in the background, the bullets hitting the ground, the vehicle movement, your team mates, etc. this makes the whole world feel incredible artificial and fake. When actually play none of what you do matters, all that matters is that you get far enough to trigger the next scripted event. In CoD4 you also have idiotic things such as endless respawning enemies, which destroy every last bit of immersion one might have had. Other games have game mechanics driving the world and just use scripting as the icing on the cake, in CoD its the other way around, you are just watching a script and every now and then getting a small glimpse of a game.

Simple thing if you wanna have some fun with CoD: Walk into the opposite direction of what the game tells you. The game essentially completly falls apart, your team mates will continue in their shooting loop waiting for you eternally, enemies will do the same. The game world simply will do nothing unless you come and advance it. Now CoD isn't the only game where you can do that, it works just as well in something like Killzone, but CoD certainly is one of the main series that makes that style of pre-canned game experiences popular.

I certainly can give CoD some credit, the 60fps are great, the graphics look nice and the moments like the nuke explosion and having your character die are certainly interesting, I just wish that those were implemented in a game that I would actually have fun playing and that would feature characters I actually care about. I can find neither of those in CoD.

The arguments seem logical enough, but I've never played any CoD games, so I don't know how to form on opinion on them.
Also, I've never heard the arguments against CoD, so I don't quite know whether to laugh at your satirization of the games silly critics, or take it as a stab at your credibility.
Also, taking credit for the capture of Osama Bin Laden. Extremely tasteless. Also possibly genius. I can't nail down your sense of humor, so I can't tell.

I think that is a reasonable way to look at it. I don't like COD, but if other people do why should I really give a crap if I still get the games I like.

Also, Jim, that makeup makes you look like a whore.

The first MW game and even Blops is pretty damn fun to play, I don't think anyone can deny that fact. But, when the only people you hear on chat are annoying teenagers... well... yeah.

Who exactly got you upset btw? You were just ranting about someone who called you out...

Also, the COD games are most definitely not artsy, but neither is duke nukem.I think the vocal portion of the fanbase (i.e. The fanboys/fratboys/12 year olds) who claim COD is the "Best game EVAR" are the ones ruining it. You don't hear those things from the Dukes fanbase do you?

Dude, you have stones.

You just defended Call of Duty on a site full of individualist hipster Valve fanboys who hate almost everything that's popular. On a website that condemns damn near every game unless it's artsy or nostalgic. And you did it in a reasonable manner.
I like this show.

I didn't realise just how inaccurate Blops is, gun wise (I'm a bit of a stickler for historical accuracy myslef!). I also agree on the Historical events accuracy, I was mainly refering to the style of story (although any game that can crowbar in the Bay of Pigs gets my vote)

As usual I agree with the message, but I'd enjoy it so much more if someone just handed me a 2 paragraph written summary of his points. He's far too loud (in a the same way a shirt can be loud), utterly unfunny, and he repeats himself over and over and over again to get his 30 seconds of thought to fill out 5 minutes of video.

Modern Warfare seems to me much like Counter Strike before it - a game streamlined for online play. I am an FPS fan, but a strictly single player FPS fan unless it's Goldeneye in my high school buddies' basement, because my cynical attitude will constantly drum up the excuse 'it was latency' if I ever lose a match.
COD has what appear to be slightly sub par graphics, which goes along with the being widely available nature of this type of game. It has the realistic albeit unforgiving 'full life to dead' timespan of half a second.

Generally I play FPS more for an immersive experience, with graphics being a priority, or perhaps I should say 'atmosphere' being a priority, seeing as I enjoyed the settings of both Crysis 1 and Bioshock far more than the polished modern veneer of Crysis 2.

My one fault with CoD, which isn't even a fault it necessarily deserves, is that the numbers it sells make it a 'go-to' game for mass media and people who know very little about gaming. So like Counter Strike and Halo before it people can just start pointing the finger the next time anything out of the ordinary happens and blame it on games.

Let me counter your arguments.

1:COD is artsy!!!!!11111
Counter: No. No at all. It does not need to be art either. Let's remember what happens when people don't understand how to mindfuck properly. I.E. THE MATRIX's later sequels. COD is a game that is not art.

2:COD's level based gameplay is as balanced as quake.
Counter: No. Call of Duty's level based gameplay takes MANY MORE hours to get decent weapons then say ANY OTHER SHOOTER NOT DOING THE COD. There is a reason why weapons are randomly dropped. It is easier for a new player to get the hang of.

Special note for BLOps: How do you counter the argument that the small clausterphobic levels and completely imbalanced weaponry focus makes this a bad multiplayer game. Especially since the first AR is completely shit, and the SMG might as well not exist.

3: Call of duty helped online games.
Counter: no. It didn't hurt them though.

----------------------------------
Call of duty usually isn't liked because it hasn't changed EVER since it picked up perks and unlocks. Not because they are necessarily bad games, but it's the same reason I don't like madden. I've already played the game three times and had to purchase it all three times.

I agree with what jim said about feeling different in cod ive played a few COD games in my time and made a shotgun/knife spiecalist appache that loved to sneak in the darkness

Does he not get the irony?

Nah, sorry, I agree with certain aspects of your argument, but your presentation, and your over the top, straight up abusive attacks on areas of the gaming community (while defending people from the same behaviour nonetheless) have just been too much for me.

Moviebob made this mistake on his gameoverthinker episode, but at least he was dishing out constructive criticism. Even so, it pissed off a few people for overstepping that boundary. Do your research son. I may check back here in a couple of months to see if this show learns from its mistakes

EDIT: Also, anyone who actually uses the term pseudo-intellectual, should be shot

BlacklightVirus:
"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is a game which defined what a modern multiplayer shooter could be".

Wrong, that would be Team Fortress 2.

Jim is doing a great job of embarrassing himself. He didn't acknowledge any od the main reasons people tend to dislike COD.

Boring environments.
No innovative mechanics.
No teamwork

etc...

There's no reason that the game that you apparently prefer couldn't also define what a modern multiplayer shooter could be (since it isn't just one thing that defines what a modern multiplayer shooter is), although that doesn't make jim wrong.

However stating your own opinion as fact is actually quite wrong.
According to my own taste the only thing team fortress did right was it's colour palette.

starfox444:

hawkeye52:
(despite their CoD clone called BFBC:2 which was stunningly shit)

I read that entire thing and this stuck out at me. My brain just...they play so differently! Clone!? DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

There was a dramatic shift from usual gameplay and emphasis in the BF series from 2142 to and any of the others to BFBC2. Its still not as rambo as the CoD series but its still as spammy and more rambo indulgent and less teamplay then any of its previous kin. One thing that got me was that they failed to fix a simple syntax error that would have fixed all problems with the VOIP

I disagree with alomst every point but...

Orangofang... LOL.

Gralian:

remnant_phoenix:

This is my exact feeling toward modern military shooters in general.

When I play a game, I have the opportunity to go into a virtual world and experience something that isn't possible in the real world.

Of all the creative and fantastical video game worlds out there, why would I want to go into a world that is almost identical to my own, except terrorism is even more dangerous and I'm a special ops soldier action hero wielding normal modern weapons (Modern Warfare 2) when I could explored a stylized steampunk dystopia where I wield an electro-shotgun in one hand and shoot fire out of the other hand (Bioshock)?

Don't get me wrong. If you like the more "modern realism" approach, I'm not judging you. If that's you're thing, cool. It's just not my thing. I understand that everyone has different tastes.

What I DON'T understand is why the "modern military shooter" genre seems to be so incredibly appealing that CoD breaks sales records yearly... and Black Ops is the ONLY video game I EVER hear my secondary students talk about... and said students think I'm some kind of freak because I love video games but I have no interest in Black Ops.

Three words: Male Power Fantasy.

When you shoot someone dead, you are exerting power over them. Having a high k/d ratio makes you feel powerful. Dominant. Being the biggest badass on a scoreboard is all about power. Killing someone before they kill you is about effectively making them "your bitch". Even in the military culture portrayed, glorified and somewhat satirised in the game itself demonstrates male power fantasy. The machismo surrounding the characters is unquestionable and that mentality is carried over into multiplayer. Before you say not everyone who plays COD are men, i will counter that by saying male power fantasy does not apply exclusively to men. It also affects women. Evidence for this comes from filmography. When a woman picks up a gun or other weapon, it is a symbol of male power. Women are able to experience and desire the male power fantasy just as much as men. The term simply comes from male culture being often surrounded in competition and struggle for domination among peers. Power is a means to attain esteem. Hence male power fantasy.

While your point about modern military shooters being mundane is very valid, i will say this. I love all kinds of video games, from COD to Bioshock to MMOs and to point and click adventure. But there is one thing that can bug me about 'fantastical' shooters. It can break immersion when the world is so dreadfully inconsistent. Example being Bioshock. When i shoot someone in the face with a 12-gauge, i expect them to drop down like a sack of potatoes. Instead in bioshock i see a health bar pop up and they keep running at me. When i make an explosion or empty 50 machine gun rounds into a person, i expect them to be dead. Not the case in Bioshock. This also carries over to the super powers you get like incineration and electrocution. That kind of thing can feel incredibly disconcerting, frustrating and outright inconsistent. The world is weird and wonderful, but the mechanics are not for everyone. In COD, one good shot, or one very broad shot from a shotgun will kill someone. When an explosion goes off, someone near it is going to die. The world behaves and reacts in realistic ways which in turn do not ruin the immersion and experience. This helps to maintain the world as believable. I know you are meant to suspend disbelief for the fantastic in a world like Bioshock's, but suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

Finally i'd like to say that your secondary students are young adults and teenagers and glorification of male power fantasy will likely be a very big part of their culture until they enter their tweens.

Excellent points. I understand the power fantasy angle, as I'm not exempt from that. I just get more power fantasy jolly from shooting lighting out of my hands than wielding an AK-47 with an attached grenade launcher.

I will counter your point about believability and suspension of disbelief. Not for the sake of being argumentative, but to simply continue the discussion.

What bugs me the most about MW2 is that the gameplay was realistic, but the story and cutscenes were not. My suspension of disbelief was hurt when I thought, "No snowmobile, or snowmobile rider for that matter, could make a jump like that unscathed."

I didn't have this problem with World at War's campaign, which I enjoyed thoroughly. And as a history nerd, going through the campaign thinking to myself, "These are things that people ACTUALLY experienced..." was a mind-trip.

I suppose that I place a lot of value in consistency of setting, whether realistic or unrealistic. You called Bioshock "inconsistent," and while I would agree that it is inconsistent with reality, I'd argue that it is very consistent in terms of its own fiction. It takes multiple shotgun blasts to the face to kill a mutant splicer, yes, but it also takes multiple shotgun blasts to the face to kill you, because, well, you are also a mutant splicer. Mutant splicers can survive attacks that would kill a normal human. Consistency.

In World at War, the gameplay is gritty and realistic and the story it tells is also gritty and realistic. Consistency.

In Modern Warfare 2, the gameplay is gritty realism and the story is popcorn-munching, physics-defying, action flick. The gameplay and story are going in two different directions. I guess this is also why I can't really get into most action movies. The hero break physical laws and can survive just about anything (especially falling damage) as long as he isn't shot in a clear vital area, or hit with a highly damaging weapon. Just like shotgun-blast-to-splicer's-face-in-Bioshock hurts suspension of disbelief for you, this stuff hurts suspension of disbelief for me.

Although, all this stuff wouldn't bother me as much if the MW/MW2/BO/MW3 train wasn't so hyped.

Alexnader:

Art Axiv:

Alexnader:

Irrespective of who invented it first his point was that Call of Duty "popularised" the mechanic. My problem with that is that CoD didn't popularise unlocks because it handled them in a new or particularly good way. It "popularised" them because CoD itself was already crazy popular and it happened to have unlocks in multiplayer. Battlefield handles unlocks in almost the exact same way but we don't see Jim crediting it.

It's exactly like saying Avatar popularized CG. I said the exact same thing as you did in a post before that, and yes, I agree with you Alexnader.

And I agree with you. Wanna fight about it?

Seriously though not all of that post was addressed to you, sorry if it sounded like it was. I should've made a new paragraph. Also I liked your article "Strapped for Cash".

I didn't feel offended at all, if anything, it's my fault I wrote "invented" instead of "popularized" - though he did speak in a manner like COD actually invented the damn thing.. and thanks, hopefully I'll have another article soon for everyone to read (hopefully not valve time soon).

hawkeye52:

starfox444:

hawkeye52:
(despite their CoD clone called BFBC:2 which was stunningly shit)

I read that entire thing and this stuck out at me. My brain just...they play so differently! Clone!? DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

There was a dramatic shift from usual gameplay and emphasis in the BF series from 2142 to and any of the others to BFBC2. Its still not as rambo as the CoD series but its still as spammy and more rambo indulgent and less teamplay then any of its previous kin. One thing that got me was that they failed to fix a simple syntax error that would have fixed all problems with the VOIP

Yeah, any multiplayer game with guns and a pseudo-modern setting is totally a CoD clone.

Isan:
As usual I agree with the message, but I'd enjoy it so much more if someone just handed me a 2 paragraph written summary of his points. He's far too loud (in a the same way a shirt can be loud), utterly unfunny, and he repeats himself over and over and over again to get his 30 seconds of thought to fill out 5 minutes of video.

This. Maybe he's a better writer than a vlogger? (Although I think the jokes might also be awkward on paper.)

Mantonio:
It's not the fact that it's a huge thing ALONE that makes it shit. It's the fact that (like you said) because it is so big, so many other companies try to emulate it... Example: Bioware and Dragon Age 2.

Lolwut?

The archtype of the modern first person, online heavy shooter, is the basis for a 3rd person... Heavily class based... Party utilising... Dialogue driven... Action-Fantasy RPG.

I repeat.

Lolwut?

OT: I don't know why I gave Jim a second(alright, third) chance, but for moments in there I was glad I did. When he actually spoke his intelligent opinion on a facet of the gaming world. But then he did the lame ass yellow hat thing, which was shit, and I didn't watch the last 40 seconds or so because I found his Bin Laden tangent painful. Literally.

I lean on the don't like COD side of the spectrum... I find dying to random grenades far too easy, and boring and cheap tactics far too potent. 4 was the highpoint of the series for me, World at War was pretty good fun(and bought Nazi Zombies to the world. Good times.), and MW2 was good, but outweighed by its flaws: massively glitched and an insane emphasis on OP killstreaks. Didn't bother with blops, but I know they did some pretty fucking stupid things with weapons for 'fun'. It works in a game like Duke or Timesplitters, but if you're gonna take yourself seriously, don't pack an exploding crossbow into the mix. Sooo yeah. A fully formed opinion on the series for anyone who gives a shit.

Turns out, we don't all have crazy, all or nothing vitriolic opinions on things. Shock.

So thats where Jim was in that month after the first video

buy teh haloz:
snip

Battlefield and CoD play differently by definition. BFBC2 and 2142 or BF2 or BF1942 also play tonnes differntly just because of the lack of squadplay that is endorsed and rediculous balance issue of weapons

Kahunaburger:

hawkeye52:

starfox444:

I read that entire thing and this stuck out at me. My brain just...they play so differently! Clone!? DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

There was a dramatic shift from usual gameplay and emphasis in the BF series from 2142 to and any of the others to BFBC2. Its still not as rambo as the CoD series but its still as spammy and more rambo indulgent and less teamplay then any of its previous kin. One thing that got me was that they failed to fix a simple syntax error that would have fixed all problems with the VOIP

Yeah, any multiplayer game with guns and a pseudo-modern setting is totally a CoD clone.

did you just completely disregard this

"emphasis in the BF series from 2142 to and any of the others to BFBC2."

by that i also mean BF2 which plays differently by a huge amount to BFBC:2.

dt61:
While the only Call of Duty game I've played was the first Modern Warfare in 2009, two years after it came out, and I have to say it was pretty good. Now I hardly ever play multiplayer, but I played a few games and it was pleasant. I thought the single player campaign was really good.

Modern warfare is often heralded as the great modern shooter (i'd even agree with that statement) but the issue is that mw2 ruined a lot, between no dedicated servers and because of that forced map packs (ie you dont have the map on rotation, kicked from the server) couple that with a b movie storyline and nothing especially memorable you get a subpar sequel.

Which is a shame. And i dont see activision changing their mind on these things. And that kind of money gouging shouldn't be supported. (map packs aren't inherently bad, re-release maps from old games and charging a tenner for 4 maps or something is offensive)

The shooter to watch this year is BF3 which is pushing larger more open levels, better graphics and a unique storyline.

Firehound:
Let me counter your arguments.

1:COD is artsy!!!!!11111
Counter: No. No at all. It does not need to be art either. Let's remember what happens when people don't understand how to mindfuck properly. I.E. THE MATRIX's later sequels. COD is a game that is not art.

Without providing a definition of the word 'Art' this statement makes very little sense.

Wikipedia:
Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.

In this sense, videogames as a whole are definetly art, including CoD.

From Dictionary.com:
art [ahrt]
-noun
1. The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. The class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. A field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
This one is a bit tricky since there is no included definition of 'aesthetic principles', however i would argue that the word appealing can easily be applied to videogames, and not just from a 'games are fun' perspective, but also as constructs of beauty with regards to visual and audio components.

Lastly, where exactly does he say "CoD is artsy"? The only time i hear him use the word is when he states that "..There's even quite a bit of commentary on the nature of war hidden underneath, for those artsy types who need a story with a message"
What he says is that if you go looking for drama while playing the game, you might actually find it, but this in no way means that you cannot enjoy the game as a straightforward, i-don't-care-about-drama-let-me-kill-something FPS.
The word 'Artsy' isn't even used about the game, and certainly not the CoD series as a whole.

remnant_phoenix:

Excellent points. I understand the power fantasy angle, as I'm not exempt from that. I just get more power fantasy jolly from shooting lighting out of my hands than wielding an AK-47 with an attached grenade launcher.

Ah, but the fundamental difference is that you are exerting your power - dominance - over others. While you could say the same for the splicers in Bioshock, it often feels like the splicers are the one with the upper hand. They're everywhere, they're powerful in their own right, and every single one of them is out to get you. They are omnipresent, omniscient (if you count Ryan among Team Splicer) and arguably omnipotent as they have access to a lot of the powers and weapons you do, even some that you do not. (teleport) But that's not the focus of my point. Simply put: online. They say the biggest aspect of COD is the multiplayer, and all that comes down to the simple fact people want to try and be the alpha male and exert their dominance over everyone else. The game even facilitates this with the killcam. It's quite literally teabagging you for your death at someone else's hand.

Now, Bioshock 2 had a multiplayer, but it bombed. No-one enjoyed it. Setting aside the "it wasn't made well" points, compare it to COD. Everyone is 'powerful', has their own super powers and guns. But because of the nature of the combat - that is to say, you would shoot each other for a good minute or two before somebody drops - it was not quite the power play that COD is. COD is about immediate reflexes and quick responses to situations as well as catching people with their pants down rather than who has the biggest life bar. COD is played aggressively while Bioshock 2 is played defensively. It also brings into play my earlier points about inconsistency which i will continue below.

What bugs me the most about MW2 is that the gameplay was realistic, but the story and cutscenes were not. My suspension of disbelief was hurt when I thought, "No snowmobile, or snowmobile rider for that matter, could make a jump like that unscathed."

I didn't have this problem with World at War's campaign, which I enjoyed thoroughly. And as a history nerd, going through the campaign thinking to myself, "These are things that people ACTUALLY experienced..." was a mind-trip.

I concur with you here. The wacky plot did remove my immersion at times as well. Personally my favourite COD is the second one, simply because there were no outrageous "Oh snap!" moments. It was about WW2, the battle for Stalingrad, the battle in Africa, and the battles in France. It really hit home with me because as a lad i learnt all about the campaigns in WW2 in history class. It was relatable and the player never did anything outlandish. Anything you did was mostly in line with what the AI friendly soldiers were doing and it kept the world immersive and consistent.

I suppose that I place a lot of value in consistency of setting, whether realistic or unrealistic. You called Bioshock "inconsistent," and while I would agree that it is inconsistent with reality, I'd argue that it is very consistent in terms of its own fiction. It takes multiple shotgun blasts to the face to kill a mutant splicer, yes, but it also takes multiple shotgun blasts to the face to kill you, because, well, you are also a mutant splicer. Mutant splicers can survive attacks that would kill a normal human. Consistency.

Here is the crunch, the reason why i take issue with the consistency of Bioshock over the oddball moments of something like COD. Consistency of setting is not paramount to the immersion of the player. It's consistency of gameplay and to a lesser extent, consistency with how you expect a situation to change or react if it were in a real life scenario. None of us can shoot fire from our fingertips, but we would expect a certain outcome because of our knowledge of fire. Using the above example of multiplayer, it felt inconsistent because two players shooting grenades, rockets, shotgun shells, swarms of bees and fireballs don't know when either of them are going to die first. It's an "everything but the kitchen sink" method of combat that can make the player feel isolated from his or her own input. There is no real feedback. You could kill one guy in one shot, then have to dump everything into the next guy simply because of a difference in health. As a direct result, the combat is not as fluid as COD, where you know exactly what the score is. Everyone has a sliver of life and everyone will go down in one or two shots. This branches onto my main gripe about the inconsistencies with Bioshock's campaign. Yes you expect mutant splicers to take a payload to the face, but where the world is inconsistent is how in one 'level' or area it only takes a few pistol shots to drop a splicer, but in the next it takes several shotgun blasts to drop one or maybe more. I understand it's an arbitrary method of increasing the difficulty, but it makes the gameplay feel inconsistent, like the rules have suddenly been changed. This can frustrate the player. Going back to your earlier point about consistency of setting, what about games with diverse environments? You could be playing something like Bulletstorm where one minute you're in a space ship and the next you're outside in a lavish jungle, and then after that you're in a disco nightclub. The setting is far from inconsistent, but if anything, it's likely more pleasing to the player than having the same old thing thrown at them. Yet it's the gameplay that remains consistent. You know what the leash is going to do, you know how much damage your weapons will do, you know what enemy is cannon fodder and what requires more firepower. This keeps the game more consistent than Bioshock where the enemies for some inexplicable reason suddenly gain in power, meaning they require double the amount of shotgun blasts by the face while the player does not.

I definitely take your point about what is and isn't important being subjective. Narrative and gameplay hold different values of importance to different people, just like how some people play Mass Effect for the lore and the story and some people play it because it's a functional third person shooter. The environmental and gameplay mechanic inconsistencies may not bug people as much so long as it has a functional and consistent story.

Finally i would argue that, despite its more outlandish moments, COD's story was consistent. Perhaps not with reality, but it knew what it was and it stuck to its guns. The whole way through (MW, MW2, Black Ops) it was viciously self-aware of its heavily action based B-movie conspiracy plot complete with Jack Bauer moments and it played on that. It didn't try to be serious. (Being able to draw 'serious' messages about the nature of warefare is incidental) The fact it kept this wacky tone throughout means that it was consistent with itself, plotwise. Even if it did go for realism in gameplay and fantasy in story.

I gave up on COD single player after COD 4. I hate the endless enemy respawn until you reach a certain point and trigger the next cut scene. After 5 mins hanging back with a sniper rifle I realised I wasn't achieving anything, so I started running towards the enemy at all times - cue them predictably falling back. It's just a dumb gameplay mechanic that ruins the experience.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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