SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
(Once again I feel that I have to point out that my "rage" is to be taken with a grain of salt. While the kids above clearly have no clue, I am not sitting here smashing my keyboard, as many people must be envisioning me. I should put this disclaimer on all my posts, really.)
I can feel your salty rage boiling through the screen at me.
I can't help but think if you want that point to be taken seriously you should have but something coherent in your post to back it up.
You accuse me of being too illiterate to read your post and then your entire counter argument is literally stuff I said you would say in the post your responding to?
I don't recall even saying Left 4 Dead 2 was one of my favorite FPS's?
Killing zombies is so played out but killing terrorists is fresh and new?
There were significant changes made to L4D2, it's not so different but the changes are noticeable. (Not that that matters to you. If I said new maps, characters, weapons, enemies, and powerups. You could probably come up with some similar defense for CoD) The difference is that in my opinion (*translates to: You should definitely ignore this part when forming your rebuttal) Valve is a better developer The level design is immaculate, the enemy AI is challenging without being unfair, the weapon drops and powerup placements are unpredictable, the characters are interesting and likeable, and the pacing is consistent.
Alright. Lets see if I can finish this in under 10 minutes. First off, I never stated killing terrorists is fresh and new, quite the opposite actually. But whatever, lets roll with it, I will leave you that even if its obvious you didnt read my post properly (or lack the literacy to do so, no offense). Look son. L4D2 had new maps. MW3 will have new maps. L4D2 had new characters. MW3 will have new characters. L4D2 had new weapons. MW3 will have new weapons. L4D2 had new enemies. MW3 will most likely introduce new enemies. As for powerups, well, I guess MW3 will have new perks and killstreaks, thats the closest thing to powerups you will get.
Im not trying to turn this against you. I hold no personal grudge against you, or valve, or battlefield, or COD. I am stating this because it is a fact. When you argue against this, you make yourself look like as much of an idiot as me because im arguing about video games on an internet forum with some kid who clearly has no fucking clue what he is on about. As for Valve being the better developer, OPINIONS. GOOGLE THAT WORD.
Go back through and just add the word "decent" before maps, weapons, enemies. etc...
CoD(most FPS games for that matter) have nothing in the way of enemies. foot soldiers and different types of vehicles you shoot with rockets.
And dude. I totally used the word "opinion" in my post. I even put a little douchey comment after I used the word "opinion"
You think Fallout 3 is identical to Oblivion? I doubt you managed to keep a strait face when you typed that. Besides from all the visual and auditory differences the mechanics were almost completely different. and "They're both RPG's" doesn't really help as a defense. Leveling and skill building (The cornerstones of any RPG) were handled completely differently.
Yes, I did struggle to keep a strait face. Because I have no idea what a strait face looks like. I have no idea what strait even is. Did you mean straight? In that case, I did not struggle in the slightest, because the statement is enterily fucking true. The mechanics were completely different? Shit, please. What mechanics. I want to know. I want to know those big differences that have gone unnoticed by the entire gaming community, differences only you picked up. So go on, 5 major gameplay differences between Fallout 3 and Oblivion, beside guns, crafting, the interface and the music.
I'll tell you 5 differences between Oblivion and Fallout 3 and you tell me 5 differences between any 2 CoD games deal? (5 mechanical differences no story or anything like that. I don't want this to be easy on me)
1)In Oblivion you level by building skills. In Fallout you level by gaining experience (killing enemies, picking locks, hacking terminals, or successfully persuading someone).
2)In Oblivion you build skills by using them. In Fallout you build skills by spend the points you earn by leveling up.
3)In Oblivion all enemies and quest rewards level with you. In Fallout higher tier enemies are farther from the starting area.
4)In Oblivion there were guilds. In Fallout there were not guilds. (That one was easy but just incase)
4A)In Oblivion no wandering merchants. In Fallout lots of wandering merchants.
4B)In Oblivion there are master tradesmen who will train you in your skills. In Fallout there aren't.
4C)In Oblivion your karma does not affect which quests you can accept. In Fallout it does.
5)In Oblivion leveling up allowed you to increase your core stats. In Fallout you get to choose whether you want to increase your core stats or take a different perk.
there 5 major mechanical differences between Fallout 3 and Oblivion. what are 5 major differences between any CoD games?
I tell you whats a poor defense. Presenting arguments that are not only poorly put together but also flawed, which is exactly what you have been doing for the last 3 posts or so. Leveling and skillbuilding, completely different? Really? Like, 1% of the environment was scaled to your level? And perks (which incedently were in COD long before they were in Fallout, I dont present this as a major thing, I just thought it might piss you off a little and I imagine your desperate response will be rather amusing if rage inducing)? Never mind that the 10 major stats are pretty much the same.
I don't even...
One more thing on that point. The cornerstones of every RPG are the world and the characters, for the most part, not the damn stats.
Oh hold on. Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. You think that a decent lively world and interesting relatable characters should be exclusive to RPG's. I don't buy that. Good characters and a lively world should be part of every game (Movie, TV show, Book, whatever)
Call it an educated guess. based on the evidence (this article) it does seem like a remake. And Infinity Ward is being foolish saying "Hey guys! Look at our Spec Ops mode! It's going to be awesome!" Didn't you say the same thing about Modern Warfare 2? "Shhhhhhhh! that was 2 years ago we're hoping our target audience forgot about that."
And yes it may be juvenile but I get angry when crap (I'm not even going to call it crap) when copy-pasta makes money. Even if you like the Modern Warfare games they're so similar and short that they don't deserve to make money. You'd think preordered copies came with crack.
You would think pre-ordered copies came with FUN. You know, what people like to have when they play games. Which is my major gripe; why are you putting people down for having fun with a video game. Infinity Ward is being foolish? Shit, we have a new master of the video games industry. Maybe you should be head of Activision. You alone clearly have the gift to manage this company and are wise enough to manage PR. You should be master of the universe, you clearly think you should be, because you have already made it your task to decide whether
other people should spend their own money on something, because you think its crap and thats why they shouldnt buy it.
Thanks for the complime..... Oh, you're being facetious.
One thing, I could do a better job managing Activision's PR than they do. They're famously bad at it.
I have played all the CoD games. I even thought the first one was stellar. I've even played all the CoD clones and knockoffs. (I wouldn't be caught dead paying for any of them but I have a friend who plays them religiously and he lets/forces met to play them). And yes, between Call of Duty 3 and Modern Warfare the core gameplay of doing squat thrusts, picking your nose with the butt of your gun and anxiously fingering your trigger was completely unchanged from the drastic leap forward in time. The only noticeable change from game to game is that the level maps get smaller and more linear.
I guess all Battlefield games are the same then, because you spend time capping flags in all of them? And Half Life is identical in every way to Half Life 2 because you spend your time shooting head crabs? No, wait. EVERY FPS ever made is identical because you spend time shooting stuff. Thats what your argument boils down too, and it falls flat on its face.
There was a point that was missed. Mechanics aren't the only aspect of gaming. There's story, visual design, writing, sound design. none of that stuff changes from CoD game to CoD game.
The story always goes through the same motions, the visuals are always dingy and dirty, the writing is ...acceptable but boring, the gun sounds, explosions and echo effects are outstanding, but the effect wares off after a few billion gunshots.
I'll bet you could look at ten minute long clips of gameplay from the first 3 Modern Warfare games and not be able to tell which is which.
There's a solution that'll make everyone happy: Buy a used copy. You don't spend a full $60 and Activision doesn't make a penny.
Heres a solution for you (jesus knows what I would like to say right now, you can probably guess): dont buy the fucking game, spend your money on stuff you like, shut up and look the other way when COD is being discussed, and let everyone live happily ever after. You can spend 2000 bucks on Justin Bieber merchandise for all I care; I think hes a talentless prick with no musical ability, but that doesnt mean im going to bust into teen girls having a conversation about him, brandishing bad shops of JB, screaming at them for being such brainless morons.
But if I look the other way when people are discussing CoD I never would have had this much fun on the internet. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to use my $2000 worth of Justin Bieber merchandise to pick up all the chicks who don't like Call of Duty.
