review by steamed not fried

[steamednotfried]

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them. That?s what makes a game, and that?s what Call of Duty is lacking, in the single player at least. A game can be better or worse depending on mainly on the level of interest in the purpose that entails from trying to meet that goal, but to fail to set these up in the first place is unacceptable.

When I?m playing a team deathmatch on the multiplayer mode, and a situation arises where each team ends up united on opposite sides of a building or something like this; each team lined up, gradually wearing down the oppositions front, trying to break through to the area in which they are re-spawning, so that they can kill some isolated folk while they try to return to the action; before the spawn points swap sides as your team moves into the other side of the map; I love it (excuse the ridiculously long and complex sentence). The thing about this, is that everyone understands their position; they understand that at any time there are a certain number of players on each team and that they are aiming to kill as many as possible while preventing the other team from doing the same. They understand that they and the other players can move about on the map as they please, and that at any time, they might get shot by a crafty fellow using a silencer, who has managed to flank your team. You understand that you need to take certain risks in order to get into the action and get kills for yourself. You know that every player will respawn every time they die, until the score or time limit is reached, and that the enemy will usually spawn in an area which isn?t occupied by your team, as far as this is possible.

No such system is clear while playing the single player portion of COD. As you?re shooting enemy soldiers on the opposite side of a wide road from a balcony on the first floor, what is your goal? What do you have to do in order to reach your goal? What do you have to be weary of? You don?t know, and as you sit there shooting from the balcony, you feel that you are wasting your time. What you are doing is aimless. Do I need to be careful not to be shot? Yes, sometimes; every now and again some enemy soldiers might focus on you for a little while, in which time you basically have to lay low, and then they will leave you to sit in the open picking off enemies for what it?s worth. But when do they shoot you? The truth is that only the programmer knows, but it doesn?t seem to have much to do with your own actions, nor does it make any particular sense from their perspective and it doesn?t feel at all life-like how they target you for a few seconds and then let you pick them off at will. In multiplayer you know that an enemy will kill you if they get the chance, and unless you have an incredibly well concealed position, you will not be able to set up camp in the middle of a firefight and expect to get many kills before biting the bullet yourself.

And what are you trying to do when your sitting up there on the balcony in single player? Look at what the game is communicating to you through the visuals: you are a soldier in a firefight against some enemy soldiers held up in a building opposite. What would you do in this situation in real life? It would probably involve attempting to immerse yourself in cover while leaning out and shooting until there was no one left to shoot. But the enemies respawn. So what?s this bloody game expecting me to do then? I guess there?s gonna be some invisible boundary to cross which will trigger them to stop respawning and my allies to push up and tell me what to do next. Game, this would be fine if you just told me that was going on and treated me with some respect, but now I feel I don?t know where I stand in this game world. Everytime now you present me with enemies to kill, I will not trust that my killing them has any effect on my progress. But I do not know where the invisible trigger is to stop them. Maybe it?s in their direction, but then when am I expected to move to it? How will I know when there is a lull in their spawning enough for me to get there without being shot? And meanwhile I?m supposed to just sit there pointlessly picking off enemies like a jackass while a wait for this lull? For God sake game, you shouldn?t expect me time and time again to just walk into the unknown, where just a few seconds ago there were respawning enemies, and where there isn?t even any decent cover for me to get to, when you haven?t even told me that this is what I am supposed to do! Who does that? Whose natural instinct is to do that? And why is it always me who has to lead the line? It may sound stupid, but no matter how often it is the case, I always feel that this time, the game will tell me what to do; I won?t have to work it out for myself at the risk of my life. The whole game you?re being barked at by superiors fighting along side you, but you expect me to take the initiative to move forward while you guys cower behind a low wall as if expecting more enemies any moment now.

When you are moving forward, what approach should you be taking? In multiplayer, you are usually taking the approach which knows that you could be shot at any time. In this game however, you know that there is a large portion of time when there is no chance of being shot, because of the way it is scripted, but you don?t know when that period is. You feel silly moving cautiously the whole time, but in reality, you know that when your commander tells you to move up to that wall, when there is a machine gun nest firing on your position, it is programmed not to kill you. But then sometimes you are walking along in what you thought the game made clear was down time, in which you are simply moving from one big encounter to the next, and suddenly you?re being shot properly. You beg it to just law down the laws once and for all. It?s a mess I tell you, a mess.

Now imagine this game positions you on a yet higher balcony and instructs you to provide covering sniper fire for your advancing ground troops below. Are you going to take it seriously? What are the rules I ask. Is it scripted? In which case I might as well not fire a single shot. Do I have to kill a certain number of enemies before we are able to progress? Surely you?re not going to tell me that each soldier is controlled by dynamic AI and that the battle could go any number of ways, lending the player realistic agency as a sniper in this game world? What a crime it would be to craft such a valuable system and then dump it in the middle of a game in which we would least expect it, without even telling us, that we may appreciate it.

All in all, I?m left thinking that these games are designed for idiots who cannot begin to work out how a system works, and so they just do what they think they should do based on it being a fully functional dynamic, life like system, and get impressed by what happens. When enemies are respawning, they just think that there are that many enemies, and when the accidently cross that invisible trigger and the enemies stopped, it wasn?t because they triggered it, that was just the last of their supply. This is what the game wants you to think. This is why they don?t tell you about these triggers, they hope they have made it well enough to fool little Jimmy into thinking that these events are occurring naturally. Evidently by the praise of at least COD4?s single player, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The only complaint among most reviewers was that it ended too quickly. But to those of us with an eye for the workings of systems, it is wildly disrespectful.

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them.
Tell us what we are meant to do for god sake. Just stick a load of enemies in a big fortified building, us in a trench network near the foot of the building, tell us what we need to do, and leave us to it.

 

[D_987]

Wow...what a terrible "review" - not only is the reader not even told until the second line what game you reviewing until the last paragraph. ((This is a major flaw in this "review).

But you also claim to not know what to do despite the MASSIVE amount of instructions given to you in the game. Further, you claim the AI is poor (when it takes cover and can deal a large amount of damage on higher difficulties).

You then claim "idiots" like the game, despite your obvious lack of intelligence - as you cannot follow the story and claim that the single player of a game should be similar to a team deathmatch multiplayer game (what?).

Enough with the awful game design critiques - they are flawed because you seem to think gamers have no intelligence and need to be told exactly where to go and what to do all the time.

Why do you even bother writing these reviews when your opinions are so flawed. From the first sentence I could tel it was going to be bad - your "reviews" always are, but the line:

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them. That's what makes a game

Call of Duty gives you a wealth of information - it makes me wonder if you even played the game...you are told where to go, what to do and how to do it, yet you fail to realize this...not to mention the absence of graphics, sound, story or any part of the design process besides gameplay - are you sure you are fully aware of the design process...

But to those of us with an eye for the workings of systems, it is wildly disrespectful.

What do you mean "us", it doesn't appear you know how to design a game, let alone one as high selling as Call of Duty 4 (which is the main objective in this era of gaming)...

EDIT : Having read it again I guess it is overly hostile and needlessly agressive - I'm not going to edit it, especially as I have been quoted below - even if it is out of context, but I am aware (mods) that I might be in the wrong but theres no need for the ban-hammer (happened before!).

 

[mjhhiv]

-snip-

I agree. There are many things that steamednotfried can do to improve his review and writing skills. But it seems like you aren't even out to help him, just to attack his review. The goal in criticizing is to help. You could have made your point without all of the bashing and finger pointing.

 

[D_987]

-snip-

I agree. There are many things that steamednotfried can do to improve his review and writing skills. But it seems like you aren't even out to help him, just to attack his review. The goal in criticizing is to help. You could have made your point without all of the bashing and finger pointing.

If you find his Metal Gear Solid or Halo reviews you'll see why I am done trying to help him. He doesn't listen to constructive criticism - last time people posted exactly how he needed to become a better reviewer and he has obviously ignored it. I think he is deliberately insulting popular games to get more views as opposed to actually trying to write decent reviews. Hence why it is easier, quicker and more effective to just explain "Your wrong for these reasons".

EDIT : Having read it again I guess it is overly hostile and needlessly agressive - I'm not going to edit it, especially as I have been quoted below, but I am aware (mods) that I might be in the wrong.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

(Opening footnote to say that simply stating "This is a review" does us little good if we don't know what you're reviewing. You could very easily be reviewing a "Pilot Precise V5 RollingBall Pen", or even a Nabokov's "Lolita". I'd suggest putting the title of the game into the title line.)

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them. (This strikes me as an unnecessary sentence fragment.) That's what makes a game, and that's what Call of Duty (4?) is lacking, in the single player at least. A game can be better or worse depending on mainly on the level of interest in the purpose that entails from trying to meet that goals, and to failing to set these up in the first place is unacceptable.

When I'm playing a team deathmatch on the multiplayer mode, and a situation arises where each team ends up united on opposite sides of a building. or something like this; Each team lined up, gradually wearing down the opposition's front, trying to break through to the area in which they are re-spawning, so that they can to kill some isolated folk while they try to return to the action. Until before the spawn points swap sides as your team moves into the other side of the map. I love it (The map? The fact that the players never learn? The concept? Pronouns can get hazy when you start talking about a lot at once.) (excuse the ridiculously long and complex sentence). The thing about this is that everyone understands their position; they understand that at any time there are a certain number of players on each team and that they are aiming to kill as many as possible while preventing the other team from doing the same. They understand that they and the other players can move about on the map as they please. and that At any time, they might get shot by a crafty fellow using a silencer, who has managed to flank them your team. (You switched from first-person to second.) You understand that you need to take certain risks in order to get into the action and get kills for yourself. You know that every player will respawn every time they die, until the score or time limit is reached, and that the enemy will usually spawn in an area which isn't occupied by your team, as far as this is possible.

No such system is clear while playing the single player portion of COD. As you're shooting enemy soldiers on the opposite side of a wide road from a balcony on the first floor, what is your goal? What do you have to do in order to reach your goal? What do you have to be weary of? You don't know, and as you sit there shooting from the balcony, you feel that you are wasting your time. (Do I really? Or is that how you feel?) What you are doing is aimless. Do I need to be careful not to be shot? Yes, sometimes. Every now and again some enemy soldiers might focus on you for a little while, in which time when you basically have to lay low. and Then they will leave you to sit in the open picking off enemies for what it's worth. But When do they shoot you? The truth is that only the programmer knows, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with your own actions, nor does it make any particular sense from their perspective. and It doesn't feel at all life-like how they target you for a few seconds and then let you pick them off at will. In multiplayer you know that an enemy will kill you if they get the chance, and unless you have an incredibly well concealed position, you will not be able to set up camp in the middle of a firefight and expect to get many kills before biting the bullet yourself.

And what are you trying to do when your sitting up there on the balcony in single player? Look at what the game is communicating to you through the visuals: you are a soldier in a firefight against some enemy soldiers held up in a building opposite. What would you do in this situation in real life? It would probably involve attempting to immersing yourself in cover while leaning out and shooting until there was no one left to shoot. But the enemies respawn. So what's this bloody game expecting me to do then? I guess there's gonna be some invisible boundary to cross which will trigger them to stop respawning and my allies to push up and tell me what to do next. Game, this would be fine if you just told me that was going on and treated me with some respect, but now I feel I don't know where I stand in this game world. Every time now you present me with enemies to kill, I will not trust that my killing them has any effect on my progress. But I do not know where the invisible trigger is to stop them. Maybe it's in their direction, but then when am I expected to move to it? How will I know when there is a lull in their spawning enough for me to get there without being shot? And Meanwhile I'm supposed to just sit there pointlessly picking off enemies like a jackass while a wait for this lull? For God sake game, you shouldn't expect me time and time again to just walk into the unknown where just a few seconds ago there were respawning enemies. and where There isn't even any decent cover for me to get to. when You haven't even told me that this is what I am supposed to do? Who does that? Whose natural instinct is to do that? And Why is it always me who has to lead the line? It may sound stupid, but no matter how often it is the case, I always feel that this time the game will tell me what to do. I won't have to work it out for myself at the risk of my life. The whole game you're being barked at by superiors fighting alongside you, but you're expected me to take the initiative to move forward while you guys allies cower behind a low wall as if expecting more enemies any moment now.

When you are moving forward, what approach should you be taking? In multiplayer, you are usually taking the approach which knows that you could be shot at any time. In this game however, you know that there is a large portion of time when there is no chance of being shot. Because of the way it is scripted, but you don't know when that period is. You feel silly moving cautiously the whole time. but In reality, you know that when your commander tells you to move up to that wall, when there is a machine gun nest firing on your position. It is programmed not to kill you. (Is it really?) But then Sometimes you are walking along in what you thought the game made clear was down time, in which you are simply moving from one big encounter to the next, and suddenly you're being shot properly. You beg it to just law down the laws once and for all. It's a mess I tell you, a mess.

Now imagine this game positions you on a yet higher balcony and instructs you to provide covering sniper fire for your advancing ground troops below. Are you going to take it seriously? What are the rules I ask. Is it scripted? In which case I might as well not fire a single shot. Do I have to kill a certain number of enemies before we are able to progress? Surely you're not going to tell me that each soldier is controlled by dynamic AI and that the battle could go any number of ways, lending the player realistic agency as a sniper in this game world? What a crime it would be to craft such a valuable system and then dump it in the middle of a game in which we would least expect it without even telling us, so that we may appreciate it.

All in all, I'm left thinking that these games are designed for idiots who cannot begin to work out how a system works. and So they just do what they think they should do based on it being a fully functional dynamic and life like system, and getting impressed by what happens. When enemies are respawning, they just think that there are that many enemies, and when the accidentally cross that invisible trigger and the enemies stopped. It wasn't because they triggered it, that was just the last of the enemy's supply. This is what the game wants you to think. (Really? That's exactly what the programmers had in mind?) This is why they don't tell you about these triggers, they hope they have made it well enough to fool little Jimmy into thinking that these events are occurring naturally. (Because "little" Jimmy should be playing an M/18+ title...) Evidently, by the praise of at least COD4's single player, they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The only complaint among most reviewers was that it ended too quickly. But To those of us with an eye for the workings of systems, it is wildly disrespectful.

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them.
Tell us what we are meant to do for god sake. Just stick a load of enemies in a big fortified building, us in a trench network near the foot of the building, tell us what we need to do, and leave us to it.

For starters, you still have a problem with unnecessary phrases "that which is to say" is completely unnecessary. Remember that lopping off superfluous phrases makes your writing both more clear and more strongly-worded. Primarily, this would fall under "Principles of Composition - Use Active Voice", found here [http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#11]. While on the topic of grammar, you have a horrible problem with run-on sentences. Remember that not all thoughts need to be interconnected. If a period were to end a thought completely, it would be a paragraph break. As well as that, do not begin so many sentences with "And", "But", and "Or".

You switch tenses occasionally, and it detracts from the clarity of what you're trying to say. Your points often appear hazy because they are not written well. Remember that pronouns must have clear identities, and the tense used is absolutely pivotal. Second-person is the most difficult tense to write for, because anything the reader disagrees with will cause the immersion to be ruined and earn responses like D_987's.

On that note, your biggest problem conveying your message is that you think orange to everyone else's apple. That's not to say you or we are wrong, just that we have different thought-patterns. Unless I am thinking specifically that I am playing a video game, I will not think about the designers, artists, producers, or publishers. I'll let myself be immersed by the game. You seem to have a trouble dividing your understanding of design principles with the media's design choices.

Wow...what a terrible "review" ... You then claim "idiots" like the game, despite your obvious lack of intelligence ... Enough with the awful game design critiques ... Why do you even bother writing these reviews when your opinions are so flawed. ... it doesn't appear you know how to design a game, let alone one as high selling as Call of Duty 4

I'd like to take the last leg of this post to point out the problems with your critiques. Though I am no moderator, nor am I in any way affiliated with the staff, I feel it is important for this to be repeated.

According to Joe: "Keep your criticism constructive."

 

[steamednotfried]

quote]

Thanks for your thoughts. NewClassic, I might read that essay sometime in the near future, thaks again for all your effort. I certainly do seem to be working in a different way from the majority, which is why I often find games which most people love, completely intolerable. But if it has something to do with our will to be immersed in the games we play, then it would seem that my position is the better one. We shouldn't just let our selves be immersed in everything that is thrust upon us, this can't be to good for our mental health. As Jonathan Blow says, most games have little to no artistic value, and to spend time with them is to waste it. They are drugs which give willing players hits which have no benefit for them in the long term.

However, in response to D_987, I am open to the possibility that this is not wholly one of these mindless games, and that my problems with the single player are down to my lack of concentration. Therefore, later today when I have some time, I will play through 1 short section of one of the games, and note down precisely what I find to be wrong with it, then we can compare experiences.

 

[D_987]

However, in response to D_987, I am open to the possibility that this is not wholly one of these mindless games, and that my problems with the single player are down to my lack of concentration. Therefore, later today when I have some time, I will play through 1 short section of one of the games, and note down precisely what I find to be wrong with it, then we can compare experiences.

The fact of the matter is - you claim that all games should be a work of art - and quoting Blow, a man who has done noting but insult the industry since he made Baird, admittedly a decent game, is a little crude. Do you regard Braid as a work of art, the fact is you claim the majority of games are mindless, but you fail to grasp the concept of...fun.

Maybe the idea is just too difficult to grasp for you - after all, every review I've read from you involves some form of whining about gameplay mechanics with complete disregard to the story, the music, the graphics or any other side of the experience - because gaming is an experience, a pastime - you wouldn't go see a film and focus your review 100% on the acting talent of the cast - you'd take into account the story, the music, the special effects. So why follow your method of strictly reviewing a games gameplay - especially when said gameplay comes down to personal skill and taste.

The simple answer is - you can't. The idea of games is to have fun - they are a hobby, a pastime, a way of escapism - your looking at them too objectively. COD4 won prestige through a cinematic storyline (ignored in your review), great graphics for the time (ignored), fun gameplay mechanics that forced to player to constantly moved (moaned at for being to "unrealistic" - when games are not meant to be 100% realistic - I'm surprised you didn't cry foul at the fact you have regenerating health) and some outstanding set-pieces (ignored).

A review should, ultimately, give the reader an understanding of the game and inform them of your opinion - you did not do this - you simply claimed the gameplay mechanics did not give you an aim, despite that little yellow circle underneath your screen showing you exactly where you have to go.

I do not wish to "compare notes" on a fraction of a game because I find your viewpoints so woefully out of touch with mine (you seem to think every game should be chess, as opposed to an experience following a plot) that doing so would be pointless. Also, cut the elitism - your work stinks of "People are idiots if they don't like exactly what I like". Its nonsense.

 

[steamednotfried]

However, in response to D_987, I am open to the possibility that this is not wholly one of these mindless games, and that my problems with the single player are down to my lack of concentration. Therefore, later today when I have some time, I will play through 1 short section of one of the games, and note down precisely what I find to be wrong with it, then we can compare experiences.

The fact of the matter is - you claim that all games should be a work of art - and quoting Blow, a man who has done noting but insult the industry since he made Baird, admittedly a decent game, is a little crude. Do you regard Braid as a work of art, the fact is you claim the majority of games are mindless, but you fail to grasp the concept of...fun.

Maybe the idea is just too difficult to grasp for you - after all, every review I've read from you involves some form of whining about gameplay mechanics with complete disregard to the story, the music, the graphics or any other side of the experience - because gaming is an experience, a pastime - you wouldn't go see a film and focus your review 100% on the acting talent of the cast - you'd take into account the story, the music, the special effects. So why follow your method of strictly reviewing a games gameplay - especially when said gameplay comes down to personal skill and taste.

The simple answer is - you can't. The idea of games is to have fun - they are a hobby, a pastime, a way of escapism - your looking at them too objectively. COD4 won prestige through a cinematic storyline (ignored in your review), great graphics for the time (ignored), fun gameplay mechanics that forced to player to constantly moved (moaned at for being to "unrealistic" - when games are not meant to be 100% realistic - I'm surprised you didn't cry foul at the fact you have regenerating health) and some outstanding set-pieces (ignored).

A review should, ultimately, give the reader an understanding of the game and inform them of your opinion - you did not do this - you simply claimed the gameplay mechanics did not give you an aim, despite that little yellow circle underneath your screen showing you exactly where you have to go.

I do not wish to "compare notes" on a fraction of a game because I find your viewpoints so woefully out of touch with mine (you seem to think every game should be chess, as opposed to an experience following a plot) that doing so would be pointless. Also, cut the elitism - your work stinks of "People are idiots if they don't like exactly what I like". Its nonsense.

Ok this is a complete load of bullshit, and for once I am going to explain why. Firstly, yes I do think that all games should be a work of art, but I have a very broad definition of art. Art, as far as I can see, is about isolating parts of the real world and arranging them such that we may gain insight into them, or experience them in a more vivid way. If you would care to read my essay in which i try to work out how the videogame medium works, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.76573#910841 you will see that a game creates an abstracted world which is experienced by the player in a way which is most true to our experience of real life, in relation to the other arts. I have absolutely nothing against a game which is fun. If a game is fun, this simply means that a part of the world which we experience as fun has been well crafted by the developer.

It's true that i don't mention anything else but the gameplay, but this is the backbone of a videogame. the gameplay is the system which operates, the geometry of a level, the time that passes, the goal of the player, the means and problems involved with completeing it. If this isn't any good, then the game as a whole won't be any good. If there is a good story and good visuals and so on, they will still be of value, but they will only be hampered by the fact that they are in a game.

It is rediculous to say that games are a hobby and a pastime just because that is your use for them.

I do not think that games need to be realistic. What I was saying was that since I was given no clear goal, all I had to go by was what was presented to me in the visuals. But this approach would get me no where because of the secret trigger which would make the game progress. There is of course no reason someone would naturally think to go to that position appart from by accident, so the game should have told me that that was my aim. Infact this could be quite an interesting mechanic, the player having to push up to a certain point while the enemies constantly respawn, if only they made it clear or even simply kept it consistant.

Regenerating health is a very clever mechanic which allows the player to be in constant danger of being killed with a couple of shots, but keeps it precisely there: a couple of shots (or wherever that particular game wants it to be).

Yes there is a little yellow circle telling you where to go, but this is always there, you don't know when you are supposed to move there. Are the enemies respawning? in which case I need to get there now, or is the game expecting me to kill all the unspawning enemies first before moving in? Also, you don't know exactly where it is or what the situation is going to be when you get there. If the yellow circle is somewhere inside the building where the enemies are respawning, what is the game expecting me to do? Am i supposed to just run up to the building and shoot the people inside? When will they stop respawning? If they are still respawning when I am inside the building that I will be in a very precarious position. It's a mess.

 

[D_987]

Ok this is a complete load of bullshit, and for once I am going to explain why. Firstly, yes I do think that all games should be a work of art, but I have a very broad definition of art. Art, as far as I can see, is about isolating parts of the real world and arranging them such that we may gain insight into them, or experience them in a more vivid way. If you would care to read my essay in which i try to work out how the videogame medium works, http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.76573#910841 you will see that a game creates an abstracted world which is experienced by the player in a way which is most true to our experience of real life, in relation to the other arts. I have absolutely nothing against a game which is fun. If a game is fun, this simply means that a part of the world which we experience as fun has been well crafted by the developer.

This paragraph is meaningless because everyone has a different interpretation of "fun", the thing about your writing, and the reason I along with many other readers dislike your works is because, quite frankly, your a fool. Not unintelligent, but a fool who is to proud to consider anyone else's opinion as valid. Time and time again I've seen you dismiss other peoples opinions as "idiotic" without first considering, not only their points, but also the fact that they see you in a negative light. I did not, and shall not, read your meaningless essay on how you interpret the video-game industry - I know, to a certain extent, how the industry works - it is you who appears not to, hence my original disgust at your claim you understood exactly how games are created and that your ideas are correct. You need to stop being so arrogant - the vast majority don't agree with you - and with good reason.

It's true that i don't mention anything else but the gameplay, but this is the backbone of a video game. the gameplay is the system which operates, the geometry of a level, the time that passes, the goal of the player, the means and problems involved with completing it. If this isn't any good, then the game as a whole won't be any good. If there is a good story and good visuals and so on, they will still be of value, but they will only be hampered by the fact that they are in a game.

Now here is what I don't understand about your views - the game is about the experience, not the gameplay alone, yes its the most important part of the game. BUT, and heres yet another idea you fail to grasp - they are down to interpretation. If you don't like a games art style, well theres usually a variety of different areas to explore, don't like a certain musical score - it won't be on for very long. But focusing entirely on gameplay is foolish as controls, the way the game feels - is completely subjective. The fact you describe this in a tone that suggests your very subjective opinion is 100% accurate and claiming that the game was made for "idiots" just increases the amount of hostility towards your reviews.

In my honest opinion I don't think the vast majority read your Halo review, they read the idiotic title (seriously how pretentious do you have to be to claim your review is intelligent in the title - I can't see how anyone but the most insecure of writers would do that) and possibly the first paragraph before posting a simple "great review" and left feeling pleased with themselves. Those that read and created constructive criticism were ignored by you as you appear unable to take constructive criticism.

It is ridiculous to say that games are a hobby and a pastime just because that is your use for them.

OK, yes people earn a living off games - but at the end of the day they are forms of entertainment, nothing more. I don't consider them art forms in the same way I don't consider movies art. Its subjective.

I do not think that games need to be realistic. What I was saying was that since I was given no clear goal, all I had to go by was what was presented to me in the visuals. But this approach would get me no where because of the secret trigger which would make the game progress. There is of course no reason someone would naturally think to go to that position apart from by accident, so the game should have told me that that was my aim. In fact this could be quite an interesting mechanic, the player having to push up to a certain point while the enemies constantly re spawn, if only they made it clear or even simply kept it consistent.

Well I'm sorry you thought so hard about the respawning enemies - the millions of other players and I were to busy have fun to waste time writing a meaningless essay on the subject. This mechanic has been used in all Call of Duty games to force the user into playing a certain way. Its not the readers fault if they know more about the series than the writer. Just enjoy the game instead of nit-picking such a meaningless and subjective area. Especially when this mechanics differentiates the series from other shooters.

Yes there is a little yellow circle telling you where to go, but this is always there, you don't know when you are supposed to move there. Are the enemies respawning? in which case I need to get there now, or is the game expecting me to kill all the unspawning enemies first before moving in? Also, you don't know exactly where it is or what the situation is going to be when you get there. If the yellow circle is somewhere inside the building where the enemies are respawning, what is the game expecting me to do? Am i supposed to just run up to the building and shoot the people inside? When will they stop respawning? If they are still respawning when I am inside the building that I will be in a very precarious position. It's a mess.

See above, the fact is - if the game was consistent it would be boring, you would just use the same tactics over and over, but the consistent changes between infinite and finite enemies makes for a more engaging experience.

Note : I took the liberty of changing a few spelling errors in your quotes.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

NewClassic, I might read that essay sometime in the near future, thanks again for all your effort. I certainly do seem to be working in a different way from the majority, which is why I often find games which most people love, completely intolerable. But if it has something to do with our will to be immersed in the games we play, then it would seem that my position is the better one. We shouldn't just let our selves be immersed in everything that is thrust upon us, this can't be to good for our mental health. As Jonathan Blow says, most games have little to no artistic value, and to spend time with them is to waste it. They are drugs which give willing players hits which have no benefit for them in the long term.

My first thought on reading this is an Oscar Wilde quote. Most specifically, this one: Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

I feel like this highlights my statement more capably than any other phrase I could invent. The process of immersion itself is no more or less taxing on the mind than any other form of disbelief-suspending medium. Though I'm rather curious as to how you approach this concept in your own mind, as I have no grounds on which to compare your thought processes with mine.

Asking yourself to immerse yourself in a game does not require that you literally step into the role of every character, but rather you empathize with the world rather than examine it's making. To compare an equivalent, you're going to a movie paying careful attention to the character make-up and method of direction, or reading a book while carefully considering how the publisher bound the book, or what style of ink the letters are printed with. Simply put, it seems to me like you play games to examine the gears instead of playing the game itself.

As much as I enjoy a good thorough examination, your approach to gaming seems entirely of an analytical standpoint. You feel no empathy for the characters, feel no reality from the world, and everything exists as a set piece to the medium instead of using it as a form of entertainment.

Of course, the above is how I am reading your reviews and tone. I honestly can't comprehend how you play games if all you do for their duration is examine the background. Some days, I don't want to care about the lead programmer or pay attention to the quality of the textures, I just want to play a fun game. You, conversely, seem to observe all games from a one-way mirror, figuring out how it ticks instead of what you should be enjoying it. Very different set of perspectives we have on gaming in general.

Also, cut the elitism - your work stinks of "People are idiots if they don't like exactly what I like". Its nonsense.
 

D_987: [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/326.103691.1625865]
Note : I took the liberty of changing a few spelling errors in your quotes.

I apologize for getting involved where it is not my place to do so, I just thought I would like to point something out.

D_987, I often find your insight particularly indicative a good understanding, but you've managed to boggle me with this exchange. You speak with the condescending tone of dismissing steamednotfried, while still pursuing the message that he should be less dismissive. While I appreciate your message, and your points, you seem to be doing a single-handed job of judging another user for his reviews. While his counterpoints are insulting (as your opening points were) and his tone dismissive, that gives you no more rights to respond with hostility.

Let me again, step beyond my station and remind everyone here that this is a forum for constructive criticism. Bickering about perspectives of gaming while condemning another for a behavior you're reflecting isn't anything short of ludicrous.

While I'm sure everyone can appreciate your drive to explain your stance to him, D_987, there is absolutely no need to be this aggressive about it. steamednotfried, I also ask that you do moderate your tone to suggest that you are in fact among peers instead of looking down on 'We the Plebeians' with your commentary on your views.

They are differing views, not inferior ones. All I ask for is a bit of kindness on everyone's part.

 

[steamednotfried]

.

Also, cut the elitism - your work stinks of "People are idiots if they don't like exactly what I like". Its nonsense.
 

D_987: [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/326.103691.1625865]
Note : I took the liberty of changing a few spelling errors in your quotes.

I apologize for getting involved where it is not my place to do so, I just thought I would like to point something out.

D_987, I often find your insight particularly indicative a good understanding, but you've managed to boggle me with this exchange. You speak with the condescending tone of dismissing steamednotfried, while still pursuing the message that he should be less dismissive. While I appreciate your message, and your points, you seem to be doing a single-handed job of judging another user for his reviews. While his counterpoints are insulting (as your opening points were) and his tone dismissive, that gives you no more rights to respond with hostility.

Let me again, step beyond my station and remind everyone here that this is a forum for constructive criticism. Bickering about perspectives of gaming while condemning another for a behavior you're reflecting isn't anything short of ludicrous.

While I'm sure everyone can appreciate your drive to explain your stance to him, D_987, there is absolutely no need to be this aggressive about it. steamednotfried, I also ask that you do moderate your tone to suggest that you are in fact among peers instead of looking down on 'We the Plebeians' with your commentary on your views.

They are differing views, not inferior ones. All I ask for is a bit of kindness on everyone's part.

Indeed, sorry about my attitude. There are a number of things which contribute to it. Firstly, being very interested in games myself, I am very frustrated with the mainstream perspective on videogames. Secondly, there is something about the internet forum which tends to bring out the worst in me, probably because I can't see or hear the people I'm talking to. Nevertheless, there is a humane quality in your writting which will change my approach to this forum, I hope.

I also think that the third possible cause to my attitude is my lack of ability to express my ideas in writting, which results in my resorting to hostility in a last ditch effort to express.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

First of all, as a person who may have flamed you a bit for previous reviews (mainly with the 'intelligent' moniker) I can say this is indeed a step in the right direction. However, as has been said above, you seem too focused on minutiae. Yes, sometimes the little things can make or break a game experience, but there are times when it's appropriate to just enjoy the things a game does well and then think about it. I'm just saying it seems like gaming isn't a fun experience for you, which would defeat the point of GAMING. Games can be art, but I would suggest that they are first and foremost entertainment. Let yourself be entertained. There's a reason some games are popular, because they're fun. Just because a game is popular doesn't mean it's not art or whatnot.

 

[D_987]

First of all, as a person who may have flamed you a bit for previous reviews (mainly with the 'intelligent' moniker) I can say this is indeed a step in the right direction. However, as has been said above, you seem too focused on minutiae. Yes, sometimes the little things can make or break a game experience, but there are times when it's appropriate to just enjoy the things a game does well and then think about it. I'm just saying it seems like gaming isn't a fun experience for you, which would defeat the point of GAMING. Games can be art, but I would suggest that they are first and foremost entertainment. Let yourself be entertained. There's a reason some games are popular, because they're fun. Just because a game is popular doesn't mean it's not art or whatnot.

This is pretty much what I said without all the needless aggression and ranting, bravo.

 

[steamednotfried]

First of all, as a person who may have flamed you a bit for previous reviews (mainly with the 'intelligent' moniker) I can say this is indeed a step in the right direction. However, as has been said above, you seem too focused on . Yes, sometimes the little things can make or break a game experience, but there are times when it's appropriate to just enjoy the things a game does well and then think about it. I'm just saying it seems like gaming isn't a fun experience for you, which would defeat the point of GAMING. Games can be art, but I would suggest that they are first and foremost entertainment. Let yourself be entertained. There's a reason some games are popular, because they're fun. Just because a game is popular doesn't mean it's not art or whatnot.

Clearly defined goals and consistent rules are not minutiae, they are the backbone of the whole experience. The only debatable subject is whether or not COD4 does, in fact, have them.

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

Who said a popular game can't be art?

 

[Maet]

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

How about the definition of the word?

 

[PumpActionJesus]

Snake?

 

[steamednotfried]

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

How about the definition of the word?

definitions are constantly evolving as our understanding of our concepts develops through experiences and events which challenge our current understanding.

 

[D_987]

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

How about the definition of the word?

definitions are constantly evolving as our understanding of our concepts develops through experiences and events which challenge our current understanding.

I think you'd be better off playing table-top games as opposed to video-games, because you seem so determined to see something that nobody else can...

 

[Wicky_42]

Wow...what a terrible "review" - not only is the reader not even told until the second line what game you reviewing until the last paragraph. ((This is a major flaw in this "review).

But you also claim to not know what to do despite the MASSIVE amount of instructions given to you in the game. Further, you claim the AI is poor (when it takes cover and can deal a large amount of damage on higher difficulties).

You then claim "idiots" like the game, despite your obvious lack of intelligence - as you cannot follow the story and claim that the single player of a game should be similar to a team deathmatch multiplayer game (what?).

Enough with the awful game design critiques - they are flawed because you seem to think gamers have no intelligence and need to be told exactly where to go and what to do all the time.

Why do you even bother writing these reviews when your opinions are so flawed. From the first sentence I could tel it was going to be bad - your "reviews" always are, but the line:

Clearly defined goals, and interesting problems to take into account in order to meet them. That's what makes a game

Call of Duty gives you a wealth of information - it makes me wonder if you even played the game...you are told where to go, what to do and how to do it, yet you fail to realize this...not to mention the absence of graphics, sound, story or any part of the design process besides gameplay - are you sure you are fully aware of the design process...

But to those of us with an eye for the workings of systems, it is wildly disrespectful.

What do you mean "us", it doesn't appear you know how to design a game, let alone one as high selling as Call of Duty 4 (which is the main objective in this era of gaming)...

EDIT : Having read it again I guess it is overly hostile and needlessly agressive - I'm not going to edit it, especially as I have been quoted below - even if it is out of context, but I am aware (mods) that I might be in the wrong but theres no need for the ban-hammer (happened before!).

I get the feeling that, given the poor titling of this 'review', you've kinda missed the point he was driving at - the game design and the AIis poor. The fact that

[the AI] takes cover and can deal a large amount of damage on higher difficulties

has no bearing on how well coded it is - the enemies (if you take the time to look) always run to the same places, behind the same places of cover, no matter how many times you butcher them there. It doesn't matter how quickly they died the last time or how well you are covering that spot, they will still try and run there until you advance too far. This is what we should call 'lazy AI scripting'. Increasing damage done on higher difficulties is nothing to crow about either, not sure why you brought that up.

If you thought a little about what Steamednotfried said, and had thought a little about the game you would have seen what he meant about the objectives and gameplay. it's fine for the game to say, 'go here', but if in order to do that you are pitched against a whole load of respawning enemies, what is the game saying to you? Are you expected to get to a certain kill count before the waves cease? Charge to the objective in between waves? Pass a certain invisible point to 'drive' the enemies back?

This is why he drew the comparisons to the multiplayer game: in the multiplayer you and your opponents work by the same game rules - same gun does the same damage with the same accuracy, you both know that you both respawn if you die, probably somewhat away from the action, fighting against a dynamic enemy who will respond intelligently (with some luck) to your tactics.
However, in the single player the enemies have different rules: Their accuracy and damage is dependent on the game's difficulty, their AI is primitive and single-minded, they don't respond to a change of tactics, and much of their behaviour is governed by invisible events, hidden from the player, and which often don't make logical sense (I'm reminded of a spawn point in a bathroom - there were 7 bodies in the doorway before I moved past it. How 7 men fitted in there I don't know, but obviously someone thought that would be a good spot, just out of sight, for guys to spawn in.)

Can you see the point he was making? I'd say he didn't make it succinctly, or state what he was talking about, or stick clearly to topic, but it's in there and for some reason you lashed out with some fanboy mindless defence that was off the mark. Not insulting (too much ), just saying. Then again I might have got Steamed completely wrong - but if not then I agree whole-heartedly with his notion and share it.
___________________

First of all, as a person who may have flamed you a bit for previous reviews (mainly with the 'intelligent' moniker) I can say this is indeed a step in the right direction. However, as has been said above, you seem too focused on . Yes, sometimes the little things can make or break a game experience, but there are times when it's appropriate to just enjoy the things a game does well and then think about it. I'm just saying it seems like gaming isn't a fun experience for you, which would defeat the point of GAMING. Games can be art, but I would suggest that they are first and foremost entertainment. Let yourself be entertained. There's a reason some games are popular, because they're fun. Just because a game is popular doesn't mean it's not art or whatnot.

Clearly defined goals and consistent rules are not minutiae, they are the backbone of the whole experience. The only debatable subject is whether or not COD4 does, in fact, have them.

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

Who said a popular game can't be art?

Who said art cannot be entertaining?

You should probably make it clear at the start of your piece exactly what you are discussing - this isn't a full review of a game, it's an analysis of the flaws in the game's design. With something this focused you should be clearer on that point, because in that light there would be less for people to criticise you on.

As it is I agree with the gist of your point - CoD 4 really does lack in the fundamentals of realistic game design. What it does do well however is ape functioning AI and simulate how the game designers thought the engagements would be like. They don't care that you killed enough Middle-Easteners in one street to populate the entire town whilst an entire Airborne battalion waited for you to move up to the next heap of barrels, because for them the idea of fighting off hoards of 'terrorists' then making a break for new ground is the effect they wanted, and by respawning enemies they can simulate much larger groups of enemies attacking in waves without the system loading of rendering and pathing for that many people.

That's just an example to illustrate an idea for the game design, and I'm in no way condoning it as a way to do games - far from it. However, if you're going to review this mechanic they it might be an idea to try and understand why they've done it.
___________________

EDIT: annnnnnnd holyshitwalloftext :O that was fun...

 

[ultimatechance]

On what grounds would you suggest that games are first and foremost entertainment?

How about the definition of the word?

definitions are constantly evolving as our understanding of our concepts develops through experiences and events which challenge our current understanding.

maet has made a big point though. a game is meant for you to have fun, and if you only see it from an art perspective, then your view isnt worth as much in terms of credibility as a reviewer. I dont say that as hate speech, but it is fact, seeing how the main reason why people play games is to have fun.