But by saying that all those people who dislike CoD are (as he puts rather derogatorily) 'artsy fartsy types' or ' just going with the trend', isn't he making broad generalized stereotypes himself? For example, as I already mentioned, I believe CoD doesn't deserve to be the best-selling game on the PC as the last 2 sequels were very poor unoptimized ports. How do I fall into any of his preset camps?kroldok said:While CoD may not need defending, it's players (some of them at least) certainly do.
Every time the "kiddies" and "fratties" scream "WIN" and spew bile over all non-CoD players, everyone else screams "FAIL" and spew bile over all CoD players ("an army of millions of frat boys and 13 year old tards" as i belive they are here represented).
This is the core point of this video, that you simply cannot judge other people based on something as arbitrary as their prefered choice of entertainment, and what it mostly comes down to is a generalisation of a large group of people.
I basically agree with Jim about CoD from a pure entertainment standpoint, and yes, ,people do get way to anal about who likes what. I'm just saying, that like all overrated phenomenons and fads, CoD's existence in it's current form is a hindrance to the industry, not an asset.Trig0n said:Hmmm you did make a good point on CoD's market impact, but then again so did Jim.sumanoskae said:As a game, I don't think CoD is bad at all, it's just overrated. The problem I see with CoD is that it's approaching monopoly status. At this point, the release date of a game can literally be dominated by weather or not CoD is releasing a sequel that year.
CoD is like a sports franchise, and because of it, FPS's dominate the market. They've become the easiest and most profitable games to make, thus publishers and producers are more reluctant to back games outside of that genre.
A similar issue arises with Gears of War, there are loads of games that seem to default to 3rd person cover shooting in place of an original gameplay model.
Take Kane and Lynch or Army of Two for instance, two games that appear to have barely one original though under their belt, but were both released presumably on the grounds that they were kinda like GoW, meanwhile, talented people with great ides for games are stumped because they've never had dinner with Cliff B.
Off topic though: Also time to admit my little guilty pleasure. I rather liked Army of Two, both of them in fact. I liked how there was a shooter where having a partner mattered and I couldn't just solo everything. Plus I've always had an awesome relationship with my little brother, and Army of Two was the only shooter at the time where it felt like the two main characters actually cared and relied upon eachother. Just my two cents.
But of course, you're here too. Are you one of them or a shining exception to the flaws that every other member carries?Mr. Omega said: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, I was generalizing, and yes, I'm a part of the problem in some of those regards, and there are exceptions, but the main point, defending CoD on this site being a bad thing, sure seems to be standing... the rest was just me venting about how I thought (and for the most part have been right about) how the comments were going to go.Balobo said:But of course, you're here too. Are you one of them or a shining exception to the flaws that every other member carries?Mr. Omega said: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.