Poll: Gaming Society

[Savagezion]

-snip-

Bwuh... Dude, I can't even tell what your point you are trying to make is. I actually think you don't have one, you just don't like the point I am making and are simply talking in circles to dispute it.

Look:
Metallica makes a song called "Creeper", releases it for free, then puts the song on an album you have to buy but calls it "Beware the Creeper". The song is the same just re-performed. You still with me?
Now, imagine this song is called innovative to the music industry. It doesn't matter if you call it Creeper or Beware the Creeper, its the same god damned song. The same song by the same performers was innovative regardless of what name it used.

So Call of Duty 2 had perks? an interchangeable dossier? levels? prestige? a completely fictional but great campaign?

Oh, you're talking about MP.

Levels? Prestige? Ranking is a "feature" (not an "improvement" because it's highly subjective) that were implemented in games before, and prestige is not a game mechanic. Just an "achievement".

Great campaign? Call of Duty 2 had one, and although it is based on real events, the campaign is still fictional, and fictional campaigns in the "near future" setting were not unheard of before CoD4.

Leveling systems are a mechanic, not a feature. Prestige semi-figures into leveling. It is really a hybrid of achievement and mechanic, like an achievement mechanic. Call of Duty 4 polished the FPS experience to new levels through minor innovations. It was SO DIFFERENT it became a pop culture phenomena. Hell, so much so that THE ENTIRE GAME INDUSTRY began emulating it ad nauseam. Then you claim that it wasn't innovative and Call of Duty 2 is the same? SOrry, but I have to let logic dictate here over your still unsupported claims.

If you think that is comparable I guess talking about map layout is a bit too in depth for you.

LOL AD HOMINEM

So? It's true. Those I posted above are cut and dry examples, the debate gets trickier with the map layouts and stances can vary through nostalgia and personal taste.

I can't tell if you are trolling or just actually think I am a moron who will believe such unsupported claims.

LOL TROLL CLAIM
LOL IMPLYING I WAS INSULTING YOU TO MAKE ME LOOK BAD

Congratulations, you can identify stuff.

FFXIII

Never cared that much for FF, but I get what you said.

However, FFXIII's "innovation" is not an excuse for it's quality.

Ha, its "quality"? It's quality is pretty awesome, its design was was not desired by many. Again this ties in to people claiming they want innovation, yet only actually praise innovation when it is something they personally like. FFXIII tried to innovate and, believe it or not, it was based off fan feedback to boot. They were trying to get rid of tedium that players complained about, and essentially made a game that played itself.

Innovation is THE excuse for FFXIII's failure. They tried something new, for the fans no less, and not only failed commercially but got browbeat for it. New ideas can be bad ideas and actually be a regression. Innovation can be bad as well as good. It doesn't get labelled innovation only if you consider it good or even if mainstream considers it good. Innovation is innovation. It is risky, and unless you are someone who consistently gambles their savings at the casino you have no right to talk about the industry playing "low risks".

 

[MEEBO17]

Honestly, as much as it seems like gaming is only going to become a big, gooey mass of brown shooters, its really not true. Sure, there's a few eras that have done better,gaming-wise than the current one, but there's always a fresh batch of developers and designers to come up with the next Half Life, Minecraft, or Red Dead Redemption.

 

[ElPatron]

Look:
Metallica makes a song called "Creeper", releases it for free, then puts the song on an album you have to buy but calls it "Beware the Creeper". The song is the same just re-performed. You still with me?
Now, imagine this song is called innovative to the music industry. It doesn't matter if you call it Creeper or Beware the Creeper, its the same god damned song. The same song by the same performers was innovative regardless of what name it used.

Then "Beware the Creeper" is no longer innovative because it's predecessor was.

Not hating on Portal, but I thought Portal was innovative until I learnt that the gameplay had been implemented before.

Leveling systems are a mechanic, not a feature.

How does it alter the mechanics of the game? If everything was available from the start, people would just play the same way.

Plus, level up systems already existed before.

BF2 is a game with ranks and unlocks, different classes and set in the modern conflicts. It was released in 2005.

Recap!
-- Not a mechanic because it is only influenced by the time you have been playing, not the gameplay
-- Also, doesn't influence same gameplay
-- The only thing it does is blocking certain types of playing to new players, forcing them to keep playing - if everything was unlocked from the start, same play styles would be achieved

Prestige semi-figures into leveling. It is really a hybrid of achievement and mechanic, like an achievement mechanic.

If we had signatures in this forum, that quote would be there.

Then you claim that it wasn't innovative and Call of Duty 2 is the same?

Lies.

I'm sorry, but how many times have you lied about what I said?

I never said Dead Space was Resident Evil, (never even mentioned it on the post you quote),and I never said CoD2 is the same as CoD4.

SOrry, but I have to let logic dictate here over your still unsupported claims.

Unsupported claims?

What claims? That if you replaced every weapon in Call of Duty 2 by modern day weapons, it would play the same as CoD4?

That was not unsupported, taking into account that both games use the same engine.

Congratulations, you can identify stuff.

Again, you dodged the point you made originally (calling me a troll for disagreeing with you - I suggest reading the definition of trolling without going to wikipedia since they say trolling and flaming is the same) and just manoeuvred it to insert a petty insult.

I don't know about you, but I think that if you need to insult someone or make personal attacks on their cognitive capabilities nothing that you said should be taken in a serious note.

Ha, its "quality"? It's quality is pretty awesome

You mean a linear game that got criticised, and then the developers excused themselves by saying it needs to be linear to tell a good story (they never heard of GTA... or even the previous FF games)?

I just pretend FFXIII never happened, and I'm not even a huge fan of FF.

 

[Savagezion]

Look:
Metallica makes a song called "Creeper", releases it for free, then puts the song on an album you have to buy but calls it "Beware the Creeper". The song is the same just re-performed. You still with me?
Now, imagine this song is called innovative to the music industry. It doesn't matter if you call it Creeper or Beware the Creeper, its the same god damned song. The same song by the same performers was innovative regardless of what name it used.

Then "Beware the Creeper" is no longer innovative because it's predecessor was.

Not hating on Portal, but I thought Portal was innovative until I learnt that the gameplay had been implemented before.

I disagree. The people are the source of the innovation, not the title. I see that argument as saying a movie can't be innovative because it uses the premise of the film short that the creators made to shop the movie idea around for recognition at a film festival.

Leveling systems are a mechanic, not a feature.

How does it alter the mechanics of the game? If everything was available from the start, people would just play the same way.

Plus, level up systems already existed before.

BF2 is a game with ranks and unlocks, different classes and set in the modern conflicts. It was released in 2005.

A leveling system is a mechanic. A ranking system isn't necessarily, but it could be. A mechanic in a game, simply put, is something the player or game (in this case the player) utilizes to accomplish a goal. It could also be seen as rules of things that are off limits to gameplay. Overall, it is the means available to an end result. Ranking is an end result. Period.

It doesn't alter the mechanics of the game because it IS a mechanic to the game. A mechanic doesn't have to affect other mechanics of the game. The knife mechanic, for example, doesn't affect any other mechanic. (unless one wants to go into the rspawn mechanics or health mechanics - both are results though). Perks are an example of a mechanic solely meant to affect other mechanics. They essentially change the rules of other mechanics already in place.

As well, Battlefield 2 only let you unlock new main weapons from a rather unimpressive list. The differences between it and Call of Duty 4 are apparent.

Recap!
-- Not a mechanic because it is only influenced by the time you have been playing, not the gameplay
-- Also, doesn't influence same gameplay
-- The only thing it does is blocking certain types of playing to new players, forcing them to keep playing - if everything was unlocked from the start, same play styles would be achieved

-- It is not ONLY influenced by time played, it is influenced by player actions. It is based on assists, headshots, challenges, killstreak rewards, etc. If me and you played the game for the same period of time our levels would be different.
-- It does influence gameplay based on what you want to unlock.
-- If all RPGs just gave you every available skill at the start, same playstyles would be achieved. Play styles would vary regardless as many options are in place to enhance different play styles. Many mechanics primary purpose is to regulate player actions. It is again pretty obvious that was the intention behind the design. The mechanic is working.

Prestige semi-figures into leveling. It is really a hybrid of achievement and mechanic, like an achievement mechanic.

If we had signatures in this forum, that quote would be there.

I would love that. The intentions would make me smirk every time.

Then you claim that it wasn't innovative and Call of Duty 2 is the same?

Lies.

I'm sorry, but how many times have you lied about what I said?

I never said Dead Space was Resident Evil, (never even mentioned it on the post you quote),and I never said CoD2 is the same as CoD4.

First off, I am surprised you didn't jump all over the RE claim which is what lead me to believe you don't have a point. I put that in there on purpose for you to run with it and you ignored it. Hell, somewhat even disputed it.

Read your very next quote I underlined for the CoD2 & 4 thing. They would play the SAME? In your very first response to me:

Call of Duty 4 plays exactly like Call of Duty 2 would be played in a modern setting.

You are saying it would play the SAME except for graphics right below this.

Sorry, but I have to let logic dictate here over your still unsupported claims.

Unsupported claims?

What claims? That if you replaced every weapon in Call of Duty 2 by modern day weapons, it would play the same as CoD4?

That was not unsupported, taking into account that both games use the same engine.

That doesn't mean anything though, games can innovate within the same engine. Look at the variety of games within the Unreal engine. You got multiple genres in there providing thousands of mechanics all using the same engine.

Congratulations, you can identify stuff.

Again, you dodged the point you made originally (calling me a troll for disagreeing with you - I suggest reading the definition of trolling without going to wikipedia since they say trolling and flaming is the same) and just manoeuvred it to insert a petty insult.

I don't know about you, but I think that if you need to insult someone or make personal attacks on their cognitive capabilities nothing that you said should be taken in a serious note.

First, I dodged the 'point' to avoid directly insulting you. Most often, when someone has an extremely simple argument that they don't support, it either speaks of their intelligence or their view on mine.
Second, your argument is not supported because you are not arguing anything except I am wrong. Not why I am wrong, just that I am. Call of Duty 4 innovated level systems in FPS. Was it the first to use that particular idea? No. Was it the first to do a full in-depth expansion upon that idea, yes.

Why that is relevant? Because they innovated the level system in FPS. Wolfenstein, and Doom could be seen as not innovative following the logic that it has been done before because shooters FPS already existed in arcades where you shoot a gun at the cabinet. I could simplify innovations the same way you are doing and say that any differences between the two are semantics. Other games had even used first person perspective roam as well. Wizardry 6 did it as far back as 1991.

Ha, its "quality"? It's quality is pretty awesome

You mean a linear game that got criticised, and then the developers excused themselves by saying it needs to be linear to tell a good story (they never heard of GTA... or even the previous FF games)?

I just pretend FFXIII never happened, and I'm not even a huge fan of FF.

Yeah, that stuff you are complaining about are design decisions, not quality. They made a top notch linear story game that can play itself with minimal interaction with the player. It didn't get criticized for its quality like New Vegas did, it got criticized for making a design that removed the player from the video game. I gotta admit though, no one had tried that before. Probably because everyone knew it is a terrible idea, but no one had done it before nonetheless.
That mechanic though is still not dead. People are looking at it as a way to hand hold in games. In the sense that if you can't beat a level, you can choose to have the game beat it for you. There is merit to it, it just depends on execution and implementation.

 

[him over there]

We didn't really peak, not in quality anyway. We probably did peak in the sense that since mediocre games sell so well and gaming is a business no one cares about making good games. If we don't want to peak and you want innovation quit buying mediocre stagnating games. vote with your wallet!

 

[ElPatron]

It doesn't alter the mechanics of the game because it IS a mechanic to the game. A mechanic doesn't have to affect other mechanics of the game. The knife mechanic, for example, doesn't affect any other mechanic. (unless one wants to go into the rspawn mechanics or health mechanics - both are results though). Perks are an example of a mechanic solely meant to affect other mechanics. They essentially change the rules of other mechanics already in place.

You're assuming a "mechanic" is a "feature". It features knifes, but how is knifing a mechanic if the only purpose it has is acquiring a kill?

Excuse me, but a shooter like Call of Duty 4 has it's mechanics exposed for everyone to see: kill instead of being killed, and you are rewarded.

There are several classes of primary weapons you can chose from, a secondary weapon and 3 perks. You get kill-streak rewards, those are countered by some perks (like 2x RPG). Some perks cancel each other (Sonic Boom or Stopping Power vs Juggernaut).

It's basically the mechanics introduced.

If you were talking about a RPG, it could have the mechanics for combat, for magic, for crafting items, etc etc etc. Those are mechanics.

Ass Creed having a bomb manufacturing process is a mechanic. Adding more swords is not a mechanic.

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within had a good combat system based on dual wielding. That is a mechanic. The fact that there are many swords is not a mechanic.

As well, Battlefield 2 only let you unlock new main weapons from a rather unimpressive list. The differences between it and Call of Duty 4 are apparent.

Wow, now bashing BF2 is your train of thought? I thought it was about how NOT innovative Call of Duty 4.

I think that Metallica releasing 3 songs about Creepers instead of one does not make the album any more innovative. BF2 was only an example of a game that did it first, it doesn't matter the "quantity" or "quality".

-- It is not ONLY influenced by time played, it is influenced by player actions. It is based on assists, headshots, challenges, killstreak rewards, etc. If me and you played the game for the same period of time our levels would be different. Exactly. If you played really good for 1 month and I played really bad for 1 year, we would have the same rank in the end. So it's only a matter of how long you have been playing.
-- It does influence gameplay based on what you want to unlock.lol no. You use Mouse1 to fire the UMP45, you use Mouse1 to fire the AUG HBAR. Doesn't change gameplay, only the play style - not a mechanic.
-- If all RPGs just gave you every available skill at the start, same playstyles would be achieved. Play styles would vary regardless as many options are in place to enhance different play styles. Many mechanics primary purpose is to regulate player actions. It is again pretty obvious that was the intention behind the design. The mechanic is working.In RPGs you usually have certain "rules" in different combat styles. In CoD you can do whatever you want, there are only weapon stats and ghillie suits if you're a sniper.

First off, I am surprised you didn't jump all over the RE claim which is what lead me to believe you don't have a point.

All I said was that if I made a Dead Space underwater it would not be innovative just because setting is changed.

I put that in there on purpose for you to run with it and you ignored it. Hell, somewhat even disputed it.

If Resident Evil had originally adopted the Dead Space combat mechanics, then Dead Space would be a RE in space.

But it didn't.

Read your very next quote I underlined for the CoD2 & 4 thing. They would play the SAME? In your very first response to me:

Call of Duty 4 plays exactly like Call of Duty 2 would be played in a modern setting.

You are saying it would play the SAME except for graphics right below this.
ATTENTION, EVERYONE - GAME ENGINE = GRAPHICS

Sorry, but I have to let logic dictate here over your still unsupported claims.

Unsupported claims?

What claims? That if you replaced every weapon in Call of Duty 2 by modern day weapons, it would play the same as CoD4?

That was not unsupported, taking into account that both games use the same engine.

That doesn't mean anything though, games can innovate within the same engine. Look at the variety of games within the Unreal engine. You got multiple genres in there providing thousands of mechanics all using the same engine.

Moving the goal posts? I never said that games cannot be innovative in the same engine, but CoD4 features the exact same mechanics used in CoD2.

So, I could make CoD4 in Unreal. But it would play differently because even if I adjusted everything in the engine, it would still play differently.

If you take IW's engine, and replace the CoD2 characters, weapons and levels by modern ones, it would look and feel like CoD4, unlike a "modern warfare" mod for Unreal.

Battlefield 2 would not play the same on Frostbite.

Again, it has nothing to do with graphics, because:

1. Graphics don't matter. Anything made prior to 2005 that doesn't hurt the eyes has "good graphics" to me.
2. We all know that Call of Duty still has dated graphics with a few changes to make it sparkle. Not that it matters.

First, I dodged the 'point' to avoid directly insulting you. Most often, when someone has an extremely simple argument that they don't support, it either speaks of their intelligence or their view on mine.

Simple arguments beat complex ones. And I support my views, thank you very much. For some reason I am posting here.

CoD2 plays exactly the same as CoD4. This Thompson is now a UMP45. That Whermacht soldier is now a Ultranationalist. This French village is Russia.

Notice how the only things changed were the visuals and the stats (rate of fire, damage, range etc are just tweaks in the game files, not innovations) of the UMP45.

KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

Why that is relevant? Because they innovated the level system in FPS. Wolfenstein, and Doom could be seen as not innovative following the logic that it has been done before because shooters FPS already existed in arcades where you shoot a gun at the cabinet. I could simplify innovations the same way you are doing and say that any differences between the two are semantics. Other games had even used first person perspective roam as well. Wizardry 6 did it as far back as 1991.

That's actually over-simplifying my point.

Doom does not play like Wizardry.

And Doom does not play like Wolfenstein. Although both have a similar , Doom was a technological leap that allowed for more complex mechanics and environments.

Yeah, that stuff you are complaining about are design decisions, not quality.

bad design decisions = bad experience = bad quality

They made a top notch linear story game that can play itself with minimal interaction with the player. It didn't get criticized for its quality like New Vegas did, it got criticized for making a design that removed the player from the video game.

There might be a huge pit between our views right here.

For me, New Vegas is buggy, has graphical issues, but that does not reflect on quality.

When I say "quality" I don't mean "quantity". How pretty are this game's graphics? You will have to quantify the graphics to other games.

Far Cry had good graphics for the time, Wolfenstein had good graphics for it's time. If we judge graphics by their "quality" then we would have to compare them to the future graphics and judge if they are as good as it can get.

But a game's experience results in quality, that cannot be quantified and stays eternal. Psychonauts will be a good game forever.

Thus, the quality of Fallout is in the experience. This is entirely subjective, but as an RPG, Fallout has much more "quality" than FF. Even if it looks uglier.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Gaming as a general peaked at PS2 I think. That's not to say there aren't any good modern games, just they're less common than they used to be

 

[Manji187]

Peaked? Certainly not with regard to writing (stories and characters).

In that area, gaming as a medium needs to grow up or there may eventually be a huge exodus of 30 somethings who will find better ways to spend their time and money.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Lack of innovation does not indicate a "peak", it just shows that developers are getting lazy and are unwilling to deviate from a formula that has been proven to work. Games have so much room for improvement in their graphics, merging of story and gameplay, and the way they're written, especially regarding characterisation and dialogue. If this is their "peak" then gaming has been the most disappointing medium since we attempted to communicate ideas by farting.

 

[Savagezion]

You're assuming a "mechanic" is a "feature". It features knifes, but how is knifing a mechanic if the only purpose it has is acquiring a kill?

It is a mechanic because it a tool offered to the player as a part of the combat model.

Excuse me, but a shooter like Call of Duty 4 has it's mechanics exposed for everyone to see: kill instead of being killed, and you are rewarded.

That would be a basic overview of the premise.

If you were talking about a RPG, it could have the mechanics for combat, for magic, for crafting items, etc etc etc. Those are mechanics.

That is pretty vague.

I am aware adding swords isn't a mechanic. However, having swords means you need some mechanics as to how they function in the game. Skyrim has a regular 3 combo attack mechanic, a power attack mechanic, etc. The fact that you can use a knife and not that there just happens to be one in the game, means it has a mechanic.

As well, Battlefield 2 only let you unlock new main weapons from a rather unimpressive list. The differences between it and Call of Duty 4 are apparent.

Wow, now bashing BF2 is your train of thought? I thought it was about how NOT innovative Call of Duty 4.

I think that Metallica releasing 3 songs about Creepers instead of one does not make the album any more innovative. BF2 was only an example of a game that did it first, it doesn't matter the "quantity" or "quality".

No clue what you are trying to say here.

BTW, it isn't 3 songs about Creepers, it is 1 song re-released with a name the band prefers over the original in my example. Portal is a remixed, re-release of NDrop.

-- It is not ONLY influenced by time played, it is influenced by player actions. It is based on assists, headshots, challenges, killstreak rewards, etc. If me and you played the game for the same period of time our levels would be different. Exactly. If you played really good for 1 month and I played really bad for 1 year, we would have the same rank in the end. So it's only a matter of how long you have been playing.

Every game does that.

-- It does influence gameplay based on what you want to unlock.lol no. You use Mouse1 to fire the UMP45, you use Mouse1 to fire the AUG HBAR. Doesn't change gameplay, only the play style - not a mechanic.

Fair enough. Although, I don't see how that weighs in agianst the leveling in COD not being a mechanic. Increasing my sword in Skyrim doesn't change how the sword mechanic works.

-- If all RPGs just gave you every available skill at the start, same playstyles would be achieved. Play styles would vary regardless as many options are in place to enhance different play styles. Many mechanics primary purpose is to regulate player actions. It is again pretty obvious that was the intention behind the design. The mechanic is working.In RPGs you usually have certain "rules" in different combat styles. In CoD you can do whatever you want, there are only weapon stats and ghillie suits if you're a sniper.

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply. Playing as a warrior in an RPG, same effect.

First off, I am surprised you didn't jump all over the RE claim which is what lead me to believe you don't have a point.

All I said was that if I made a Dead Space underwater it would not be innovative just because setting is changed.

Nobody said that would be innovative either. That is not the same differences as CoD2 to CoD4. A lot of innovation went into the multiplayer, even compared to other shooters of the time.

Read your very next quote I underlined for the CoD2 & 4 thing. They would play the SAME? In your very first response to me:

Call of Duty 4 plays exactly like Call of Duty 2 would be played in a modern setting.

You are saying it would play the SAME except for graphics right below this.
ATTENTION, EVERYONE - GAME ENGINE = GRAPHICS

Attention everyone: Why are you reading this? Hehe, and no it doesn't in that context.

It is a modified version of the same engine, not the EXACT same engine.

Sorry, but I have to let logic dictate here over your still unsupported claims.

Unsupported claims?

What claims? That if you replaced every weapon in Call of Duty 2 by modern day weapons, it would play the same as CoD4?

That was not unsupported, taking into account that both games use the same engine.

That doesn't mean anything though, games can innovate within the same engine. Look at the variety of games within the Unreal engine. You got multiple genres in there providing thousands of mechanics all using the same engine.

Moving the goal posts? I never said that games cannot be innovative in the same engine, but CoD4 features the exact same mechanics used in CoD2.

Dude, there were no perks in COD2. There are plenty of new mechanics in 4.

So, I could make CoD4 in Unreal. But it would play differently because even if I adjusted everything in the engine, it would still play differently.

If you take IW's engine, and replace the CoD2 characters, weapons and levels by modern ones, it would look and feel like CoD4, unlike a "modern warfare" mod for Unreal.

Battlefield 2 would not play the same on Frostbite.

I'll give you that but that doesn't mean no innovation happened. Not exactly sure why you are going into all that. This type of thing actually implies that the innovation is mostly in the engine to you. Even though you just said that you never said a game can't innovate within the same engine.

First, I dodged the 'point' to avoid directly insulting you. Most often, when someone has an extremely simple argument that they don't support, it either speaks of their intelligence or their view on mine.

Simple arguments beat complex ones. And I support my views, thank you very much. For some reason I am posting here.

Simple arguments don't beat complex ones. What even makes you think that? Logic dictates a argument's validity regardless of how simple or complex it is. Simple arguments are just easier.

CoD2 plays exactly the same as CoD4. This Thompson is now a UMP45. That Whermacht soldier is now a Ultranationalist. This French village is Russia.

Notice how the only things changed were the visuals and the stats (rate of fire, damage, range etc are just tweaks in the game files, not innovations) of the UMP45.

KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

Why are you so hung up on the guns? I haven't said anything about them really, you have. Perks man! Perks! The leveling system, kill streaks, equipment, customization. These are the things I have been talking about.

Focus, Daniel-son.

Why that is relevant? Because they innovated the level system in FPS. Wolfenstein, and Doom could be seen as not innovative following the logic that it has been done before because shooters FPS already existed in arcades where you shoot a gun at the cabinet. I could simplify innovations the same way you are doing and say that any differences between the two are semantics. Other games had even used first person perspective roam as well. Wizardry 6 did it as far back as 1991.

That's actually over-simplifying my point.

Doom does not play like Wizardry.

You snipped out part of it: "Was it the first to use that particular idea? No. Was it the first to do a full in-depth expansion upon that idea, yes."

And Doom does not play like Wolfenstein. Although both have a similar , Doom was a technological leap that allowed for more complex mechanics and environments.

You mean it wasn't the first to do it but rather, it expanded upon the idea?

Yeah, that stuff you are complaining about are design decisions, not quality.

bad design decisions = bad experience = bad quality

Experience doesn't belong in there because it is the epitome of subjective. As well, there is no way to tell if a new idea is good or bad until it meets public reception. So that is somewhat subjective as well. However, quality isn't completely subjective.

However, you also dodged the point that FXIII offered innovation.

They made a top notch linear story game that can play itself with minimal interaction with the player. It didn't get criticized for its quality like New Vegas did, it got criticized for making a design that removed the player from the video game.

There might be a huge pit between our views right here.

For me, New Vegas is buggy, has graphical issues, but that does not reflect on quality.

It's funny this came up. I just recently had a discussion about where the objectivity in quality as opposed to the subjectivity in quality lies, like just a week or two ago. It spawned from this very forum. Based on that discussion, your subjective feelings towards the game, based on your bias, overrides the 'quality factor'. I too think New Vegas is a good game but its quality is merely "adequate". Your personal favor for the game might make you see it as having good quality for your tastes, however it might make someone else who doesn't care for it see it as a low quality title for theirs.

New Vegas has more than graphical issues. It has gameplay bugs that can even go so far as to break your game and render it 'unplayable' or make you start completely over for no reason other than something screwy happened. The engine it uses is problematic and kinda lame to say the least. (Terrible physics and collision, poor graphics, poor scripting, etc.) It is built on a broken foundation. No building built on a broken and faulty foundation is going to be seen as quality architecture no matter how nice the decor is. However, the decor could make some people be cool with it if it has the right "charm".

When I say "quality" I don't mean "quantity". How pretty are this game's graphics? You will have to quantify the graphics to other games.

Far Cry had good graphics for the time, Wolfenstein had good graphics for it's time. If we judge graphics by their "quality" then we would have to compare them to the future graphics and judge if they are as good as it can get.

But a game's experience results in quality, that cannot be quantified and stays eternal. Psychonauts will be a good game forever.

Thus, the quality of Fallout is in the experience. This is entirely subjective, but as an RPG, Fallout has much more "quality" than FF. Even if it looks uglier.

Would probably be best to refer to that as "personal quality" then. We are on the same page more than you think. Your terms you are using are a bit too ambiguous though. That has been a common theme throughout this discussion though.

There are some differences, like I see a game's quality directly effects the experience. Someone is more willing hang in with a more polished game over a buggy one. As for graphics, it is also important to compare the capabilities to the aesthetic being presented. A game like Mario doesn't need to have the Crytek engine running it and it would actually be wasted.

 

[ElPatron]

It is a mechanic because it a tool offered to the player as a part of the combat model.

Basically, the knife is a weapon that creates an area in front of the player. If an enemy is caught in that area, he is killed.

It is not a mechanic, it simply offers a 1-hit weapon for close range, just like the buttstock of a rifle or pistol whipping in CoD2.

I am aware adding swords isn't a mechanic. However, having swords means you need some mechanics as to how they function in the game. Skyrim has a regular 3 combo attack mechanic, a power attack mechanic, etc. The fact that you can use a knife and not that there just happens to be one in the game, means it has a mechanic.

Those are a mechanic in a whole because they are a part of sword combat. When you integrate several features to work with each other, they become a mechanic.

Adding a knife does not create a "mechanic" because there is no knife-fighting.

Here, I'll toss an example:
-- Call of Duty 4 features a knife for close range kills
-- Metal Gear Online features a CQC mechanic for close range combat

BTW, it isn't 3 songs about Creepers, it is 1 song re-released with a name the band prefers over the original in my example. Portal is a remixed, re-release of NDrop.

I was talking about BF2.

The core mechanics of the game exist even without unlocks. But they do exist.

They add new weapons, nothing more. The fact that the number of weapons is fewer than in Call of Duty 4 doesn't mean anything.

Iron Maiden made a song about creepers and published in in a new album. Two years later Metallica release 3 songs about creepers. They released 3, but Iron Maiden did it first.

This is non-sense, I am not saying that BF2 was the end-all, be-all of innovation. They just added ranks and unlocks the same year Call of Duty 2 was released.

-- It is not ONLY influenced by time played, it is influenced by player actions. It is based on assists, headshots, challenges, killstreak rewards, etc. If me and you played the game for the same period of time our levels would be different. Exactly. If you played really good for 1 month and I played really bad for 1 year, we would have the same rank in the end. So it's only a matter of how long you have been playing.

Every game does that.

S'cuze me

First Sergeant
Requirements:
Rank: Gunnery Sergeant
Score: 20,000
Awards: Basic Knife Combat Badge, Basic Pistol Combat Badge, Basic Assault Combat Badge, Basic Anti-tank Combat Badge, Basic Sniper Combat Badge, Basic Spec Ops Combat Badge, Basic Support Combat Badge, Basic Engineer Combat Badge, Basic Medic Combat Badge




This is a rank from BF2. You could only achieve certain ranks by completing badges. So they didn't judge the time spent playing alone, the Veteran badges also require a certain amount of actions IAR - In A Round.

That way you have to prove you can be proficient, not just hoard up scores without playing well.

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply. Playing as a warrior in an RPG, same effect.

I am trying to imply that the mechanics are not the same if you played in another class.

If you change classes in CoD, the mechanic is still the same.

I'll give you that but that doesn't mean no innovation happened. Not exactly sure why you are going into all that. This type of thing actually implies that the innovation is mostly in the engine to you. Even though you just said that you never said a game can't innovate within the same engine.

No, innovation is not on the engine.

Parabellum, the short-lived free 2 play FPS developed with Unreal, played much differently than Unreal Tournament.

Same can't be said if I made a Unreal Tournament look-alike in Unreal. It would play the same even if I changed some characteristics in the weapons.

Simple arguments don't beat complex ones. What even makes you think that? Logic dictates a argument's validity regardless of how simple or complex it is. Simple arguments are just easier.

Yeah, I didn't explain all the way trough.

Simple beats complex because complex arguments would take me a lot of time to develop. If I can express that Call of Duty did not innovate that much in a simplistic manner, it is better than wasting my time on a complex view that nobody would share.

You mean it wasn't the first to do it but rather, it expanded upon the idea?

Let's assume Wolftenstein 3D had the same setting as Doom, and featured similar weapons.

Doom would be still a huge improvement because of the breakthroughs in level design that allowed for more complex levels and changed the way things are played.


Since you focused so much in the multiplayer, I'll bite

Level ups aren't a mechanic. Unlocks due to racking up kills with weapon X? I don't know, could be. Let's assume they are.

I have mentioned how perks counter each other, and counter the helicopter. I did say it was a mechanic.

Attachments: the only real thing that matter are silencers in CoD4. The grenade launcher is just another weapon. But the silencer masks the shooting in the enemy UAV. That could be a mechanic.

However, the only difference it makes is that there is an option for stealthier gameplay, and there isn't even a way to counter it. Doesn't sound like a mechanic if it's just an isolated feature.


If you skip to MW2, then yes, attachments are a mechanic. You have under-barrel shotguns, grenade launchers, foregrips, heartbeat sensors, silencers, FMJ ammo, extended magazines and optics.

Partially because you can also chose from several kinds of primary items to bring with you, instead of just grenades. It is a mechanic in it's whole, simply having different grenades doesn't make it a mechanic, add blast shields and then it becomes something that affects gameplay severely.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

We haven't peaked at all, it's just that our sense of creativity is now lost because everyone is trying to stick with something that sells; honestly it's all too much about politics and it's a shame that we have to suffer for it.

Welcome to my world! Finally, someone who gets what I've been trying to say for ages! XD

 

[ablac]

Innovation will come with time and as with other industries it will mostly come from the independent side of things. The PC is the clear home for independently produced games but consoles are seeing some as well which is promising. As with any artistic industry the more expensive something is the less innovative it tends to be as big money means small risks. However that doesn't mean it wont come just not as fast as it does with indie titles. To say we've done everything now is similar to those in 1900 who said everything had been invented that could be invented. Indie isn't inherently better nor is AAA inherently worse they just offer different experiences and innovation in indie land probably comes just as much from it being a necessitation to succeed as it is a desire to push things forward. It doesnt make sense to innovate without a promise of a return but when the time comes innovation will come, progress will be made slowly but the big companies know that they cant getaway without innovating else they would stagnate (at least in the casual market).

Also it does stand to reason that the older the medium gets the harder it becomes to innovate so dont compare t to harshly now to the past when things hadnt been done before. The FPS and aim down sights were once innovative.

 

[Savagezion]

-Snip-

Dude, a feature is a mechanic or a group of mechanics. The game features X mechanic(s). A feature can't be in a game without a mechanic there making it possible. You are interchanging the terms feature and mechanic. Multiplayer is a feature which utilizes most mechanics in a game, sometimes even offering entirely new ones. Cover based shooting is a feature that uses 1 or more mechanics.

Jumping is a mechanic because parameters have to be set as to how high jumping makes the model "jump", if holding the button has any relevance to maximum height, if you can still control movement while jumping, etc.

Adding a knife does not create a "mechanic" because there is no knife-fighting.

Yeah there is, it is the only purpose for the mechanic. There isn't any knife juggling. The mechanic states, first person to knife the other wins. This has the parameters of distance that the knife will work at (range), aim tolerances for a successful kill, as well as time delay from button press (you can be killed mid-knife).

This is non-sense, I am not saying that BF2 was the end-all, be-all of innovation. They just added ranks and unlocks the same year Call of Duty 2 was released.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not. I couldn't care less if you like BF2 over CoD. The fact remains that the leveling system used is different.

Definition of INNOVATION
1: the introduction of something new
2: a new idea, method, or device

-snip-

Every game does that.

S'cuze me

First Sergeant
Requirements:
Rank: Gunnery Sergeant
Score: 20,000
Awards: Basic Knife Combat Badge, Basic Pistol Combat Badge, Basic Assault Combat Badge, Basic Anti-tank Combat Badge, Basic Sniper Combat Badge, Basic Spec Ops Combat Badge, Basic Support Combat Badge, Basic Engineer Combat Badge, Basic Medic Combat Badge

This is a rank from BF2. You could only achieve certain ranks by completing badges. So they didn't judge the time spent playing alone, the Veteran badges also require a certain amount of actions IAR - In A Round.

Thanks for proving my point.

Again, not sure what you are trying to imply. Playing as a warrior in an RPG, same effect.

I am trying to imply that the mechanics are not the same if you played in another class.

No, a Wizard uses DIFFERENT mechanics than the warrior. That is why they are not the same. I will use your same ideology:

The core mechanics of the game warrior exist even without unlocks playing as the warrior. But they do exist.

Here, again, you are shifting combat models.

If you change classes in CoD, the mechanic is still the same.

I am aware CoD only has 1 combat model, its genre is named after it. All shooters are guilty of that. What's your point you are trying to make with this?

I'll give you that but that doesn't mean no innovation happened. Not exactly sure why you are going into all that. This type of thing actually implies that the innovation is mostly in the engine to you. Even though you just said that you never said a game can't innovate within the same engine.

No, innovation is not on the engine.

Parabellum, the short-lived free 2 play FPS developed with Unreal, played much differently than Unreal Tournament.

Same can't be said if I made a Unreal Tournament look-alike in Unreal. It would play the same even if I changed some characteristics in the weapons.

You mean if you intentionally copied something else it would be similar? Wow, thanks for explaining such a hard concept to grasp to me.

...You do realize a game can be MORE innovative than another game right? Innovation is a variable and not a constant.

Parabellum would have the same collision detection, scripting, AI, etc. I haven't played it but it may have used different "middleware" to achieve a difference.

Simple arguments don't beat complex ones. What even makes you think that? Logic dictates a argument's validity regardless of how simple or complex it is. Simple arguments are just easier.

Yeah, I didn't explain all the way trough.

Simple beats complex because complex arguments would take me a lot of time to develop. If I can express that Call of Duty did not innovate that much in a simplistic manner, it is better than wasting my time on a complex view that nobody would share.

The underlined part would make a great signature on a forum. Simple "arguments" tend to not be arguments at all but rather 'claims'. I can claim an elephant's trunk isn't long because a giraffe's neck is longer but that doesn't mean crap necessarily based on the context of the discussion. Saying something is more innovative, doesn't discredit a game that is comprised of many small innovations. Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

At this point, I do believe you are attempting to troll merely by how much you have consistently avoided making a cohesive point. I don't mind though as I actually enjoy talking about this stuff with others and I rarely get to do it. I just wish your side of the discussion had a little bit more consistency.

You mean it wasn't the first to do it but rather, it expanded upon the idea?

Let's assume Wolftenstein 3D had the same setting as Doom, and featured similar weapons.

Doom would be still a huge improvement because of the breakthroughs in level design that allowed for more complex levels and changed the way things are played.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Since you focused so much in the multiplayer, I'll bite

It's about time.

Level ups aren't a mechanic. Unlocks due to racking up kills with weapon X? I don't know, could be. Let's assume they are.

I have mentioned how perks counter each other, and counter the helicopter. I did say it was a mechanic.

Attachments: the only real thing that matter are silencers in CoD4. The grenade launcher is just another weapon. But the silencer masks the shooting in the enemy UAV. That could be a mechanic.

That is a mechanic, not could be. It the mechanic of the silencer. (The silencer isn't a mechanic, it is a feature in the game that uses a mechanic.)

"Level ups" aren't a mechanic, but the leveling system is. Unlocks are part of the leveling system. How can you say that "could be" but leveling isn't when it uses the leveling system to activate?

Also:
"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

However, the only difference it makes is that there is an option for stealthier gameplay, and there isn't even a way to counter it. Doesn't sound like a mechanic if it's just an isolated feature.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

If you skip to MW2, then yes, attachments are a mechanic. You have under-barrel shotguns, grenade launchers, foregrips, heartbeat sensors, silencers, FMJ ammo, extended magazines and optics.

You JUST said that the grenade launcher is not a mechanic but "just another weapon". I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

Partially because you can also chose from several kinds of primary items to bring with you, instead of just grenades. It is a mechanic in it's whole, simply having different grenades doesn't make it a mechanic, add blast shields and then it becomes something that affects gameplay severely.

You are merging design into mechanics now. This garble makes no sense. In there, you are implying that more primary weapons now DO make it a mechanic. The exact opposite of what you have been shouting at me despite the fact I never said it was a mechanic.

 

[ElPatron]

-snip-

Every game does that.

S'cuze me

First Sergeant
Requirements:
Rank: Gunnery Sergeant
Score: 20,000
Awards: Basic Knife Combat Badge, Basic Pistol Combat Badge, Basic Assault Combat Badge, Basic Anti-tank Combat Badge, Basic Sniper Combat Badge, Basic Spec Ops Combat Badge, Basic Support Combat Badge, Basic Engineer Combat Badge, Basic Medic Combat Badge

This is a rank from BF2. You could only achieve certain ranks by completing badges. So they didn't judge the time spent playing alone, the Veteran badges also require a certain amount of actions IAR - In A Round.

Thanks for proving my point.

I didn't.

You can work yourself trough all 55 levels in CoD4 and 70 levels in MW2 without completing a single achievement.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Excuse me? Are you comparing Wolfenstein to CoD2 and Doom to CoD4?

Because Doom introduced moving platforms and non-parallel surfaces! It plays very differently from Wolftenstein, which features very "levelled" maps and the rooms are based in parallelograms.

Call of Duty 2 had a WW2 setting, CoD4 had a modern one. I don't see what you are getting at, since the engine did not introduce any significant change. Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.

I am aware CoD only has 1 combat model, its genre is named after it. All shooters are guilty of that. What's your point you are trying to make with this?

Enemy Territory: Wolftenstein is not guilty of that.

In fact, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars does exactly the opposite. Every class plays differently.

Team Fortress 2 is the same.

In BF2 the only thing that changes is your role, because you play the same way. You will just die a lot if you don't want to do what your class is supposed to.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not.

Different? No. You hit score X, you get rank Y.

Call of Duty allows many more unlocks, yes. Doesn't mean that a ranking system works differently.

The underlined part would make a great signature on a forum.

Because everyone would agree wit you? Count my posts and multiply them for 2 hours. If I took 2 hours to write each posts, I would have wasted way too much time.

Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

lol?

I have retorted in any way possible.

This seems the most effective.

It the mechanic of the silencer

Everything is a "mechanic" for you. The mechanic of tactical entry? The mechanic of Cpt. Price beating Al Assad? The mechanic of sudden explosions?

No.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

It's not a design issue, if you worked hard for a silencer (now what I think of it, it wasn't that hard to get it) you deserve to have it's features enabled all the time.

However, how can it be a mechanic if it doesn't interact with anything else?

you JUST said that the grenade launcher is not a mechanic but "just another weapon". I don't even think you know what you are talking about.

The grenade launcher is not a mechanic, and doesn't have a mechanic of it's own. It is ruled by the engine's laws.

HOWEVER, if you use attachments as a way to "differentiate" the gameplay, a mechanic exists.

Under-barrel shotguns are not a mechanic, foregrips are not a mechanic, isolated they are just what they are.

Just like the "Healing" spell isn't a mechanic. Isolated, it's just a feature.

Make a game like League of Legends (or any other DotA clone) and your healing spell is now part of a mechanic.

 

[go-10]

nope not even close, but that won't stop us from complaining

 

[Savagezion]

I didn't.

You can work yourself trough all 55 levels in CoD4 and 70 levels in MW2 without completing a single achievement.

You seriously have to learn how to follow a point, then learn how to illustrate one. You are way too scattered and seem lost in the conversation. You JUST listed how BF2s leveling system is different than Call of Duty's for the sake of claiming BF's is better. The point I was trying to make was that it was different. You call of Duty wasn't different. Your exact words were "wasn't anything new" but it clearly is a new way of doing that thing, thus was innovative.

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about as for achievements. I hope you aren't talking about achievements like "PS3 trophys". If so, what a ridiculous argument. Since when did achievements dictate the validity of a game design decision? Believe it or not many people don't put any merit behind arbitrary achievements in games. Many people don't care that there is an achievement for knifing 4 people in a row without dying. Many even say it is a deterrent from playing well in the sense that some jackass on your team is running around trying to do some arbitrary task other than win the match.

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

Like the breakthroughs in leveling systems being more accessible to multiple play styles CoD4 offered?

Excuse me? Are you comparing Wolfenstein to CoD2 and Doom to CoD4?

Because Doom introduced moving platforms and non-parallel surfaces! It plays very differently from Wolftenstein, which features very "levelled" maps and the rooms are based in parallelograms.

Call of Duty 2 had a WW2 setting, CoD4 had a modern one. I don't see what you are getting at, since the engine did not introduce any significant change. Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein. The environment changed, not player capabilities. You are aware that at least half, maybe more, of the innovation credited to Doom was graphical innovation, right?

As well, if you go into the multiplayer mode, CoD4 offers a lot of changes and innovations not just over CoD2, but over the industry. As much as you personally may dislike Call of Duty's leveling system, it was a new leveling system. Until you can show me a game that pre-dates Call of Duty that uses their same leveling system, my point still stands uncontested.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

Finally, you yourself have admitted it was not the same leveling system. It was new and different regardless of whether you liked it or not.

Different? No. You hit score X, you get rank Y.

Call of Duty allows many more unlocks, yes. Doesn't mean that a ranking system works differently.

What are you basing this on? It is different than Battlefield 2's leveling system, you said so yourself when you were trying to show me how much "better" BF2's leveling system was. What game uses the same leveling system?

Or hell, you are straight up trying to say CoD4 had NO innovation yet you still haven't shown why.

lol?

I have retorted in any way possible.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics). Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics. An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.
Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.) Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

"The grenade launcher is just another weapon."
That utilizes gameplay mechanics of the combat model in order to fire and deal damage.

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

This is a design issue, its relevance to the mechanics is insignificant in this context. The fact is, the silencer has mechanics, it is not a mechanic of itself. Doesn't matter if there is a mechanic in the game to counter it or not, it is a mechanic all by itself.

It's not a design issue, if you worked hard for a silencer (now what I think of it, it wasn't that hard to get it) you deserve to have it's features enabled all the time.

However, how can it be a mechanic if it doesn't interact with anything else?

It interacts with the player value on enemy UAVs as well as the audio of other players. Additionally, a mechanic is not required to interact with anything in the game. Civilization has a throne room mechanic that in no way influences the game. Without the mechanics for it, there would be no way to implement it into the game.

You really need to understand the difference between a mechanic and a feature. I have been trying to explain it to you but perhaps you should try google. The end of your post was calling features mechanics. I have already covered all that so there is no point explaining it a million times in a post. Go read wikipedia or google some stuff on mechanics and features then try to convince the people that do this for a living that their terminology is wrong according to you..

 

[FalloutJack]

I was having a discussion with my friend about new releases, and i began to notice all the sequels and that fresh innovation in games was getting harder and harder to come by. Do you think as a gaming society we've peaked?

Trust me, we haven't peaked at anything. All the complaints prove this fact, not the contrary. There IS a better quality, it IS possible, and eventually SOMEONE will make it happen without executive meddling getting in the way.

 

[ElPatron]

Also, I have no clue what you are talking about as for achievements. I hope you aren't talking about achievements like "PS3 trophys".

No. I meant "achievements" like "achievements".

You know, the word that existed before "achievements" in gaming existed.

If so, what a ridiculous argument. Since when did achievements dictate the validity of a game design decision? Believe it or not many people don't put any merit behind arbitrary achievements in games. Many people don't care that there is an achievement for knifing 4 people in a row without dying.

Neither do it. Have you read my post?

Many even say it is a deterrent from playing well in the sense that some jackass on your team is running around trying to do some arbitrary task other than win the match.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

A'ight, I am going to ask you to quote those things because I am pretty sure I did not say anything like that.

My point is that you can complete the levelling without any skill, just play time.
BF2 requires certain "skill level" badges. I never said it was "superior", I was trying to imply that it makes more sense.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein.

You can't jump onto a platform while it is moving across the level, taking you to another floor in Wolftenstein.

Read my post, I explained why Doom was a breakthrough in terms of gameplay.

As well, if you go into the multiplayer mode, CoD4 offers a lot of changes and innovations not just over CoD2, but over the industry. As much as you personally may dislike Call of Duty's leveling system, it was a new leveling system. Until you can show me a game that pre-dates Call of Duty that uses their same leveling system, my point still stands uncontested.

Well, as I said, BF2 features the same system. Rack X points, get to level Y.

It just implemented "skill levels" so that people can't level up unless they are willing to play with more proficiency.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

If you read some previous posts, I already covered the "play style". It's entirely subjective, because the game allows you to play however you want.

It. Does. Not. Introduce. New. Play. Styles. They are all on your head.

And what does play styles have to do with mechanics? You're still racking kills by pressing mouse1 and moving around the map. Big deal. It's not the same as playing as an archer and then switching to warrior or a magician in a RPG.

What are you basing this on? It is different than Battlefield 2's leveling system, you said so yourself when you were trying to show me how much "better" BF2's leveling system was. What game uses the same leveling system?

Answered before. Quote that "HURR DURR ITS MACH BETTAR" that you claimed and you have a point.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

The video.
Your head.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics).

AHAHA, OH WOW.

Comparing video games with reality? Let me tell you, by that logic the silencers in the game have no baffles. Wait, the guns don't even spit gasses as supersonic velocities!

It's all a piece of code that makes them have a certain noise! Changing that code is not a mechanic because it did not involve any mechanical component.

Air conditioning is considered a feature on a car. However, that feature has mechanics.

You lost me there. Sound in games depends on coding.

Air conditioners require materials, fabrication, assembly and installation.
Reducing the sound is a matter of making the gun link to a different sound file.

An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

The sound mechanics would be broken, then. Get it?

Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.)

So your point is that we can have mechanics without being a feature? Because that's what I read.

If I haven't lost back there, I would lose now.

If the Harry Potter movies featured me in the background, nobody would announce me in the "featuring..." part of the credits. I would still be featured.

Doesn't MW2 feature the M4A1? It does.

Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

Because said mechanics already exist.

If your car's electronics supported A/C and you wanted to install one, you would not have to change it, right?

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

Did I say hitscan was not a mechanic?

It interacts with the player value on enemy UAVs as well as the audio of other players.

Well, the sound mechanics and the UAV detection are already a part of the game

Adding a silencer does not change anything about those mechanics, it only changes variables in the coding that allow you to hear shots and see UAVs.

A ghillie suit is also something that interacts with your visuals too, does it have a mechanic? No, it's aesthetic.

(don't bother saying that ghillie suits are a stealth mechanic or something, I will just ignore)

Additionally, a mechanic is not required to interact with anything in the game. Civilization has a throne room mechanic that in no way influences the game.

Then I can't explain why introduce a gameplay mechanic if it doesn't influence the game.

I don't play Civ so I can't tell.

 

[Savagezion]

You did prove my point by pointing out WHY BF2's leveling system is different but you still attest that it wasn't innovative because "You didn't like it, its dumb." Forget the millions that loved it.

A'ight, I am going to ask you to quote those things because I am pretty sure I did not say anything like that.

My point is that you can complete the levelling without any skill, just play time.
BF2 requires certain "skill level" badges. I never said it was "superior", I was trying to imply that it makes more sense.

Look, guy, at the underlined phrase. Implying it makes more sense is stating it is superior. Even if you are going to claim "no it doesn't" like a prideful dumbass, it does hold merit to it being better to YOU. Someone out there might think Call of Duty's "makes more sense". That is just as subjective as "better" or "worse". What you were implying was "it's nonsense" (aka dumb). Subtext guy, google that too if you are going to try and debate.

In BF2 all the "badges" you can earn are related to combat, capture or supporting your allies.

By doing them you are never letting your team down because you need to play like you are meant to.

The medic badges are earned by killing X people as a medic in one round. This would deter a medic player from healing players to get more kills to get the badge to achieve the next rank. Don't make shit up. I could list plenty of badges that do this.

Everything your character can do in Doom, you can do in Wolfenstein.

You can't jump onto a platform while it is moving across the level, taking you to another floor in Wolftenstein.

Read my post, I explained why Doom was a breakthrough in terms of gameplay.

Funny you left this part out of my quote:

The environment changed, not player capabilities.

Otherwise, I could argue that you can't crawl around after a nuclear bomb went off in CoD2. But how about I point out a player can't call in helicopters in a multiplayer match in Call of Duty 2. As well, they can't completely model their character's values around being better at knifing.

Well, as I said, BF2 features the same system. Rack X points, get to level Y.

No, you specifically went out of your way to bring up how badges "make more sense".

It just implemented "skill levels" so that people can't level up unless they are willing to play with more proficiency.

The removal of that and addition of challenges could be seen as innovation of that considering it is not the same system.

In Modern Warfare titles the classes you can create can be so different that they are basically all the same unless you are a sniper. But it plays the same way.

They can be so different they are the same? What are you even talking about. As well, running a silenced P90, using bandolier, Slight of hand, and Dead Silence is going to play differently than running an assault rifle with Bomb Squad, Stopping Power, and Deep Impact. Each are built around 2 completely different play styles.

If you read some previous posts, I already covered the "play style". It's entirely subjective, because the game allows you to play however you want.

It. Does. Not. Introduce. New. Play. Styles. They are all on your head.

Well, hell if I play a mage I could play where I just try to bash everything with my staff/wand. There's no point in trying to further dispute intentional ignorance due to arrogance.

And what does play styles have to do with mechanics? You're still racking kills by pressing mouse1 and moving around the map. Big deal. It's not the same as playing as an archer and then switching to warrior or a magician in a RPG.

That's because this is a FPS compared to an RPG, genius. Call of Duty 4 has more mechanics geared towards accenting your play style than any FPS before it.

The best I can gather from you posting that video is that you seem to think the only way you can innovate a first person shooter is to make changes to the running and shooting parts. How incredibly small minded of you. Way to completely disregard many people's accomplishments in the industry.

The video.
Your head.

By all means, don't try to use it to illustrate your point or anything. The subtext of your posts do imply what I posted about that video. Probably best to save face and act like I have some shortcoming than to admit you wandered into some simpleton logic.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Man, with statements like this I will probably only last through maybe one or two more of these posts. A device works because of the parts that make it work (aka mechanics).

AHAHA, OH WOW.

Comparing video games with reality?

Well, video games exist in reality.

It's all a piece of code that makes them have a certain noise! Changing that code is not a mechanic because it did not involve any mechanical component.

You are so smart. Do you think Unreal 3 is a tiny little combustion engine on your CD? An engine is a construction of code architecture. Many of those parts, if you break it down do parts that work, are referred to as mechanics of the engine.

An air conditioner can break because there is something wrong with the mechanics. The silencer could have a bug that makes it so that it doesn't hide you on the UAV, that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

The sound mechanics would be broken, then. Get it?

First off, not necessarily. I said the UAV. Second, do you mean:

that would be a broken/conflicting mechanic the silencer uses causing that.

Don't use what I already put as your argument you desperate guy. The least you could do is try be a bit more subtle about it.

As well, I said have already said about 3 times that the silencer is NOT a mechanic, it uses mechanics. You mocked that ideology and said the silencer is a feature in the game that incorporates no mechanics.
See below:

It the mechanic of the silencer. (The silencer isn't a mechanic, it is a feature in the game that uses a mechanic.)

Everything is a "mechanic" for you. The mechanic of tactical entry? The mechanic of Cpt. Price beating Al Assad? The mechanic of sudden explosions?

No.

It's a feature. Reduces sound. Makes blips on the UAV disappear when you shoot. That's not a mechanic.

Although, I gotta say here that calling a silencer a "feature" feels retarded. Usually, the term feature is used to talk about big things like a Multiplayer component, fully voiced dialogue, motion capture technology, etc. Sometimes it refers to a centric idea to a system or model in place. (Cover based shooting, Perk system, Leveling system, etc.)

So your point is that we can have mechanics without being a feature? Because that's what I read.

If I haven't lost back there, I would lose now.

If the Harry Potter movies featured me in the background, nobody would announce me in the "featuring..." part of the credits. I would still be featured.

Doesn't MW2 feature the M4A1? It does.

Yeah, it features it, which is why I am saying that it is a feature but usually the term feature is meant to describe large things that show the spirit behind a project. Putting "featuring silencers" on the cover of your game isn't going to mean squat to the consumer base as it doesn't tell you much about the game in its entirety. From that, you can't even tell what genre it is.
I am not saying the silencer isn't a feature, and never have, I am saying it feels retarded to call it one. It does have properties about how it functions and alters gameplay, aka mechanics.

Then to go on to say that features don't have mechanics is even more ludicrous.

Because said mechanics already exist.

Depends on circumstance and still irrelevant. The fact is all features use mechanics.

If your car's electronics supported A/C and you wanted to install one, you would not have to change it, right?

In the end, it is still using mechanics. Who cares if you change them or not? You seem to be forgetting that I never called silencers innovative. I merely said they had mechanics.

Haha, hitscan is a mechanic as is projectile hit detection. Google them. Hell, google game mechanic. Even Wikipedia would do you some good. Just learn a little bit about a topic before deciding to try and teach it.

Did I say hitscan was not a mechanic?

You mocked the idea hit detection in any form was a mechanic trying to dispute that grenade launchers don't use mechanics.
See below:

No. It is a impact detonating ballistic projectile (instead of a hitscan system) that basically works like a hand thrown grenade with higher initial velocity. Not a mechanic.

BTW, ghillie suits are an example of a feature that is merely the result of a mechanic that dresses the player according to primary weapon.