You're slipping, there were at least 3 places in the above text where you could have expounded on your loathing of Obsidian and everything they've ever done and how you one day hope to hit Fergus Urqhart with your car.Woodsey said:
"Snooty" Shooter Critics Anger Rage Dev
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They have regained some favour after I quite enjoyed New Vegas. Other than that, I still think they should only be allowed to spitball ideas before handing them to another dev.RhombusHatesYou said:You're slipping, there were at least 3 places in the above text where you could have expounded on your loathing of Obsidian and everything they've ever done and how you one day hope to hit Fergus Urqhart with your car.Woodsey said:
Game critics are becoming like movie critics; completely irrelevant to the consumers. I saw someone claim that Children of Eden was a "wondrous experience" or something like that. I saw demo footage of that game and as a gamer went "lame, next". I also asked "does this look good to anyone" and received crickets no response. There is a reason why the mainstream is the mainstream.
I think this is a waste of all our time. He obviously didn't put more than a moment's thought into this topic, and it's not clear exactly what he's trying to say. I do find myself wondering what exactly triggered this reaction (and it does seem like a reaction).
It may have put asses in seats, but that doesn't mean it's a "good" or quality film. It may have achieved the goal set for it by it's creators, but that doesn't mean it isn't horrifying to behold. It's not a good movie, and definitely not based on that criteria.Hagi said:
What do I care if I'm in the minority? Transformers is still shit, no matter how many people like it.DazBurger said:
I've enjoyed pretty much every game they've released except for one and consider most of them to be flawed gems.Woodsey said:They have regained some favour after I quite enjoyed New Vegas. Other than that, I still think they should only be allowed to spitball ideas before handing them to another dev.RhombusHatesYou said:You're slipping, there were at least 3 places in the above text where you could have expounded on your loathing of Obsidian and everything they've ever done and how you one day hope to hit Fergus Urqhart with your car.Woodsey said:
OT: Want to know what the future of gaming would be without people like John Carmack? Imagine a human face hiding behind a chest high wall, for eternity.
You can only enjoy something for so long.
If you are just served a slightly altered potato meal day after day, you're likely going to get sick of it soon, no matter how much you like potatoes.
Call of Duty is that potato.
If you are just served a slightly altered potato meal day after day, you're likely going to get sick of it soon, no matter how much you like potatoes.
Call of Duty is that potato.
Because clearly you're the universal judge of quality. Subjectivity is for other people. You only make objective statements. You don't have an opinion, you have facts.Rooster Cogburn said:
Hell, we should just make you president of the world already. Clearly you know better then everyone else. /sarcasm
No matter how arrogant you get, you don't get to decide what's good and what's not. A majority of people enjoyed the transformers. They saw something good in it. You're just too blind to see that something.
And no, I did not like the movies. But I still have enough respect for other people to not call their subjective opinions wrong. And I'm not so arrogant as to still call something bad when I'm incapable of seeing what's good about it but thousands of people do, instead I'm humble enough to admit that I might just be missing something and be at peace with that.
I'm certainly not going to dismiss a game out of popularity. I really liked Cod 4 after all. But a failure to innovate does cause stagnation, just as it does in any other medium. At this stage I've been completely burnt out on military shooters. I recently played Crysis 2, a well designed, highly polished shooter, which was far more open than the usual wave of Cod clones. And I still didn't enjoy it half as much as Mirror's Edge.
It wasn't on the principle that it was new, it was the fact that the freshness made me enjoy it more. I'm not basing it on an idealist philosophy where I like it because I should, new shit is just more fun.
It wasn't on the principle that it was new, it was the fact that the freshness made me enjoy it more. I'm not basing it on an idealist philosophy where I like it because I should, new shit is just more fun.
It's funny, because from what I've seen this game does a lot of stuff differently to CoD and the more multiplayer focused contemporary shooting games. Especially the inclusion of crafting, an inventory and various genres being worked in there.
i think he is trying to keep him and his friends employed, also i think he is trying to legitimize their laziness (but that could just be me). though i feel that the most important part of games is for them to be fun it pains me that games with such little innovation and with people that have small ideas get big money when i would much rather someone with really crazy exotic ideas would get that cash. I love my battlefield but they have made so many games that amount to the same thing i would go nuts if they made a first-person multiplayer where you... i don't know play as a crazy protohuman in a prehistoric landscape where in you must find various components of tools as you go along to make your weapons and hunt other proto-humans with different physical and mental abilities.
it's fine if you make first person anything but do something different than person behind gun and for the love of god give it another setting than something involving nato countries roughly between 1938 and 2011. eternal darkness explored the time of the american colonies, world war 1 and ancient cultures as well as a fire fighter in the gulf war why can't call of duty or battle field do something like these? has "duty" and "battlefields" only existed for 70ish years?
this might not be his problem specifically but there is a greater idea bucket out there that can use the same engines, graphics, control schemes, and over all hard ware but would be more interesting.
it's fine if you make first person anything but do something different than person behind gun and for the love of god give it another setting than something involving nato countries roughly between 1938 and 2011. eternal darkness explored the time of the american colonies, world war 1 and ancient cultures as well as a fire fighter in the gulf war why can't call of duty or battle field do something like these? has "duty" and "battlefields" only existed for 70ish years?
this might not be his problem specifically but there is a greater idea bucket out there that can use the same engines, graphics, control schemes, and over all hard ware but would be more interesting.
Anyone with general knowledge will acknowledge that COD is a solid game outside of its rabid popularity. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the fact that the game runs consistently and smoothly for the vast majority of gamers.General_Knowledge said:
Of course, it's hip to bash anything popular these days and especially on these forums. Carmack makes a very valid point and acknowledges that innovation is great, but not always required for a fun gaming experience.
Though, you called him an 'idiot' which automatically renders your opinion void of credibility, stooping to unwarranted ad hominem. You can do better than that.
It's not about the lack of innovation it's about the over-saturation.
There's just too many AAA FPSs out there, at least give us a third person shooter if you have to include guns just for some variety at least.
There's just too many AAA FPSs out there, at least give us a third person shooter if you have to include guns just for some variety at least.
...RAGE is their only new stuff, dude. id has only released like 2 new games in the past 10 years or so. the last thing they released was Quake Live back in 2009. before that it was Doom 3 in 2004octafish said:
you and i must have two entirely different definitions of the word "new"
. trust me though, RAGE is going to be incredible
It can't be both?DazBurger said:
OT: People don't make fun of CoD because it's popular, they make fun of it because it's mediocre and popular. And that it's basically the same game released over and over.
Call of Duty is the worst possible example of something like this, as they have committed the worst crimes, they have gotten away with making the same game 4 times in a row, and always get 80%+ reviews. Why not use an better example? For instance, the PC game Necrovision, it scored 63 on Metacritic for being a linear and generic game despite being a fun and solid first person shooter, which makes it far more relevant then fucking Cock of Doody.
Well, see, that would be the snooty attitude Carmack is complaining about.Eleuthera said:
People enjoy Transformers. It may not be "good" as far as the critics are concerned, but it's enjoyable enough to be popular. And I think there's some merit to that. Something to learn. If you can take what makes Call of Duty enjoyable, and distill the essence into your own game, I think that can only be a good thing.
Gaming is an interactive medium. You based your commented on non-interactive footage. You had no damn idea how the game played, which is the important bit, let still wrote it off as lame? There are these wonderous things called demos, which let you try out a game before a purchase.Nimzabaat said:
Anyhow, this state makse sense. People buy what they like. However, people also get bored. How long before war-based First Person Shooters go the way of Guitar Hero? Innovation is nice, but the variety it provides is just as important.