Hell, I vote we call Halo and its descedents (which includes CoD in its current form) turdwaffles, and call games like Serious Sam and other old style shooters "Fucking Awesome." Because they are.Zachary Amaranth said:
Poll: So...Spunkgargleweewee. Does it need broader terming?
- Thread starter Sir Shockwave
- Start date
It should not be used at all because it is a stupid and insulting term that does nothing but play into people's ridiculous notion of superiority based on what video games they play.
I imagine the guy getting paid to talk probably has a better understanding of what he needs to do to get taken seriously.poiumty said:
Not that I think everyone should act like him, I just mean he's someone everyone knows, so he's obviously doing something correct.
May I ask what issue you take with the term spectacle fighter? It is obvious that spunk gargle wee wee was a joke and a shot at modern military shooters, but I actually find spectacle fighter to be a descriptive, nonoffensive, and useful term. Some games are all about the spectacle of the combat just as some movies are, and I actually find his term for them to be useful.krazykidd said:
I'm certain it's going to blow over eventually. Sort of like "Spectacle Fighters". Never heard that catch on and be used today, Yahtzee will forget about it, and so will the parrots.
Though I think it's stupid, It would be nice if it was broadened a bit until the term can go die in a ditch and never be looked at again goes away. Remembering correctly it was for "Realistic Shooters" so COD, GOW, all those things (as far as I'm concerned Halo belongs too but whatever) are classified as it.
Note: Even IF he DID mean it seriously, It was only because people kept saying he doesn't like shooters.
Though I think it's stupid, It would be nice if it was broadened a bit until the term can go die in a ditch and never be looked at again goes away. Remembering correctly it was for "Realistic Shooters" so COD, GOW, all those things (as far as I'm concerned Halo belongs too but whatever) are classified as it.
Note: Even IF he DID mean it seriously, It was only because people kept saying he doesn't like shooters.
I don't think it's quite fair to call Halo a spunkgargleweewee: it uses the full color spectrum, has open arenas for combat, doesn't REQUIRE the use of cover, and has varied enemies.
Well, his term Spectacle Fighter kinda stuck... though that was less of a joke, it fit much better with the type of games he attributed it to. (Bayonetta, Bulletstorm, Madworld...)King Billi said:
Well that's the crucial difference isn't it. "Spectacle Fighter" is at least somewhat descriptive of the kind of games it's referring to and is not just a stupid insult designed to denigrate something one dosen't like.HeWhoFightsBosses said:
Well, thus far it has been used to describe games that copy the Call of Duty model of corridor shooter with pretensions towards realism. I see no conflict in definition that implies the need for a rewrite.
I have to assume that when you refer to the spectacle shooter you mean call of duty and those that emulate it. Of course, there is a fundamental problem with this franchise. For starters, it doesn't really seem like it wants me to actually participate. Huge sequences of Call of Duty are scripted and many that are not require no interaction from the player. Indeed, the most the franchise has ever asked is that I move to the next star on the map though modern iterations replace that star and map system with a cursor over a head.Winthrop said:
Beyond that, the problem is that the participation the game does allow me is cursory at best. No maneuver is necessary. No clever plan. Just left-trigger, right-trigger, right stick forward until victory is assured. Thus my problem with the "spectacle shooter" is clear - the game everything in it's power to make my participation cursory.