ElPatron said:
Savagezion said:
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.
Your only point is insulting me and make me look bad.
No, my point is your argument is a fallacy. Even if we set aside the leveling system, Call of Duty offers a perk system, killstreak rewards, and a new level of customization in general to FPS's.
Savagezion said:
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.
So the medic is not supposed to kill?
Yeah, that's what I claimed. I am talking about a medic running around worrying more about his kills than his support of the team. I am talking about a soldier getting himself killed worrying about knifing 4 people in a row more than his performance in the match.
Savagezion said:
The environment changed, not player capabilities.
I thought this was about the design changes and how differently the games played, not capabilities inherent to the player's movement coding.
Don't change your original intention when you're making a point. You're nearly contradicting yourself.
Nice try, but no I'm not. My point still holds valid to the comparison from CoD2 to BF2 multiplayer, and how CoD4's multiplayer plays different from both of those as well as any other FPS's while still maintaining admission to the FPS genre.
Your argument against how Call of Duty was the same because:
ElPatron said:
Everything your character can do in CoD4, you can do in CoD2.
Which is the same thing as Doom and Wolfenstein. Doom and Wolf differed for what the environment can do differently. Which, I am not disputing. I was pointing out that there was a flaw in the logic behind your argument. That statement is also false if you replace character you with player. My point was Doom didn't change any of the character values, which you were holding against CoD4 despite perks do in fact change character values.
It is the same system.
Different coding, same way of doing things and same results.
By that logic every leveling system out there is all the same and it is impossible to innovate a leveling system.
Savagezion said:
intentional ignorance due to arrogance.
More insults.
That is another way to phrase "playing stupid", not an insult. The closest thing to an insult that is even in there is the term arrogance as that is merely my conjecture based on the subtext of your posts as to why you would.
Also, don't act like your posts have been devoid of any similar implications.
Savagezion said:
That's because this is a FPS compared to an RPG, genius.
TF2 is a FPS.
Eternal Silence is a FPS.
Aliens vs Predator is a FPS.
Natural Selection 2.
Tremulous.
Enemy Territory: Wolfenstein.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.
None of them are RPGs.
Well, then why are YOU comparing them to RPGs? Those still use mouse1 to kill and and moving around the map. They don't back up your point.
ElPatron said:
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 is the quote I was referring to in the statement you quoted to me. If I have to keep re-quoting your own stuff so that you can follow your half of the conversation, its about time for me to just have to bow out. Like I said, your argument is too scattered and you seem not to know what you are even talking about. You used so many strawmans and red herrings that you actually got lost in your own argument. THAT is funny.
Savagezion said:
act like I have some shortcoming than to admit you wandered into some simpleton logic.
Watch that video imagining the Germans are dressed with modern military attires and the guns are also modern. That's the point.
Oh OK, gotcha. So your point is that:
Savagezion said:
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.
Yeah, I was right the first time. Just state your damn point. Because that is the point I am getting out of it. You are not illustrating it well. There is more to CoD4 than just the run and shoot part. The run and shoot part is altered by the character build part. Saying it uses the same basic combat model design doesn't rule out all other innovations.
Savagezion said:
Well, video games exist in reality.
Is that an excuse to justify your point?
In real life, the silencer used in games is a simple tube.
No it isn't, it's a line of code that uses software to illustrate a 3D model shaped like a simple tube. If you are going to try and point out a strawman fallacy, it is best you don't do it yourself.
Savagezion said:
You are so smart. Do you think Unreal 3 is a tiny little combustion engine on your CD?
Apparently, you do.
Really? I ain't the one saying that it is a fallacy to refer to the idea of software mechanics being compared to mechanical components of simple and complex machinery. (Where the term software mechanic gets its name)
You are the one saying that.
Savagezion said:
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.
Nice one. Again, you dropped your original point to come back at me with things I never said.
Dude, I have yet to drop a point. You keep shifting around on your views and I have to keep using new examples to illustrate my point to lure you back to the main point off of your little strawman arguments. You get so off base sometimes, the whole discussion becomes irrelevant as it is nothing more than you trying to make me defend a strawman.
Savagezion said:
usually the term feature is meant to describe large things that show the spirit behind a project.
It is. But that doesn't mean we have to ditch the original meaning of a word and speak the dialect of "marketing".
Like that. If you are going to have a discussion, the best way to do it is to use terms for how they are normally received by society, or at least acknowledge that terminology (which I practically had to force you to do), and not your own arbitrarily biased terminology for the word. Weapon attachments are a feature, not THE silencer. In games, not just marketing, features are meant to describe ideas behind design. You have been trying to isolate as many things as you can for the sake of individual strawman arguments and red herrings. That is how you have been dodging discussing killstreaks and perks all together.
You took the leveling system and broke it down to be able to remove anything that didn't suit your argument and used the rest for strawmen and red herrings to invalidate the
entire system. You took weapon attachments and isolated them, actually stating the silencer was an "isolated" feature:
ElPatron said:
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 all despite the fact that I never said weapon attachments were innovative. Just because you are going to throw out red herrings and chase them down doesn't mean I am going to go after them with you.
Savagezion said:
Depends on circumstance and still irrelevant. The fact is all features use mechanics.
But it is not a mechanic of itself.
Did you read the first post I talked about silencers?
I have read, weighed, and remembered everything you have posted. (That's how I am able to bring you back to the subject with your own posts) This is a red herring, I am done entertaining the notion of you chasing them down. I am not stating you are right, but imagine I did here, for the sake of argument. Do you even know what that would prove? Nothing.
Savagezion said:
trying to dispute that grenade launchers don't use mechanics.
I said, GL is not a mechanic by itself. It makes use of gravity, which is already coded in the engine.
Like semtex. The grenade throwing "mechanic" is already there. It just sticks to whatever it hit, that is a feature unique to it.
The same way that recoil is coded to weapons, having a different pattern is a certain gun is not a mechanic. Balancing the weapons to create a combat system is a mechanic. That was present in every CoD in existence.
You know what, I will give it to you just for that quote. OK, so, now that I stand by that quotation, what's your point? How does this prove merit to any other argument that
disputes Call of Duty as innovative? I want to see if you can find your way back from this red herring. You ventured way out there for this one. Should be fun to illustrate how pointless this discussion was.
